Masturbation is not Sinful According to the Mormon Therapist

[_Equality]

The 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions tells Bishops and Stake Presidents that their parishioners' private sexual habits are appropriate, even required, topics for interviews. The CHI tells them to make clear to youth in interviews that they are to refrain "from any kind of sexual activity." It does not tell Bishops simply to ask young people if they keep the law of chastity; it says refrain "from any kind of sexual activity." The CHI is an official church publication printed by the church and approved at the highest levels of church governance. And that's where Bishops and SPs get the idea that it's not only OK to inquire into "any kind of sexual activity" of their interviewees, but mandated by the prophets and apostles who, presumably, are getting their marching orders from Jeebus himself.

Equality,

I think what Wang Chung is doing by not asking the youth about masturbation practices is very admirable. The Church is getting more and more bishops like this. I happen to think it is positive progress.

Do you think Wang Chung should be asking about masturbation in his interviews? I am a little confused. It sounds like you disagree with Wang Chung and want him to ask about masturbation? Please clarify.

No, I'm glad that Wang Chung is bucking the system on this issue. Just pointing out that his position is not the church's official position. I'd love to see him do it on other issues as well. Maybe he could call a woman to be in the Bishopric with him. Maybe he could ordain some 12-year-old girls as deacons and have them pass the Sacrament. Or stop asking all those silly temple recommend questions about the underwear people have on or what they drink with their morning bacon and eggs. Those would also be positive developments. And equally opposed to the church's established teachings and practices.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Here's a wonderful talk at a 2003 zone conference in the Toulouse, France Mission by President Allan Pratt. In this talk, President Pratt tells his missionaries that the reason they are not getting very many baptisms is that they are masturbating too much.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd1nzk ... tt-on_news

I like the part where he says, "Doggone it, Scratch is winning."

[_Bob Loblaw]

I like the part where he says, "Doggone it, Scratch is winning."

And not the Charlie Sheen/bcspace kind of winning. :)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions tells Bishops and Stake Presidents that their parishioners' private sexual habits are appropriate, even required, topics for interviews.

Wrong. The CHI does not require leaders to delve into members' sex lives. The closest thing is the generic "Do you keep the Law of Chastity?" question in the temple recommend interview.

The CHI tells them to make clear to youth in interviews that they are to refrain "from any kind of sexual activity." It does not tell Bishops simply to ask young people if they keep the law of chastity; it says refrain "from any kind of sexual activity."

Wrong again. The CHI (Section 7.1.7 of Handbook 1, entitled "Guidelines for Youth Interviews"), in a paragraph that begins with the phrase "Another matter for discussion is the importance of obeying the commandments," there is a list of various "commandments" the bishop or his counselor may choose to discuss with a youth. Among this list is the following (emphasis mine):

2. Being modest in dress and action, refraining from any kind of sexual activity, and refraining from viewing, reading, or listening to pornographic material.

The other "commandments" on this list which a bishop or counselor may also discuss include having regular prayer, studying the scriptures, honoring your parents, paying a full tithe, keeping the Word of Wisdom, not swearing or using other vulgar language, and attending Church meetings and fulfilling quorum and class assignments. Thus, even if a bishop understands masturbation to be a "kind of sexual activity," his asking about it is completely discretionary and is so minor as to be equated with a youth's fulfilling his/her quorum or class assignment. Simply stated, there is nothing in the CHI that requires a bishop to ask a youth about masturbation.

The CHI is an official church publication printed by the church and approved at the highest levels of church governance. And that's where Bishops and SPs get the idea that it's not only OK to inquire into "any kind of sexual activity" of their interviewees, but mandated by the prophets and apostles who, presumably, are getting their marching orders from Jeebus himself.

Actually, the Brethren over the years have instructed local leaders not to delve into the private sex lives of adult members. I remember the fiasco back in the 80's, when a FP letter went out to local leaders stating that the definition of "other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice" had been interpreted to include oral sex. After a few months of local leaders asking their adult members if their sex lives included oral fun, and many members complaining about such an intrusion into their private lives, the Brethren sent out another letter to local leaders rescinding the prior letter. Indeed, no Church publication today includes oral sex in the definition of "other unholy, unnatural, or impure practice." Moreover, in Section 7.2.3 of Handbook 1 (in the section entitled "Counseling" and subsection entitled "Questions and Listening"), it is expressly stated that a bishop or SP "should avoid unnecessary probing" (emphasis mine).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Masturbation is mentioned in only one place in the handbook and that is in an instruction to bishops and stake presidents about what does not warrant a Disciplinary Council. (The handbook refers to it with the archaic term "self-abuse.")

Let me add that the most recent version of the CHI (2010) for the first time added "self-abuse" as an example when a disciplinary action should not be held. Self-abuse was not included in that category in the 2006 and 1998 versions of the CHI. Clearly the Church is moving away from considering masturbation a serious sin, which is why we hear nothing about it anymore.

[_Equality]

RT: point me to anything in a church publication that says masturbation is harmless, healthy, and not sinful. Just one sentence anywhere in a church publication. Can you do that? It's nice that the CHI is lowly evolving, but there is a long history of doctrinal pronouncements that characterize masturbation as not only sinful but extremely sinful. Church-published materials continue to be provided to wards and stakes that perpetuate this notion. Kimball and Packer are still quoted on it. Mission Presidents still berate their missionaries over it. And they do it because no church leader has ever contradicted the harsh stance that Kimball, Petersen, Packer, et al. have laid down on the subject.

[_Equality]

From the current For the Strength of Youth pamphlet given to all youth in the church and pounded into their heads incessantly:

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Also prominently linked on the church web site is this from Apostle Richard G. Scott. Citing no less an authority than good ole Spencer Kimball, Scott tells young people that masturbation can lead to homosexuality:

Sexual immorality creates a barrier to the influence of the Holy Spirit with all its uplifting, enlightening, and empowering capabilities. It causes powerful physical and emotional stimulation. In time that creates an unquenchable appetite that drives the offender to ever more serious sin. It engenders selfishness and can produce aggressive acts such as brutality, abortion, sexual abuse, and violent crime. Such stimulation can lead to acts of homosexuality, and they are evil and absolutely wrong.

Again citing the great authority on human sexuality Spencer Kimball, Scott reiterates the church's absolute prohibition on masturbation:

Any sexual intimacy outside of the bonds of marriage—I mean any intentional contact with the sacred, private parts of another’s body, with or without clothing—is a sin and is forbidden by God. It is also a transgression to intentionally stimulate these emotions within your own body.

https://www.LDS.org/liahona/1997/09/serious-questions-serious-answers?lang=eng#footnote10-97989_000_009
And just in case anyone thinks the church is backing off the "sin next to murder" doctrine, it is again prominently featured in the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

The prophet Alma taught that sexual sins are more serious than any other sins except murder or denying the Holy Ghost

The current Young Women's manual explicitly states that “'Masturbation … is not approved of the Lord nor of his Church, regardless of what may be said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower' (Spencer W. Kimball, President Kimball Speaks Out [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], p. 10)." It also encourages "young women who have had difficulty in the area of chastity" to go talk to their Bishop about their sexual lives. And it quotes at some length a talk given by Boyd K. Packer on the subject. https://www.LDS.org/manual/young-women- ... sturbation

Then there are these gems, apparently published earlier this year on the church web site:

Teach children that only one curious look may result in addiction to pornography.

Parents should be aware of the content and date of sexual education in the schools their children attend. Schools usually allow parents to view the material prior to presenting it to the children. Many schools teach masturbation as normal and acceptable. Parents can take a stand over what is being taught.

Lest anyone think this is a cryptic comment that does not explicitly condemn the schools' teaching that masturbation is normal and acceptable, the church links to an official church publication called A Parent's Guide. In that publication, on page 36, the church tells us that:

masturbation is considered by many in the world to be the harmless expression of an instinctive sex drive. Teach your children that the prophets have condemned it as a sin throughout the ages and that they can choose not to do it. . . . The sin of masturbation occurs when a person stimulates his or her own sex organs for the purpose of sexual arousal. It is a perversion of the body's passions. When we pervert these passions and intentionally use them for selfish, immoral purposes, we become carnal. Masturbation is not physically necessary. . . . In a gospel sense, it is a sin. . . . Shame about the human body, its parts, and purposes, is justified . . . when a person uses it for carnal purposes.

https://www.LDS.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31125_eng.pdf?lang=eng
Here we see that the church wants people to feel shame for masturbating. Couldn't be any clearer. And this is referenced in current church publications, which continue to quote good old Spencer Kimball as the leading authority on the matter.

The point, if it is not obvious, is that the church has taught for decades, and continues to teach, that masturbation is not healthy, that it is "carnal," that it may lead to homosexuality, that it is condemned by all the prophets in every age, that those who engage in the practice ought to be ashamed and need to repent, and that they should talk to their Bishop about their masturbation habit. This is all established not through selective quote mining from dubious sources that an apologist might label "unofficial" or dismiss as "folklore." Rather, it is established from official sources currently published by the church and available on the church web site. What one cannot find (I am putting out a challenge here) is any statement from a Mormon General Authority (in an official context or otherwise) in the last 50 years stating that masturbation is normal, natural, healthy, and harmless. Nor will you find anything in any of the doctrinal materials published by the church suggesting such. To the contrary, whenever the subject has come up in an official publication and whenever a General Authority has commented on it, the practice has been uniformly condemned. If the church really wants to evolve on the issue, President Newsroom should issue a statement to that effect forthwith.

Again, just to be clear, I think these teachings of the Mormon church are among its most harmful. I applaud any members of the church, especially those in leadership positions, who reject these ignorant, backward teachings. I am happy to hear that there are at least some Bishops in the church who refuse to follow their church leaders' counsel to discuss these matters with the members of their wards (especially the kids in their wards). But let's not be deceived about this: the church's stance on masturbation has not changed much, if at all. If masturbation is no longer a basis for church discipline, that's great. But that's a far, far cry from the church condoning a Bishop telling members of the church that it's not a sin and not something to be ashamed of, etc. The church teaches just the opposite.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

RT: point me to anything in a church publication that says masturbation is harmless, healthy, and not sinful. Just one sentence anywhere in a church publication. Can you do that?

I know of no such Church publication. The Church rarely (if ever) repudiates something said in the past by a Church president (unless it's really embarrassing, then they say it was mere "opinion"); instead, they just stop talking about it or emphasizing it. And that is what they have done with masturbation: examples -- (i) removing the word "masturbation" from the For The Strength of Youth pamphlet (after it had been in there for 11 years), and (ii) expressly stating for the first time in the CHI (2010) that a disciplinary council should NOT be held in the case of "self-abuse."

It's nice that the CHI is [s]lowly evolving, but there is a long history of doctrinal pronouncements that characterize masturbation as not only sinful but extremely sinful. Church-published materials continue to be provided to wards and stakes that perpetuate this notion. Kimball and Packer are still quoted on it. Mission Presidents still berate their missionaries over it. And they do it because no church leader has ever contradicted the harsh stance that Kimball, Petersen, Packer, et al. have laid down on the subject.

Agreed. Baby steps, baby steps .... All that old stuff will be there forever and searchable online, and some diehards will continue to spout off about it, but the Church is clearly on the path of viewing masturbation as a minor sin (which was not the case in my youth).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

From the current For the Strength of Youth pamphlet given to all youth in the church and pounded into their heads incessantly:

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

At least the word "masturbation" was removed from the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet in 2001 -- a step in the right direction.

Also prominently linked on the church web site is this from Apostle Richard G. Scott. Citing no less an authority than good ole Spencer Kimball, Scott tells young people that masturbation can lead to homosexuality: ....

That talk was from 1994, so you'd think they could update the reference. I don't know of anyone who today honestly believes that masturbation leads to homosexuality.

The current Young Women's manual explicitly states that “'Masturbation … is not approved of the Lord nor of his Church, regardless of what may be said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower' (Spencer W. Kimball, President Kimball Speaks Out [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], p. 10)."

This is stated in the definition section at the end of the lesson, not in the lesson itself. It's a guide for the teacher if the topic/word comes up. I don't read that as a continued emphasis on masturbation.

Lest anyone think this is a cryptic comment that does not explicitly condemn the schools' teaching that masturbation is normal and acceptable, the church links to an official church publication called A Parent's Guide. In that publication, on page 36, the church tells us that: ....

I note that this manual was published in 1985 (nearly 30 years ago, when masturbation was still a hot topic in the Church). Does anyone actually use this dated manual? The pictures alone (with 80's hairstyles and clothes) are incredibly classic.

The point, if it is not obvious, is that the church has taught for decades, and continues to teach, that masturbation is not healthy, that it is "carnal," that it may lead to homosexuality, that it is condemned by all the prophets in every age, that those who engage in the practice ought to be ashamed and need to repent, and that they should talk to their Bishop about their masturbation habit.

I tend to agree, but I think the Church has essentially become silent on the issue in terms of continuing to teach about masturbation. It's just not discussed much anymore, and the Church has indicated its willingness to treat it more as a non-issue by the new change in the CHI, etc. Sure, the teachings are still out there, but they are rapidly becoming dated and simply ignored.

What one cannot find (I am putting out a challenge here) is any statement from a Mormon General Authority (in an official context or otherwise) in the last 50 years stating that masturbation is normal, natural, healthy, and harmless.

This will never happen, of course, You just won't here anything about it. That's how the Church deals with evolving doctrines/policies -- just stay silent and hope the masses forget what was taught in the old days (sort of like the priesthood ban).

One other note: many of us will remember BKPacker's infamous "To Young Men Only" talk about masturbation given during the priesthood session at the October 1976 GC (it was later published in pamphlet form, which is still around, I believe). Try looking up that talk online in the Ensign conference report for November 1976 -- it doesn't exist, it has been removed, and there is no indication that BKP gave any talk during that conference (because this was the only talk he did give, and it has been excised from the public record).

[_Equality]

Agreed. Baby steps, baby steps .... All that old stuff will be there forever and searchable online, and some diehards will continue to spout off about it, but the Church is clearly on the path of viewing masturbation as a minor sin (which was not the case in my youth).

I think this is probably the crux of our disagreement. The church, in 2012, continues to publish and use materials that in no uncertain terms condemn masturbation as "carnal" and sinful, etc. It continues to cite to previously published materials that quote Packer and Kimball, et al. If the church were moving away from the doctrinal position, why continue to recycle the old quotes from the 60s, 70s, and 80s? Why not scrub them from the materials? I'd like to believe the church is progressing on this issue, but I think the evidence you cite, when considered in light of all the evidence of the church's continuing preoccupation with condemning pornography, homosexuality, etc. makes me think you are overstating the case that the church is liberalizing. I think the membership as a whole is, but not the geezers in the COB. But we can agree to disagree on it. I really hope I am wrong about this.