Calm Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Have a class to teach their parents to talk with them? Has this been done? Make it a mandatory lesson in church correlation. I don't know, but it's not a bishop's place. Sorry, but he isn't the father of the ward that some make him out to be. It needs to start in the home. Once again the church is sitting in between, the middle man. As if the parent can't handle it. Or as if the youth can't go to the Lord and confess.You are the one suggesting the Church take on the role of teaching parents what to talk about with their kids at one moment and the next complaining the Church is trying to insert themselves between kids and parents? I would like to see anywhere the Church or a leader is claiming it is better for them talk to kids about sex rather than parents.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I don't doubt that it's a doctrine of the church Scott. I had a very compassionate and tactful Bishop who taught chastity in a very positive and uplifting way. I'm very aware of the teachings.But there's no need to jump down my throat. I was simply interested if there was a scriptural basis for this teaching on masturbation being wrong. If not, perhaps it's a "word of wisdom" equivalent. A modern day protection for the times we're in given the connection masturbation can potentially have with pornography.Perhaps it was not in the scriptures because it was simply not an issue "back then."Or perhaps it's a product of post-Victorian attitudes to masturbation (it will make you blind/mad) which have filtered through to the values and ideas of our leaders.Per President Kimball, "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality." Did Joseph teach against it? If it's a "modern" revelation, who was the first to warn against it.Per this church manual, One example: 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.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Al Gore did NOT invent the Internet. Sheesh.http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp mormonweb was joking. Even I understood that. Sheesh. Well, then good for you, Scott. But he did invent global warming. Acutally, NOT.Guys, stop teasing poor cursor.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 On the the hand...Doesn't this statement support going to the scriptures and proclamations to identify what is doctrine and what is "personal, though well-considered, opinion"?Are the Elder Callister/President Packer quotes opinion or doctrine?I'm aware of the quoted statement and others like it. I think they can be misconstrued or subject to extreme application. It is one thing to weigh an individual, isolated statement by this or that Church leader against scripture and established doctrine. It is quite another to reject established and authoritative belief on the pretext that one can't find a scriptural passage to one's liking that supports it. Again, all I'm saying is I see a disturbing de facto sola scriptura mindset creeping into the Church membership.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 That "lost trust" was misplaced in the first place. The reason that we trust bishops, scout leaders, priests, etc. less today is because we now know that SOME of them abused that trust in the past (even before the Internet turned everyone into raging "perverts").Even if we had never "invented" porn in the 1990s (it might go back a LITTLE before then), that abuse would have occurred. Would it have been better if we just didn't know about it? Or is it better that we now take steps to protect our children, such as, say, keeping them from being in a room with an adult talking about how they touch their "naughty places"?Even more, why wouldn't we protect our beloved bishops from being put in this situation?Because we want and need them to function in the pastoral role they have been given: to be shepherds to the flock. The occasional unfortunate incident is not enough to warrant precluding them in any way from fulfilling that role with the attendant consequences that such a preclusion would bring upon the Church at large. 1
why me Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Increasingly, I see a de facto sola scriptura mindset creeping into the membership of the Church in some quarters. We have never accepted the dogma that the Bible -- or even the Standard Works of the Church -- contain all of God's word on any given subject. The doctrine of ongoing revelation precludes that notion. Yet more and more, I see some individuals challenging accepted doctrines, practices and beliefs of the Church on the pretext that they can't find what they would view as explicit support for them written into the scriptural record. This is essentially false doctrine, and I see it as a rather alarming trend.I think that some members who are wavering have been influenced by EVs. They seem to want to make the lds church into a born again chiristian church.We see this among some members of this board. I don't think that they realize that the lds church is a tad different from the EV church and there are reasons for this difference. I don't know if it is prevalent in the church but it can be prevalent on this board at times.
Duncan Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Per President Kimball, "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality." Per this church manual, i LOVE Pres. Kimball but the idea that M* leads to gay sex is nutty, I think acting on homosexual tendencies can lead to gay sex
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 i LOVE Pres. Kimball but the idea that M* leads to gay sex is nutty, I think acting on homosexual tendencies can lead to gay sexI think that can be one way some people act on homosexual tendencies. I'm guessing that President Kimball, in his ministerial role, was aware of that having happened in certain instances.
mormonnewb Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I think that some members who are wavering have been influenced by EVs. They seem to want to make the lds church into a born again chiristian church.We see this among some members of this board. I don't think that they realize that the lds church is a tad different from the EV church and there are reasons for this difference. I don't know if it is prevalent in the church but it can be prevalent on this board at times.I don't think that it's just the members who are trying to take the Church "mainstream." Unless it is the members who are responsible for the Church's recent press releases. In fact, one COULD argue that our foray into the SSM debate was an attempt to earn some "Christian cred" with the EVs.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I don't think that it's just the members who are trying to take the Church "mainstream." Unless it is the members who are responsible for the Church's recent press releases.No recent Church news release that I'm aware of has as its intent, even implicitly, to reshape the Church into just another "mainstream" sectarian Protestant denomination. In fact, one COULD argue that our foray into the SSM debate was an attempt to earn some "Christian cred" with the EVs. It would be a weak argument indeed. The Church has long been in favor of joining with like-minded entities on issues of public concern. That is in no way the same thing as trying to become like them theologically or doctrinally or abandoning or forsaking our essential beliefs to curry favor with them. 1
MichelleD Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) I think that can be one way some people act on homosexual tendencies.I'm guessing that President Kimball, in his ministerial role, was aware of that having happened in certain instances.I highly doubt that. It's more a statement of how backwards and mistaken opinions regarding causes of homosexuality were during those times (although I haven't seen this stated elsewhere). But masturbation leadng to homosexuality? Please...It's perhaps one way to act out on homosexual tendencies you say? No, it's more likely from just general sexual tendencies. Edited May 1, 2014 by MichelleD 1
thatjimguy Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) I don't think so. Any person called of God is fallible and capable of making mistakes, being inappropriate, etc... When it comes to our kids we have the responsibility to be mindful and careful. If we put these Bishops up on a pedestal, they are sure to fall in our eyes. I think we can show respect for their calling and office while still maintaining boundaries etc... But the thing is, the company line is to put all leadership on a pedestal. Now, I do agree with you they are fallible men, but I am just saying we are supposed to have more faith than that officially right? Edited May 1, 2014 by thatjimguy
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I highly doubt that. It's more a statement of how backwards and mistaken opinions regarding causes of homosexuality were during those times (although I haven't seen this stated elsewhere). But masturbation leadng to homosexuality? Please...It's perhaps one way to act out on homosexual tendencies you say? No, it's more likely from just general sexual tendencies.I had always heard that it was not just masturbation by its self that was a cause. What the issue was that it could lead to group sessions with friends and that would lead to more experimentation. There were steps that could lead to it I think was what SWK was talking about. 1
ALarson Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 I had always heard that it was not just masturbation by its self that was a cause. What the issue was that it could lead to group sessions with friends and that would lead to more experimentation. There were steps that could lead to it I think was what SWK was talking about.Are you serious? How many teenage boys want to participate in "group sessions" involving masturbating together? How many on here were ever interested in doing that when they were a youth? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I highly doubt that. It's more a statement of how backwards and mistaken opinions regarding causes of homosexuality were during those times (although I haven't seen this stated elsewhere). But masturbation leadng to homosexuality? Please...It's perhaps one way to act out on homosexual tendencies you say? No, it's more likely from just general sexual tendencies.Including homosexual ones. Considering how some young people get involved in homosexual behavior, I don't see President Kimball as being all that backward and mistaken. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Are you serious? How many teenage boys want to participate in "group sessions" involving masturbating together? How many on here were ever interested in doing that when they were a youth? Your naivete is showing. Edited May 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
The Nehor Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Are you serious? How many teenage boys want to participate in "group sessions" involving masturbating together? How many on here were ever interested in doing that when they were a youth?It happens. I would not say most are interested in it but the Bishop who sent me on my mission later said he decided not to have his kids go to or host sleepovers because of where foolish late night sleep-deprived silliness amongst teens led them. He obviously would not go into specifics.
ALarson Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 Your naivete is showing.I don't think so. Are you saying this is something you were tempted to do? How many of these "group sessions" are you personally familiar with that happened?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I don't think so. Are you saying this is something you were tempted to do? How many of these "group sessions" are you personally familiar with that happened? Moreover, how many of these groups sessions converted its participants into homosexuality. If the concern is "group sessions" shouldn't we just counsel the youth to avoid those?
ALarson Posted May 1, 2014 Author Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Moreover, how many of these groups sessions converted its participants into homosexuality. If the concern is "group sessions" shouldn't we just counsel the youth to avoid those? Seriously. What a joke to even give any credence to this theory. I cannot imagine any active Mormon boy suggesting or participating in a group session of masturbation. Most of them are terrified of their parents or leaders finding out what they're doing in secret, but to suggest that they'd invite their friends to join in? Again, I don't think so. Edited May 1, 2014 by ALarson 1
MichelleD Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Including homosexual ones. Considering how some young people get involved in homosexual behavior, I don't see President Kimball as being all that backward and mistaken.Yes, homosexuals masturbate just like every other guy. But if you really believe that masturbation leads to homosexuality then 99.9% of adult males would be gay. That's a ridiculous teaching. 1
pogi Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) My dad is a therapist and runs a residential treatment center for troubled youth. He has confirmed that several of his clients report "turning" gay from pornography use. I don't know if masturbation would do it, but it is reported that porn addiction can lead to it and masturbation is usually linked with porn use. Just out of curiosity, I googled it to see if I could find any studies that report it. The first page was a discussion board for porn addiction. The poster had this very concern. He reports that he was born hetero and is worried that he is turning gay due to porn use. I doubt this kid is the only one this has happened to. I am sure that President Kimball based that statement off of young men's reports such as this one. Here is the link: http://www.pornaddictioninfo.com/boards///viewthread.php?tid=6729 Caution: it is pretty explicit language. Edited May 1, 2014 by pogi
MichelleD Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Sorry, I don't believe that. Any guy (young or old) that even desires to look at gay porn and then is turned on by gay porn, already has strong gay tendencies. It's not the other way around. A heterosexual is not going to be "turned gay" because he looks at gay porn.
pogi Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Sorry, I don't believe that. Any guy (young or old) that even desires to look at gay porn and then is turned on by gay porn, already has strong gay tendencies. It's not the other way around. A heterosexual is not going to be "turned gay" because he looks at gay porn. I don't think they are looking at gay porn. They are watching hetero sex and then start fantasizing. If you read his story, he started out watching for the ladies, then started fantasizing that he was the lady over many years. I am sure there is a lot of previous trauma and psychological issues related to this, but it happens. I don't understand what your reason is for not believing his story. Edited May 1, 2014 by pogi
MichelleD Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 Oh, I don't disbelieve your story...sorry pogi if you took it that way!However, if you read this guy's experience, he was watching and turned on by porn where "gender lines were blurred" from the beginning. So he had those tendencies to start with.
Recommended Posts