Mormon sex therapist faces discipline and possible expulsion from the LDS Church

[Fallen Prophet]

A perfect God would have no need for creation...

Why?

...and perfection in the ultimate sense would be non-existent if things existed that were imperfect.

That makes no sense.

There would need to be imperfect things in order for there to be perfect things.

Just like there would need to be Darkness in order for there to be Light.

Further, it would be unutterably terrible to do so.

What would be "terrible"?

To create imperfect things?

In regards to equality, that is in reference to men (and everything else) being God.

God and Man created themselves - or there never was any creation?

As for the matter of reproduction, I do not take the Bible as an article of faith.

Neat - then how did you come up with the idea of "sin" and that reproduction was sinful?

Therefore, I do not see a reason to view it as any greater or lower than other forms of sexual activity.

One is productive and has the capacity to create - while all others...aren't and don't.

You see no difference?

This is of course assuming that one engages in sexual intercourse in order to achieve such an aim, which given contemporary technology need not necessarily be the case.

What is or is not sinful cannot be based on technology.

 

[Watchmen]

Why?

That makes no sense.

There would need to be imperfect things in order for there to be perfect things.

Just like there would need to be Darkness in order for there to be Light.

What would be "terrible"?

To create imperfect things?

God and Man created themselves - or there never was any creation?

Neat - then how did you come up with the idea of "sin" and that reproduction was sinful?

One is productive and has the capacity to create - while all others...aren't and don't.

You see no difference?

What is or is not sinful cannot be based on technology.

So you don’t use any birth control at all?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

So you don’t use any birth control at all?

I do - but making love to my wife is always productive to our relationship - whether or not it produces a child.

Procreation is not the only goal of sexual congress with one's spouse.

 

[Veyl]

Why?

That makes no sense.

There would need to be imperfect things in order for there to be perfect things.

Just like there would need to be Darkness in order for there to be Light.

What would be "terrible"?

To create imperfect things?

God and Man created themselves - or there never was any creation?

Neat - then how did you come up with the idea of "sin" and that reproduction was sinful?

One is productive and has the capacity to create - while all others...aren't and don't.

You see no difference?

What is or is not sinful cannot be based on technology.

In regards to God/Man's ontology, there was never any creation to begin with. As for the matter of ethics, I derive them from gnosis. As for the matter of reproduction, I again don't see it as "creating" anything, hence why various forms of sexual activity are equally worldly. You can argue that some produce more opportunities for meaningful activity in the phenomenal universe (i.e., with more persons being able to participate in this world), but I'm not sure if you can ascribe a moral weight to that; the matter of incarnation, liberations from bonds, etc. make it more difficult than a simple matter of, "giving someone the opportunity for life." Granted, part of this is probably tinged by the fact that I find sexual and romantic relationships in general to be a bit odd, as well as our society's predilection for putting them in the public sphere.

 

[danieldemol]

I never made the claim that abstaining from masturbation led to salvation of any kind.

I have maintained that everyone sins - and that masturbation is sinful behavior - but I also believe that all people will eventually be forgiven of sin.

The New Testament records the Lord Jesus Christ claiming that all sins will be forgiven Man - save one - the unpardonable sin which is called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

I believe the ignorant and naive rely on this false dichotomy of salvation versus damnation - but that is not what the Word of God maintains.

We are all currently suspended - in a probationary state - of both salvation and damnation - and it is by our thoughts, words and deeds that cause us to experience the effects of either salvation or damnation in this life.

We can be forgiven of sin today by relying on the Lord, resisting temptation, avoiding sin and repenting - or - we can wallow in our sins and feel the effects of a damned soul until a future time when we will eventually be forgiven.

If you continue to sin throughout your days - you will eventually be forgiven at some later time - in the spirit - but you will lose out on gaining the many benefits and blessings of repentance.

So - if you want to masturbate everyday - go ahead - you will one day be forgiven of it - but you will miss out on obtaining the opportunity of learning self-control and abstinence.

Our Father will give positions of authority - of power and responsibility - to those who have learned self-control and abstinence - which comes with greater satisfaction and joy in eternity.

Well I'm a universalist myself, so since you seem to be a universalist to some degree it takes a lot of the wind out of my sails to disagree with you, even if our views are not identical.

I suppose that would depend on what you consider "harmful".

That is the question at hand, is the alleged "sin" of masturbation harmful or is it not?

That's great - but it doesn't make surveys any more reliable and I don't think including that data will change your opinion about the Holy Spirit.

Would it?

I'm inclined to think that it would at least convince me that prayer can reliably prevent masturbation if a significant enough percentage of humans both prayed and did not masturbate.

What "hardship"?

Are you claiming that not masturbating is a "hardship"? Really?

Yes for some people with high sex drives who do not have access to intercourse for various reasons.

Abstaining from masturbating isn't debilitating at all - trust me.

I do not recall using the word "debilitating"

Anyone can live a full, healthy and happy life without ever masturbating.

You can have a completely satisfying sex life without masturbating.

What you are saying makes no sense.

What about those who don't have access to regular sexual intercourse such as for example;
Those under the legal age of marriage,
Those with hideous deformities which prevent them finding a suitable sexual partner,
Those in jail or seperated by travel,
Those whose wife has become sexually unable to fulfill them due to disability, disease, or even simply the lack of desire to fulfill them (after all you can't force your wife to have sex).
Those who are old aged and no longer find their partners attractive due to age (Lets be honest about it, most folks even when young don't find people their grandmother's age sexually attractive)

You are free to believe whatever you want - but you have said things about the Holy Spirit that the Word of God does not claim.

So - isn't it possible that you don't know enough?

It is certainly possible that I don't know enough about your personal comprehensive interpretation of the Bible to know what you believe it claims, but you haven't provided me a link to your complete biblical exegesis, so I can only learn as we discuss.

Example?

It would be a bit beyond the scope of this thread, so how about either you join me in this old thread;
Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?
or start a new one in religious debates and tag me in it if you are interested in discussing it?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

In regards to God/Man's ontology, there was never any creation to begin with.

If you by "creation" you mean ex nihilo - out of nothing - then I would agree with you.

When I say "creation" I mean it like a man who "creates" a ship - by using various material to build one.

It is a spiritual organization and physical formation - not a "poof" or "out of nothing" "creation".

As for the matter of ethics, I derive them from gnosis.

What does that mean? That you believe yourself to be the authority on morality?

As for the matter of reproduction, I again don't see it as "creating" anything, hence why various forms of sexual activity are equally worldly.

If by "creating" you mean "something from nothing" - then I agree with you.

What do you mean by "worldly"?

You can argue that some produce more opportunities for meaningful activity in the phenomenal universe (i.e., with more persons being able to participate in this world), but I'm not sure if you can ascribe a moral weight to that; the matter of incarnation, liberations from bonds, etc. make it more difficult than a simple matter of, "giving someone the opportunity for life."

I fear that I am not understanding your position correctly.

I don't claim that it is more "moral" to procreate - only that God commanded it - therefore it is not sinful to reproduce.

As long as it is with your spouse - of course - because Adam and Eve were a married couple.

Granted, part of this is probably tinged by the fact that I find sexual and romantic relationships in general to be a bit odd, as well as our society's predilection for putting them in the public sphere.

Our entire species would not exist without sexual/romantic relationships - so I find you believing them to be odd - to be odd.

 

[Veyl]

If you by "creation" you mean ex nihilo - out of nothing - then I would agree with you.

When I say "creation" I mean it like a man who "creates" a ship - by using various material to build one.

It is a spiritual organization and physical formation - not a "poof" or "out of nothing" "creation".

What does that mean? That you believe yourself to be the authority on morality?

If by "creating" you mean "something from nothing" - then I agree with you.

What do you mean by "worldly"?

I fear that I am not understanding your position correctly.

I don't claim that it is more "moral" to procreate - only that God commanded it - therefore it is not sinful to reproduce.

As long as it is with your spouse - of course - because Adam and Eve were a married couple.

Our entire species would not exist without sexual/romantic relationships - so I find you believing them to be odd - to be odd.

Sorry, I haven't figured out the usage of individual quotations in posting. In any case, I would agree with you on the denial of creatio ex nihilo, though personally I would go a step further and suggest that even such an ex materia creation is only a seeming, similar in a way to an Advaitic view, though I wouldn't say that the whole of that tradition is correct. As for gnosis, I refer to direct apprehension of the truth; in this case, it is more in reference to mystical experiences from which one can extrapolate other matters logically. Other than that, one can of course also use discursive reason to discern matters of ethics, much as in philosophy. By "worldly" in regards to the matter of sexual activity, I am mostly referring to something ultimately inane in comparison to true matters at hand. In this case it refers to both the cultural status placed upon certain means of attaining sexual pleasure, as well as the fact that the mere perpetuation of the human race (as in reproduction) means nothing unless it is wedded to something of actual value (implicitly liberation or whatever salvific idea or God-concept one runs with). As for the whole matter of which one is more "moral," that is more in reference to the fact that it being absent of value still makes it higher than a "negative value." I don't see a reason to believe that reproduction was ever commanded by Deity, and I also see no reason to believe that masturbation is a sin. Thus, the two are just objects in the universe, with the former arguably having more value in meeting other people, but also tainted in some sense by the commodification of persons, or the debasement involved in associating them with "organisms," even if only in seeming. In regards to the final matter, I'll wager that our perspectives our completely different, to the extent that seeing eye to eye may prove fruitless. I don't necessarily see how the perpetuation of the species is relevant unless it is related to spiritual matters, and I just generally see heterosexual and homosexual inclination to be something rather curious. Not necessarily in a proscribing way, more in the manner of a obscure fetish or the like. I do find it bizarre how it's often legally sanctioned, as well as exposed often to youth, such as in the form of sexual education or in the widespread cultural norms regarding coupling. It's fine that individuals engage in it, it's just rather odd that it isn't more private.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Well I'm a universalist myself, so since you seem to be a universalist to some degree it takes a lot of the wind out of my sails to disagree with you, even if our views are not identical.

I do believe that the Atoning Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ is universal in its effects - so that what you mean by "universalist"?

That is the question at hand, is the alleged "sin" of masturbation harmful or is it not?

I believe it is - there is an opportunity cost between it and self-control - as well as the slippery slope of becoming callused to the whole thing.

I had a coworker who had sex with literally anything that moved. He would show me pictures of his "conquests" - and his standards were of a troll-under-a-bridge variety.

He was a chronic masturbater - and he only kept bringing it up to me to make me squirm - he knew I didn't want to know it.

Great guy - but I believe him abusing himself caused him to devalue sex entirely - it was simply a transaction.

That guy Bundy claimed that he had a happy childhood until pornography and masturbation came into play.

Masturbation cheapens the act that was designed to bring a husband and wife closer together.

The ideal that I espouse and have tried to live up to my entire life is no sexual activity except with my wife.

That being said - I had an older coworker who was some kind of devout Christian and he claimed that he hadn't had sex with his wife in over twenty years - she was kinda OCD and was uncomfortable with the whole thing.

So - in regard to that guy - and other poor souls in a similar situation - I think God wouldn't judge him too harshly if he jerked his meat - as long as he wasn't committing adultery in any way.

I'm inclined to think that it would at least convince me that prayer can reliably prevent masturbation if a significant enough percentage of humans both prayed and did not masturbate.

I'm not so sure it would - I mean we all have our biases - and I think you'd start rationalizing it.

You'd assume that those "Christians" were lying on the survey because of some internalized "stigma", or they only claimed that they prayed but they really didn't or something.

Yes for some people with high sex drives who do not have access to intercourse for various reasons.

This is another example of an "opportunity cost" - if they used their sex drive as a motivator to find their eternal mate and get married - rather than just getting their rocks off - they wouldn't be wasting their time and energy.

I do not recall using the word "debilitating"

I'm pretty sure hopping on one leg for the rest of your life would be pretty debilitating.

What about those who don't have access to regular sexual intercourse such as for example;
Those under the legal age of marriage,

I'm operating under the premise that people don't masturbate at all.

So - these minors never having masturbated won't feel the need to have regular sexual intercourse.

Granted - I know that teenage kids fantasize about sex - we have all been there - but that doesn't mean they need any intercourse at all - regular or otherwise.

Those with hideous deformities which prevent them finding a suitable sexual partner,

Again - if Eric Stoltz ain't masturbating - he isn't going to need intercourse as much as the guy who is masturbating.

Those in jail or seperated by travel,

The travel thing is just - wow - wait til you get home - it's not that hard.

Jail - I mean you probably already aren't doing so hot - maybe have issues with self-control already - so why feed fuel to that fire?

Those whose wife has become sexually unable to fulfill them due to disability, disease, or even simply the lack of desire to fulfill them (after all you can't force your wife to have sex).

Yes - this is like my old coworker - I am convinced that God would be more lenient with him - because he did the right thing - he got married - it's not his fault that his wife is not interested.

It's kinda like the whole self-defense thing - you can try to keep the commandment not to kill (murder) - but sometimes there are circumstances that are outside of your control.

Those who are old aged and no longer find their partners attractive due to age (Lets be honest about it, most folks even when young don't find people their grandmother's age sexually attractive)

If you are married to someone into old age - you won't have any difficulty banging - that's just the truth.

It is certainly possible that I don't know enough about your personal comprehensive interpretation of the Bible to know what you believe it claims, but you haven't provided me a link to your complete biblical exegesis, so I can only learn as we discuss.

No - you claimed that the idea that 92% of American males masturbating meant that the Holy Spirit was "impotent".

Nowhere in the Bible does it claim that the Holy Spirit is some sort of enforcer of sexual purity and that He fails at His job every time we decide to sin.

If you want to make a claim about the Holy Spirit - and the entire system of accountability and sin and the Holy Spirit's role in that system - then you need to provide your "biblical exegesis".

You made a claim - and I said that your claim was bunk - that is all that has happened.

It would be a bit beyond the scope of this thread, so how about either you join me in this old thread;
Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?
or start a new one in religious debates and tag me in it if you are interested in discussing it?

I'll check it out - but I already know it's just going to be a discussion about possible interpretations of Genesis - rather than actual claims.

 

[Veyl]

Granted - I know that teenage kids fantasize about sex

Is this true? I can't say I'm too familiar with this topic. Are there surveys or studies that covered that segment of the population?