Um...self-stimulation okay in marriage?

[AmyJ]

I guess my stance is that at times, masturbation is a "sin" when it is blatantly and selfishly used in place of a mutually shared activity with a partner that is explicitly and enthusiastically consenting. To me, the "sin" isn't the act itself, but the rudeness of shutting down an interested partner without rescheduling and how that situation is communicated about and planned around.

As far as "sinning under God's law", we are talking about "going against what individuals claiming to speak for God" have said originally in the Bible, and transmuted across time and culture to what modern Christians (LDS folk included) understand about sexuality and religion. I am not confident that Christianity collectively got the full memo about what "God Said" and I am hesitant to assume that church leaders (non-Jewish and Jewish alike)
understand what God meant. I do think that our sexual ethics was inherited from both the Catholics and the Protestant Reformation - and that our LDS revelation hasn't added a lot of unique features to the sexual ethics framework.

I recognize that I am likely very much an outlier here in how I am judging the situation and what the most important factors are here.

[skipper]

Amy:

May I ask what you mean by the polygamy dimension? I ask as some people (I believe mainly men) have made an argument that polygamy was needed (1840s and 1890) because men have a high sex drive and women did not. (I believe back them there was also an LDS belief that you could not have sex with a pregnant wife for fear of damaging the baby, so many men could not have sex for nine or so months). I am not sure how you connect polygamy to the broader theme of masturbation – but I am wondering if it had to so with what I just explained above. If not, how so? And as Roy has already posted, sometime a married women can have a higher sex drive than men.

Church leaders have stated that masturbation is an act of selfishness – and this is what I think you are also communicating. I think I understand the binary you are creating with “sinning under God's law" and being thoughtless to a partner, but I think there is overlap here.

My mind goes different ways. One way that it goes is that if a husband and wife have sexual problems, I think they need to have open communication, with both people leaning more toward listening than speaking. Communication is the key, along with personal revelation. If they cannot align, in a win-win way, then going to a licensed counselor might be a good step. In a past post Roy suggested negotiated scheduling of sex at a frequency that both partners agree on. That is one strategy.

My mind keeps wandering how many married men, who have had regular sexual intimacy, can control their sexual arousal, if they needed to (such as if their wife had an illness or a car accident and could not be intimate for a long period of time). That is, if a couple have had win-win sex, both feel their needs are met and it is decently frequency over a longer period of time, and then a wife can no longer engage in sex for a valid reason, how many men would struggle with this. It would be years of biological conditioning. The reason I became involved in this post was due to this thought. Per past post, I have a trusted male LDS friend share they had great difficulties with this and then, as I shared, my wife had to fly to another part of the united States for a family matter and we were away over a month (first time ever in a long marriage) and I gained an experiential firsthand account of how hard this can be. I am simply wonder how other men would respond, and really a questioning of how much control do men have over their sexual arousal. I find it a little weird that we may not have as much control as we think and I further wondering if this is part of God’s design in how He made man.

[AmyJ]

Amy:

May I ask what you mean by the polygamy dimension? I ask as some people (I believe mainly men) have made an argument that polygamy was needed (1840s and 1890) because men have a high sex drive and women did not. (I believe back them there was also an LDS belief that you could not have sex with a pregnant wife for fear of damaging the baby, so many men could not have sex for nine or so months). I am not sure how you connect polygamy to the broader theme of masturbation – but I am wondering if it had to so with what I just explained above. If not, how so? And as Roy has already posted, sometime a married women can have a higher sex drive than men.

In terms of sexuality, Polygamy functioned as a legal way to have mistresses/concubines legitimately in some households. In other households, it was more of an elite social club entry rite that didn't have a sexual dimension at all. Most of the individuals I meet come to the conclusion that Polygamy was more trouble then it was worth when it was officially practiced. I actually later retracted my statement fragment because I felt that it was missing the point I was trying to make, but that's cool.

From what we can tell from history, it seems that Joseph Smith introduced polygamy when he introduced sealings for additional spouses. It gets complicated about what he meant by the practice of polygamy but JS is sealed to something like 30+ women if you look in the Family History database (not the end all and be all of exactness, but still good enough for here and now).

Brigham Young took polygamy into a procreation bent with the polygamy model being 1 man for multiple women (easily over 30 I believe) and has something like 54 children to show for it.

In the 1890's, Polygamy was officially discontinued so that Utah could become a state in the United States with a variety of splinter groups starting with a testimony of Joseph Smith and/or the Book of Mormon.

But when most people think about "Mormons" and "Sexuality", they think of Polygamy because that is one of our religion's contributions to the field of "Religion and Sexual Ethics".

Church leaders have stated that masturbation is an act of selfishness – and this is what I think you are also communicating. I think I understand the binary you are creating with “sinning under God's law" and being thoughtless to a partner, but I think there is overlap here.

I agree that there is overlap. People can be "selfish" in how they live as sexual beings, just as how they live as house-dwelling beings and the type of beings they are when they go out into the world. I personally assign masturbation a moral code as "morally neutral" in terms of sinful behaviors and charge that the greater sin is miscommunication and in harming one's partner through shutting them out if they want to participate because it seems to be a very common avenue of great relationship harm.

My mind goes different ways. One way that it goes is that if a husband and wife have sexual problems, I think they need to have open communication, with both people leaning more toward listening than speaking. Communication is the key, along with personal revelation. If they cannot align, in a win-win way, then going to a licensed counselor might be a good step. In a past post Roy suggested negotiated scheduling of sex at a frequency that both partners agree on. That is one strategy.

As near as I can tell, having a good sex life requires relationship repairs, a decent understanding of the biology of all involved genders (that is not held in contempt or disrespect), and time to trust the process. Talk is cheap if it's not backed by connective behaviors.

My mind keeps wandering how many married men, who have had regular sexual intimacy, can control their sexual arousal, if they needed to (such as if their wife had an illness or a car accident and could not be intimate for a long period of time). That is, if a couple have had win-win sex, both feel their needs are met and it is decently frequency over a longer period of time, and then a wife can no longer engage in sex for a valid reason, how many men would struggle with this. It would be years of biological conditioning. The reason I became involved in this post was due to this thought. Per past post, I have a trusted male LDS friend share they had great difficulties with this and then, as I shared, my wife had to fly to another part of the united States for a family matter and we were away over a month (first time ever in a long marriage) and I gained an experiential firsthand account of how hard this can be. I am simply wonder how other men would respond, and really a questioning of how much control do men have over their sexual arousal. I find it a little weird that we may not have as much control as we think and I further wondering if this is part of God’s design in how He made man.

Yes. As far as I can tell, men struggle more with sexuality (and arousals) when they do not have a (usually female) partner to share it with. I assume that it is part of God's design, but I do not know that for certain. Communities and religions building communities assert that men have more control over the process to hold men accountable for some of the children that are produced.

But women struggle when they are interested in sex and their partner is not as well. The literature is there (including in Cosmo and other daring magazines). And female sexuality isn't as easy to talk about or find good research on (though getting better thanks to the internet).

My atheist/agnostic philosopher grandfather taught a course called "Love and Sex" at the college level. During one of our grandparent-grandchild conversations in my early adult years, he said something along the lines of in terms of male sexuality, the best paradigm would be to have 2 wives - the wife of his youth to raise children and be a companion with, and a young wife to have regular sex with. I suspect it was very much in line with the reasons being discussed in this thread. He himself had a startup marriage that produced my dad, and then a fairly long-term healthy marriage that was more of the companionship style (as near as I can tell, giving up the "ideal" 2+ female setup).

[DarkJedi]

As far as "sinning under God's law", we are talking about "going against what individuals claiming to speak for God" have said originally in the Bible, and transmuted across time and culture to what modern Christians (LDS folk included) understand about sexuality and religion. I am not confident that Christianity collectively got the full memo about what "God Said" and I am hesitant to assume that church leaders (non-Jewish and Jewish alike)
understand what God meant. I do think that our sexual ethics was inherited from both the Catholics and the Protestant Reformation - and that our LDS revelation hasn't added a lot of unique features to the sexual ethics framework.

I agree, and I have more to say on this aspect but I don't have time at the moment (I'll come back). But what I wanted to quickly get out there is that those "speaking for God" are doing so with a very poor connection at best, and simply expressing their own ideas (and saying it's from God) at worst. One of the main things I learned from studying Joseph Smith is that while on occasion God actually spoke to him with a voice (of some sort, it may not have been actually audible) most often it was more impressions or thoughts - much like the way we are taught to get personal revelation. In other words, Joseph's revelations for the most part were no different than our own - no fire or thunder, just a "feeling." And Joseph had difficulty putting those impressions or feelings into actual words, as anyone would. I also believe every bit of what we have recorded in scripture (from Joseph and any other prophet) is filtered through that prophet's own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and even prejudices - it's never God's pure words (because there mostly weren't any words).

When I get a moment to come back, I'll talk about sin - but essentially I believe what constitutes sin depends greatly on our own point of view and which God we know - the vengeful King God to whom we are lowly servants (more like the OT) or the loving and merciful Father God to whom we are children (more like the NT). (I know LDS theology is that the OT God and the NT God are the same "guy," but I have never been able to reconcile that and there are actually religions that believe and teach they are two very separate and different Gods.)

[AmyJ]

I agree, and I have more to say on this aspect but I don't have time at the moment (I'll come back). But what I wanted to quickly get out there is that those "speaking for God" are doing so with a very poor connection at best, and simply expressing their own ideas (and saying it's from God) at worst. One of the main things I learned from studying Joseph Smith is that while on occasion God actually spoke to him with a voice (of some sort, it may not have been actually audible) most often it was more impressions or thoughts - much like the way we are taught to get personal revelation. In other words, Joseph's revelations for the most part were no different than our own - no fire or thunder, just a "feeling." And Joseph had difficulty putting those impressions or feelings into actual words, as anyone would. I also believe every bit of what we have recorded in scripture (from Joseph and any other prophet) is filtered through that prophet's own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and even prejudices - it's never God's pure words (because there mostly weren't any words).

When I get a moment to come back, I'll talk about sin - but essentially I believe what constitutes sin depends greatly on our own point of view and which God we know - the vengeful King God to whom we are lowly servants (more like the OT) or the loving and merciful Father God to whom we are children (more like the NT). (I know LDS theology is that the OT God and the NT God are the same "guy," but I have never been able to reconcile that and there are actually religions that believe and teach they are two very separate and different Gods.)

I wanted to add that these words are men's words - they are citing authority from God from the perspective of male community leaders and male priests may be incomplete due to their primarily male origin. The focus of the writings we have in the Bible is "where you collectively impregnate matters" and "stay away from thoughts that lead you collectively to improper impregnation". Which isn't bad advice and is on some levels the drive to have access to birth control in a lot of settings. I do wonder if part of the conversation about "masturbation as sin" is conflated as "impregnation and rape as sin" because the acts themselves may feel very similar but have wildly different consequences and are not the same.

But here is a trippy question - what if masturbation was so common in the OT and NT times that literally "everyone was doing it" as act(s) not even worth the commentary of finding a person who could write and the supplies they needed to write about it? Like it was a "non-issue" from a sinning point because it provided public health benefits and cautioning against it would actually sink the communities and tribes being built?

[DarkJedi]

OK, here I am with my view on sin. This is largely attributable to Terryl and Fiona Givens as outlined among other places in All Things News, Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between. Before reading the book my views were pretty much in line with the Givens' thoughts, but it was very affirming and provided the religious theological and historical background for why I believe it to be true.

We can't discuss sin without the idea of original sin. LDS theology is pretty clear on the subject in that we are not responsible nor condemned by the original sin of Adam and Eve. The theology and doctrine of some other Christian churches is quite different from the LDS beliefs, but nonetheless still have had some influence on our views of sin in general. This is in part because of what many early converts brought with them from their former churches and subtly infused into our own developing theology (and some of these people, including Brigham Young and Parley Pratt, had a great deal of influence on those developing ideas). What other churches mostly fail at is the role of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and their view of the Fall of Adam as a great tragedy that set us all up for failure. The latter of these two ideas is not totally absent from common LDS beliefs or theology, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ is often underplayed and even overlooked. The fall of Adam was the plan, God not only knew Adam & Eve would transgress or sin, God planned on it. And God planned on each of us also sinning - it's no surprise to God - thus the plan of salvation and the atonement. The fall and the atonement are not back up plans, they are the plan.

The common definition of sin is probably that sin is anything that is offensive to God. But it is also offense toward each other, both ideas that are alluded to in the two Great Commandments. Jesus also expounded on this a bit in his teaching to love one another as he loved us. I'm not so sure how much God is really offended by us, particularly as I subscribe more to the New Testament portrayal of God as loving Father (actually Father and Mother in my view) as opposed the punishing king God of the OT and my view of the fall and atonement as noted above. While there are likely earthly (natural) consequences to sin (offenses) in this life there are not Godly punishments - NOR are there such punishments in the next life because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. His unending and unlimited atonement is expressly meant to absolve us of all eternal punishment and suffering because he took that all upon himself because of the love of God and the love Jesus has for us. Quoting directly from Givens in All Things New, pp 100-101:

If my child disobeys my counsel, I am not (or not properly) angry. I do not react to protect my parental dignity I am not jealous for my parental prerogatives; I am not concerned with my parental authority, or honor, or standing. I am saddened because in ignoring the counsel borne of my love and wisdom, my child opens herself to harm, to pain, to disappointment. I do not stand ready to reward the child for obedience or to punish for disobedience; her decision to follow the counsel redounds to her good, and disobedience to her harm. . . Obedience drawn out of us from fear is but slavery. Motivated by blessings, it is but economic calculation. . . [W]e should think of obedience as a response to loving counsel rather than to divine command (100–101).

That brings us to the idea of repentance - change. Repentance is also widely misunderstood in the CoJCoLDS, and that misunderstanding is directly related to the theologies of other churches that crept into our own doctrines, theology, and teachings. Elder Russell Nelson in April 2007 said this (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng):

The doctrine of repentance is much broader than a dictionary’s definition. When Jesus said “repent,” His disciples recorded that command in the Greek language with the verb metanoeo. This powerful word has great significance. In this word, the prefix meta means “change.” The suffix relates to four important Greek terms: nous, meaning “the mind”; gnosis, meaning “knowledge”; pneuma, meaning “spirit”; and pnoe, meaning “breath.”
Thus, when Jesus said “repent,” He asked us to change—to change our mind, knowledge, and spirit—even our breath.

Theodore M. Burton, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy when there were far fewer quorums and far fewer members of the quorum, had further clarified this idea of the Greek word metanoeo in a BYU speech in 1985(emphasis added; https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/theodore ... epentance/:

Let us now turn to the New Testament which was written in Greek. How did those Greek writers translate the word “shube” into Greek and still retain its concept of repentance? They used the word “metaneoeo,” which is a compound word of two parts. The first part, “meta,” we use as a prefix in our English vocabulary. When we eat we convert food by a process of metabolism into fat, muscle, and connective tissue. When we see a crawling caterpillar stop, attach itself to a limb and spin a cocoon, the insect inside its silken case undergoes metamorphosis. It changes its form into a moth or a beautiful butterfly. The prefix “meta,” then, refers to change.
The second part of the word “metaneoeo” is subject to various spellings. The letter “n,” for instance, is sometimes transliterated as “pn,” as in the French word “pneu,” meaning an airfilled tire. We also find “pneu” in our word pneumatic, as, for instance, a pneumatic hammer or a pneumatic drill, which are air-driven tools. It is also found in our word pneumonia, which is an air sickness of the lungs. There are several spellings of this root and many meanings attached to this word which can mean air, mind, thought, thinking, or spirit, depending on how it is used.
The Greek usage of words is similar to that of English, as, for example, with the word “spirit.” To a child, spirit might mean a ghost; to you, spirit may mean influence such as team spirit or the spirit of Elijah. But to me—since I was an organic chemist during my university years—or to a pharmacist, spirit simply means ethyl alcohol. In the context where “meta” and “neoeo” are used in the New Testament, the word “metaneoeo” means a change of mind or thought or thinking so powerful and so strong that it changes our very way of life. I think “metaneoeo” is an excellent translation of “shube.” The meaning of both these words is to turn or change from evil to righteousness and God.
But trouble came when Greek was translated into Latin. Only the educated people spoke Greek. When the New Testament was translated into Latin for the use of the common people who spoke that language, an unfortunate choice was made in translation. “Metaneoeo” was translated into the word “poenitere.” The root “poen” in that word is the same root found in our English words punish, penance, penitent, and repentance. So the beautiful meaning of Hebrew and Greek was changed in Latin to an ugly meaning involving hurting, punishing, whipping, cutting, mutilating, disfiguring, starving, or even torturing. Small wonder then that most people have come to fear and dread the word repentance which they were taught and now understand to mean repeated or neverending punishment. People must somehow be made to realize that the true meaning of repentance is that we do not require people to be punished or to punish themselves, but to change their lives so they can escape eternal punishment. If they have this understanding, it will relieve their anxiety and fears and become a welcome and treasured word in our religious vocabulary.

It's sad to me that the meaning of the word was altered by translation. And just for added clarity, earlier in that same talk Elder Burton had talked about the original Hebrew word shube (emphasis added):

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the word used for this concept of repentance is “shube:” Let me read a passage from Ezekiel 33:8–11 and insert the word “shube” along with its English translation to help us understand what repentance is:
When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to [shube, or] turn from it; if he do not [shube, or] turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
When a person despairs and says: “There is nothing left for me!” “All hope is gone!” “I can’t be forgiven!” “What purpose is left in life?” “I might as well be dead!” God instructs the “watchman on the tower” to
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked [shube, or] turn from his way and live: [shube, shube!] turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? [Ezekiel 33:8–11]
I know of no kinder, sweeter passage in the Old Testament than those beautiful lines. Can you hear a kind, wise, gentle, loving Father in Heaven pleading with you to “shube” or turn back to him, to leave unhappiness, sorrow, regret, and despair behind and now turn back to your Father’s family where you can find happiness, joy, and acceptance among his other children? In the Father’s family, you are surrounded with love and affection. That is the message of the Old Testament, and prophet after prophet writes of “shube,” which is that turning back to the family of the Lord where you can be received with joy and rejoicing. There is an implicit message there that we in the family of Jesus Christ ought never forget. We must receive the former transgressor back into this family with open arms and comfort and bless him for making the change....
Throughout the Old Testament, a fundamental theme is forsaking or turning from evil and doing instead that which is noble and good. Not only must we change our ways; we must as well change our very thoughts which control our actions. Repentance is a turning back to God!

I know this is getting long, and my view on sin is really more complex that what I have presented. But I'll end it here with this thought:
This life isn't a contest to see who wins and gets the biggest mansion. We are all to be given all that the Father has. At the end there's enough ice cream for everybody, and we all get all that we want. Our goal here is not be be mired down by our perceived misdeeds and constantly bemoaning our fallen and sinful state, but to trust that Jesus did do and will do all that he promised and to look toward God and resolve to make the changes we need to make to be better, or nicer, to each other. Like the prodigal son, God the Father is not looking to punish us (from Luke 15 NRSV):

...while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.

[Old-Timer]

Just one short point, since the thread extends over a long time:

The original “sin” punished in the Old Testament (in the ONLY verse used to condemn masturbation) was not masturbation. The man had married his brother’s wife specifically to have that brother’s blood line continue - as was the custom of that time. It was the entire reason why sexual activity with her was allowed: so his brother, through her, could have a legacy. (Twisted, but real back then)

The wording says he was having sex (getting that benefit from the marriage) but “spilled his seed on the ground” (didn’t finish his responsibility / didn’t have complete sex, so to speak). Literally nothing in the story explicitly says he masturbated. In other words, he used her for his own pleasure and “killed” the future child he was supposed to be creating. The sentence (death) was for that theoretical murder.

Later cultures took the story and translated it into masturbation being a sin.

I agree that masturbation can BECOME sinful (for various reasons that are not appropriate to detail here in our forum), but there is no scriptural justification for labeling it always AS sinful.