Masturbation is not Sinful According to the Mormon Therapist

[_DarkHelmet]

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.

I'm sure you can find studies from some religious right groups that support that theory. I would guess that more than 90% of gay men masturbated in their youth. That stat can be used to support SKW's theory.

[_SteelHead]

95% of all men admit to masturbating.

The other 5% are liars.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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 wish they would scrub out all the old crap, but that'll take time (and revised manuals -- for example, they are still using the same old "Parents Guide" published in 1985!). I think masturbation (or at least its emphasis as a serious sin) will slowly fade as the institution is silent on the issue (like so many other things) -- no formal redaction/repudiation or even removal from old materials will occur, but just a growing silence (as well as quiet policy changes, as we see in the new CHI).

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.

Certainly the Church's official position is and will continue to be that masturbation is a "sin." The change (albeit very slow) will be the "degree" of sin that is emphasized, in my opinion. And we are seeing a real de-emphasis on masturbation, at least by the institution, although some local leaders will continue to make it a big deal and screw with the heads of the youth.

[_SteelHead]

I think in one of the earlier quotes it was labeled a transgression and not a sin. The church does make a distinction.

[_Cicero]

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.

I think that is RT's point though. The Church generally speaking doesn't go back and "correct" prior statements with some exceptions. There are still plenty of talks that condemn birth control and that tell young people to get married asap and have as many children as possible. There are still uncorrected prior statements teaching that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence.

To be clear, I am not defending the Church here. They SHOULD be more clear in their corrections because not doing so allows certain leaders to continue to teach and preach incorrect doctrine and policies. All I am saying is that I agree with RT that the Church appears to be moving away from condemning masturbation, but they are doing it the same way they always have.

[_Equality]

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.

I think that is RT's point though. The Church generally speaking doesn't go back and "correct" prior statements with some exceptions. There are still plenty of talks that condemn birth control and that tell young people to get married asap and have as many children as possible. There are still uncorrected prior statements teaching that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence.

To be clear, I am not defending the Church here. They SHOULD be more clear in their corrections because not doing so allows certain leaders to continue to teach and preach incorrect doctrine and policies. All I am saying is that I agree with RT that the Church appears to be moving away from condemning masturbation, but they are doing it the same way they always have.

You guys are doing a good job here, and you almost have me persuaded. The difference, I think, between the old statements about birth control or black people being less valiant in the pre-existence, is that those are pretty much only found in really old materials that are not currently referenced by new materials. The problem with the masturbation issue is that the church continues to publish things now, in 2012, that incorporate either by direct quotation or by reference those old materials. The fact that a talk was given in 1994 does not mean that it is not good doctrine today, at least not if the church is linking to it as a reference and authority currently. There are old talks that are ignored (like stuff BY said about Adam-God or blod atonement) and then there are old talks that are continually recycled, quoted, and given the correlation stamp of approval (like Kimball's talks about so-called chastity). The church is putting out new materials now that tell parents to object and "make a stand" when schools teach something other than the strict LDS "masturbation is evil" doctrine. And they reference the older materials to make the point.

I agree with you that the way the church moves away from a doctrine is to just simply ignore it and stop talking about it and then pretend it never happened (like when Alexander B. Morrison said there has never been any racial discrimination in the church). But it doesn't seem to me like the church is really doing that here, or at the very least it seems like the effort to do so is not really uniform throughout the organization. I am glad the church is taking baby steps, though. At this rate, it will catch up to science and enlightened society somewhere around the year 2085. Of course, by then, science and enlightened society may be that much further down the road.

[_Cicero]

At this rate, it will catch up to science and enlightened society somewhere around the year 2085. Of course, by then, science and enlightened society may be that much further down the road.

What do you expect from an organization that is always governed by men over 70?

[_DarkHelmet]

At this rate, it will catch up to science and enlightened society somewhere around the year 2085. Of course, by then, science and enlightened society may be that much further down the road.

What do you expect from an organization that is always governed by men over 70?

Exactly.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

The problem with the masturbation issue is that the church continues to publish things now, in 2012, that incorporate either by direct quotation or by reference those old materials. The fact that a talk was given in 1994 does not mean that it is not good doctrine today, at least not if the church is linking to it as a reference and authority currently. There are old talks that are ignored (like stuff BY said about Adam-God or blod atonement) and then there are old talks that are continually recycled, quoted, and given the correlation stamp of approval (like Kimball's talks about so-called chastity). The church is putting out new materials now that tell parents to object and "make a stand" when schools teach something other than the strict LDS "masturbation is evil" doctrine. And they reference the older materials to make the point.

I certainly see your point. Revising the CHI to expressly state that masturbation is not a basis for Church discipline, is quite a bit different than removing every reference to masturbation in Church publications. It is a "sin" for the Church institution, and I don't think this will change and may still be taught by some, but its seriousness (compared to how it used to be taught to youth) is on the wane ... and good riddance.

I am glad the church is taking baby steps, though. At this rate, it will catch up to science and enlightened society somewhere around the year 2085. Of course, by then, science and enlightened society may be that much further down the road.

Change in the Church has the pace of a glacier. Too bad God seems unable to move more quickly.