Should Sam Young of the Protect LDS Children petition still be charged with apostasy?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Very true. And the Church has never sufficiently dealt with that, failing to offer any explanation, and attempting to thread the needle with the essay by disavowing past explanations, offering no authoritative explanation, and failing to explain why and how it continues to regard positive mortal conditions as accruing from the pre-existence, but not things like race. 

Polygamy and priesthood are the two big examples, but I think if we continue to add major examples, it will erode faith and confidence. I think this is especially true in the realm of doctrine on sexuality (e.g., homosexuality, sexual practices including masturbation, etc.). Once the Church plays the "yeah, that was old-fashioned and traditional back then, but we were wrong and it really isn't a sin" card, I think that affects intensity of commitment and morale in a very different way than the priesthood ban and polygamy did. There would be literally no doctrine that could not be "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" 'd away by fiat. While change is a part of the Church, there has to be some bedrock doctrines and principles that won't change when society turns on the Church, or we might as well turn off the lights and go home. 

You're exactly right. That's the position the church is in today. But it's impossible to separate what we think is hard doctrine from the times and cultures at which those things were received and promulgated. There's a tendency to privilege past declarations as absolutely authoritative and true, when it's just as likely that cultural opinions about hmosxuality and mstrbtion are deeply rooted as one of the primary sources of that "doctrine". I would consider the doctrine to be much more basic and centered in fidelity to relationships rather than specific actions and behaviors. If God's intent was truly to guide us to be faithful to our spouse in raising a happy and stable family, then that should be our focus, not getting bogged down in detail of how we think that applies in today's world by creating commandments in His name. I guarantee all of our views on sxuality are different than the cultural norm from 6000, 4000, 2000, 100 years ago. So I try to strip away all of detail to get to the most basic message as I try to find "doctrine". The rest is policy, opinion, and culture. If not, God would be proven to be quite the fickle God, unworthy of our trust and worship. We should be careful not to layer dogma onto God's doctrine.

ETA- I just noticed this was my 5000th post on MDDB. Congratulations to me! I haven't been kicked out yet  

Edited March 29, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Very true. And the Church has never sufficiently dealt with that, failing to offer any explanation, and attempting to thread the needle with the essay by disavowing past explanations, offering no authoritative explanation, and failing to explain why and how it continues to regard positive mortal conditions as accruing from the pre-existence, but not things like race. 

Polygamy and priesthood are the two big examples, but I think if we continue to add major examples, it will erode faith and confidence. I think this is especially true in the realm of doctrine on sexuality (e.g., homosexuality, sexual practices including masturbation, etc.). Once the Church plays the "yeah, that was old-fashioned and traditional back then, but we were wrong and it really isn't a sin" card, I think that affects intensity of commitment and morale in a very different way than the priesthood ban and polygamy did. There would be literally no doctrine that could not be "Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia" 'd away by fiat. While change is a part of the Church, there has to be some bedrock doctrines and principles that won't change when society turns on the Church, or we might as well turn off the lights and go home. 

I think the issue here is that a lot of people outside the LDS culture, and I suspect a growing number inside it, do not see masturbation as a sin at all. Even within the church sexual attitudes have changed, just as they have in our overall culture. We are only a hundred years removed from prophets who decried the ankle length hems of women as being inappropriate. Kissing in public or on a movie screen then was looked upon poorly. I think the church has backed away from telling couples what to do about birth control. Certainly we have evolved in how we view the causes of homosexuality.  Was it a major change when the length of garments was shortened? Obviously that was an accommodation to cultural dress styles getting shorter. So while it might be a bit of a bigger step in redefining masturbation as no longer a sin, I do not think it is the slippery slope you paint it to be. Most people will just look at that change and scratch their heads, and say, well duh!

Look at it this way, if we could take a member from a 150 years ago and transport him into our current LDS culture without any explanations, I suspect he would quickly come to the conclusion we have already gone down that slippery slope.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

While change is a part of the Church, there has to be some bedrock doctrines and principles that won't change when society turns on the Church, or we might as well turn off the lights and go home. 

I completely agree.  I think the danger comes when members put things into this category that shouldn't be there.  

From my perspective, there is ample evidence, aside from just the teachings of our leaders, for chastity to be one of these bedrock doctrines, for example.  I feel comfortable with my faith in the church (being true and led by God) being tied somewhat to the continuance of that doctrine.  Masterbation, however, not so much.  I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that puts "masturbation is a sin" on the same level of bedrock as "adultery and fornication is a sin".

I'm not saying it's not a sin either.  I'm comfortable with the church's teachings on the subject. But if those teachings changed, it wouldn't bother me.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Look at it this way, if we could take a member from a 150 years ago and transport him into our current LDS culture without any explanations, I suspect he would quickly come to the conclusion we have already gone down that slippery slope.

I was looking at an old LDS sunday school hymnbook on line and there was a hymn that taught how it was immoral and immodest for women to 'bang their hair' (get bangs).  Things really do change. 

[Duncan]

That's the thing, never say never in a church led by revelation, it has to say current and relevant all the while having the gospel as the bedrock. I think I read somewhere in the 1850's if you wanted to be a member in good standing you had to believe in plural marriage, now of course we do but we don't practice it on earth anyways, men can be sealed to multiple women so it's a kinda sorta belief practice.

Edited March 29, 2018 by Duncan

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Masturbation, however, not so much.  I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that puts "masturbation is a sin" on the same level of bedrock as "adultery and fornication is a sin".

I've had people ask me why it is a sin, and the first time that happened, I had to think about it. I am conservative and old-fashioned by nature, but I also realize that "It just is" isn't a good answer for people with an earnest question. I had a flash of inspiration that I believe came from God in that moment, and I pointed out (and we looked them up) that Jesus taught in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants that "heart and mind sin" is identical to physical sin. That is, thinking, fantasizing, and idealizing in our hearts and minds = "you have committed adultery in your heart already." Something that Jesus taught in the same way in all of the standard works is significant and important. That is why it is on the same level: because committing adultery in your heart is just as spiritually damaging as doing it in real life (and when it happens in real life, the seed was planted and nourished by doing it in the heart and mind). 

It is habit forming, and anything that is habit forming by definition means an eroding of agency, will, and self-discipline. In terms of the standard of "what type of person are you?", celestial people are not beholden to addictive habits, while terrestrial and telestial people are. One of the experiential purposes of life is to become a celestial person (with the atonement bridging the gap, because no one can fully become such on his own). A person who engages in "sex with himself," and who finds it difficult not to do so when the urge arises, does not have self mastery and is not free.

I think there is very good reason why it has been regarded as serious and something that should be overcome where it exists, and I don't think the societal trend towards "guilt-free" zoning of absolutely everything is a good reason to jettison what Jesus on down through the prophets have consistently taught. 

A serious question for people generally here, and not you directly, bluebell: What would the difference be between masturbation and sex with the increasingly realistic robots that is being developed? Would that also not really be a sin, because it doesn't involve another living person? Is there a difference between masturbation and robot sex?

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was looking at an old LDS sunday school hymnbook on line and there was a hymn that taught how it was immoral and immodest for women to 'bang their hair' (get bangs).  Things really do change. 

I grew up in the 80s and 90s. Those wall-high bangs were truly an abomination. So were shoulder pads. 

Edited March 29, 2018 by rongo

[CA Steve]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've had people ask me why it is a sin, and the first time that happened, I had to think about it. I am conservative and old-fashioned by nature, but I also realize that "It just is" isn't a good answer for people with an earnest question. I had a flash of inspiration that I believe came from God in that moment, and I pointed out (and we looked them up) that Jesus taught in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants that "heart and mind sin" is identical to physical sin. That is, thinking, fantasizing, and idealizing in our hearts and minds = "you have committed adultery in your heart already." Something that Jesus taught in the same way in all of the standard works is significant and important. That is why it is on the same level: because committing adultery in your heart is just as spiritually damaging as doing it in real life (and when it happens in real life, the seed was planted and nourished by doing it in the heart and mind). 

It is habit forming, and anything that is habit forming by definition means an eroding of agency, will, and self-discipline. In terms of the standard of "what type of person are you?", celestial people are not beholden to addictive habits, while terrestrial and telestial people are. One of the experiential purposes of life is to become a celestial person (with the atonement bridging the gap, because no one can fully become such on his own). A person who engages in "sex with himself," and who finds it difficult not to do so when the urge arises, does not have self mastery and is not free.

I think there is very good reason why it has been regarded as serious and something that should be overcome where it exists, and I don't think the societal trend towards "guilt-free" zoning of absolutely everything is a good reason to jettison what Jesus on down through the prophets have consistently taught. 

A serious question for people generally here, and not you directly, bluebell: What would the difference be between masturbation and sex with the increasingly realistic robots that is being developed? Would that also not really be a sin, because it doesn't involve another living person? Is there a difference between masturbation and robot sex?

These are not good answers Rongo.

Sex is habit forming, you cannot separate the overall urge to have sex from that same urge to masturbate. My mother was addicted to doing genealogy a habit that had a negative affect on her living relatives. Any habit taken to the extreme can be damaging but there are a lot of habits that taken in moderation are really good things. Think of exercising or proper dieting, both of which take to extreme are very damaging. The same goes for sexual relations and relationships. There is no reason to consider masturbation any differently than other sexual habits.

Society is managing just fine all these centuries with the vast majority of people engaging in masturbation, in fact there is good reason to consider that labeling masturbation as a sin is more harmful than not.

As to your last question, if you think sex with robots is comparable to masturbation, then the problem might be how you view sex in general. It's a horrible comparison.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by CA Steve

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I grew up in the 80s and 90s. Those wall-high bangs were truly an abomination. So were shoulder pads. 

Oh shoot..I kind of miss those shoulder pads...made my waist look quite small...

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Sex is habit forming, you cannot separate the overall urge to have sex from that same urge to masturbate.

We're not talking about the urge, though. We're talking about the ability to control that urge. In both cases, people have the ability to control this urge, and to employ within the bounds the Lord has set. Many choose not to, and many others develop habits that make controlling this urge difficult. That's the crux of this issue: self-mastery, and self-discipline. Lack of it makes one not a celestial person. That's the point of the gospel, the plan of salvation, and the commandments.

My mother was addicted to doing genealogy a habit that had a negative affect on her living relatives. Any habit taken to the extreme can be damaging but there are a lot of habits that taken in moderation are really good things. Think of exercising or proper dieting, both of which take to extreme are very damaging.

I fully agree that addictions and bad habits are not only sexual or Word of Wisdom in nature.

The same goes for sexual relations and relationships. There is no reason to consider masturbation any differently that other sexual habits.

Through the lens of the teachings of latter-day prophets, there is. It is misuse and abuse of the fountain of creation. Sexual relations are to be only employed between man and woman, legally married as husband and wife. Masturbation skips this and employs sex with self. I know that the modern world increasingly sees this as a natural and unable-to-be-resisted urge --- and that trying to suppress it causes psychological damage and dysfunction. I completely reject this, the prophets completely reject this, and I hope that they continue to completely reject this.

Society is managing just fine all these centuries with the vast majority of people engaging in masturbationin fact there is good reason to consider that labeling masturbation as a sin is more harmful than trying to overcome it as a bad habit.

Debatable. I think the principle Alma taught is directly applicable: Bridle all your passions, that you may be filled with love. I think a lot of the neuroses and dysfunction in the world is precisely because modern society is jettisoning traditional understandings about a lot of things. I don't think encouraging masturbation as healthy, normal, and unavoidable actually leads to better mental and sexual health. 

As to your last question, if you think sex with robots is comparable to masturbation, then the problem might be how you view sex in general. It's a horrible comparison.

Why is it a horrible comparison? Sex with your hand, or sex with a machine? How are the two different, really?

Humor me, like I'm an idiot. I am interested in people who disagree with me articulating how they are different.

I take it from your reaction that you think sex with robots is a sin. Why is it a sin?

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Why is it a horrible comparison? Sex with your hand, or sex with a machine? How are the two different, really?

Humor me, like I'm an idiot. I am interested in people who disagree with me articulating how they are different.

I take it from your reaction that you think sex with robots is a sin. Why is it a sin?

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you saying that I jumped the shark? 

Are you able to explain how the two are different, really?

Or, alternatively, why would sex with robots be a sin (assuming that you believe that it is. Maybe you don't, in which case, why wouldn't it be?)?

Thanks!

[kllindley]

57 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

As to your last question, if you think sex with robots is comparable to masturbation, then the problem might be how you view sex in general. It's a horrible comparison.

Seriously? That's the best dialogue you can come up with? No reasoning. No introspection. Just dismissive and insulting? This is a serious question in the realm of sexual ethics, that experts are still discussing and exploring. For you to pretend that there is no comparison, or that any analogy is proof of pathological views on sexually, is not only condescending, but ignorant.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

This is a serious question in the realm of sexual ethics, that experts are still discussing and exploring. 

This is really true. It is a hot topic in the realm of ethics. It is not inconceivable at all for, in the future, some LDS to argue that sex with robots harms nobody and should not be considered a sin for worthiness purposes. 

The basic question is exactly the same: I was asked to explain why masturbation is a sin. Well, why would sex with robots be a sin? 

I'm actually surprised that no one has attempted to answer that. My own answer is exactly the same explanation as why masturbation is a sin, so I'm interested in how people who disagree with me on that would explain with respect to robots. 

[CA Steve]

25 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Seriously? That's the best dialogue you can come up with? No reasoning. No introspection. Just dismissive and insulting? This is a serious question in the realm of sexual ethics, that experts are still discussing and exploring. For you to pretend that there is no comparison, or that any analogy is proof of pathological views on sexually, is not only condescending, but ignorant.

So there are experts out there who are discussing how masturbation and sex with robots are similar?

Frankly that might be one CFR on which I will have to pass.

And yes I plead guilty to believing that there is a self evident huge difference between masturbating and sex with robots.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So there are experts out there who are discussing how masturbation and sex with robots are similar?

No, there are experts discussing the moral ethics of sex with robots.

Quote

And yes I plead guilty to believing that there is a self evident huge difference between masturbating and sex with robots.

And what is that "self-evident" huge difference? Why are they different? I think you're avoiding answering the question because you realize that articulating it isn't very convincing.

Let's take masturbation out of the equation for a minute. How about this question instead: Is sex with robots a sin? If so, why is it a sin? If not, why is it not a sin?

Edited March 29, 2018 by rongo

[CA Steve]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, there are experts discussing the moral ethics of sex with robots.

 

 

And what is that "self-evident" huge difference? Why are they different? I think you're avoiding answering the question because you realize that articulating it isn't very convincing.

Assume all you want.

Here try this, because beyond this I am not willing to go into detail for what should be obvious reasons.

Which letter would you prefer to write home to your mom from your mission.

"Dear Mom,

"I am still struggling with my habit but my mission president has been very supportive because he says it is normal for most missionaries to struggle with it."

 

or this one...

 

"Dear Mom,

My mission presidents says that if I don't get rid of the  robot he is sending me home. I have tried to convince him that most the rest of the missionaries are also struggling with masturbation too, so why am I any different?"

 

 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Assume all you want.

Here try this, because beyond this I am not willing to go into detail for what should be obvious reasons.

Okay, let's ditch any detail. Or any explanation as to why or why not. Would you simply answer this question:

Is sex with robots a sin?

I'm being completely serious, because I am completely unclear on whether you think it is or not.

Thanks!

[Senator]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Why is it a horrible comparison? Sex with your hand, or sex with a machine? How are the two different, really?

Humor me, like I'm an idiot. I am interested in people who disagree with me articulating how they are different.

I take it from your reaction that you think sex with robots is a sin. Why is it a sin?

Heh,  Propably the reason you are not getting any answers is because to do so would require some experiential evidence, which, on a public Mormon discussion board, where masturbation is held akin to adultery and fornication, one might not be inclined to disclose. 

Just maybe

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

"Dear Mom,

My mission presidents says that if I don't get rid of the  robot he is sending me home. I have tried to convince him that most the rest of the missionaries are also struggling with masturbation too, so why am I any different?"

That's an interesting example you thought of. Would a missionary using a sex toy to masturbate be a sin, or something that should be described as normal, near universal, and not a big deal? If no prop is used, but rather, traditional masturbation instead, what is the difference?

What is the difference between a sex toy and a sex robot? Isn't it just a matter of scale?

No need to respond that you are not going to answer. 

That's why I bring this up. No one wants to defend or argue that sex robots aren't a sin, but there really isn't any difference between that and masturbation. And that is why I believe that it is a sin, and why the prophets have consistently taught that through the years. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Okay, let's ditch any detail. Or any explanation as to why or why not. Would you simply answer this question:

Is sex with robots a sin?

I'm being completely serious, because I am completely unclear on whether you think it is or not.

Thanks!

I think it would be a sin because it makes a mockery out of something sacred. 

 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Senator said:

Heh,  Propably the reason you are not getting any answers is because to do so would require some experiential evidence, which, on a public Mormon discussion board, where masturbation is held akin to adultery and fornication, one might not be inclined to disclose. 

Just maybe

No, we're talking about morals, ethics, commandments, and the central question of why or what this or that would or would not be a sin. Nobody needs personal experience to discuss, argue, defend, critique, or counterargue. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think it would be a sin because it makes a mockery out of something sacred. 

I agree. 

Would you include using props on a smaller scale as a mockery as well? Or just on a large scale, like person-sized?

And then, if one engages in it without props (large or small scale), how is that really any different?

I think that gets at the crux. Sex really is intended by God for us to be used, as the Church teaches, properly between husband and wife, and nowhere else. Whatever permutation could be imagined outside of that is a sin. Modern arguments that engaging in it by one's self is harmless, healthy, and near universal is included, I think, in the sins of this generation. 

 

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would be a sin because it makes a mockery out of something sacred. 

 

I agree. I just don't think that it is substantially different than the mockery made using a hand. 

I know you said you don't have a problem with the position that masturbation is a sin, so I'm not challenging you. 

FWIW: While I personally believe both are sins, I think the degree of sin when it comes to masturbation is much closer to having an iced coffee or swearing than it is to adultery. 

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Okay, let's ditch any detail. Or any explanation as to why or why not. Would you simply answer this question:

Is sex with robots a sin?

I'm being completely serious, because I am completely unclear on whether you think it is or not.

Thanks!

I have to say I've seen some interesting stuff discussed here, but I never expected "sex with robots." 

The other day I read about a business in Paris where men (so far) can pay to spend an hour with a sex robot.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43506621

All I can say is that I would hope they use some very strong disinfectants.