13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[scottie]

Is masturbation definitively a sin in the Mormon church? It's been my observation that some, probably most, active LDS members think it absolutely is but I also know of some active LDS who think it absolutely is not. Some may think that since some prophets/apostles preach against it it therefore is a sin, but I would venture to say that not all prophets/apostles have preached against it (and maybe some of those are higher-ups who don't think it's a sin). The reason I ask the question -- if active LDS adults are conflicted about it, I don't think browbeating teenagers and young adults about it is a healthy thing. Just my opinion, of course.

[RobinFinderson]

Is masturbation definitively a sin in the Mormon church? It's been my observation that some, probably most, active LDS members think it absolutely is but I also know of some active LDS who think it absolutely is not. Some may think that since some prophets/apostles preach against it it therefore is a sin, but I would venture to say that not all prophets/apostles have preached against it (and maybe some of those are higher-ups who don't think it's a sin). The reason I ask the question -- if active LDS adults are conflicted about it, I don't think browbeating teenagers and young adults about it is a healthy thing. Just my opinion, of course.

These are very good questions, and could even be an interesting separate thread, but I'm feeling bad for contributing to the derailing of this thread and hope that it can get back to the subject of the excellent post on Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Sorry Mrs. Funk!

[mUUser]

With all due respect I skipped right to the 13 suggestions:

As a general rule, I think a bishop is asked to do too much in the church. By and large the vast majority of them are not properly trained or prepared to deal with a good number of those topics -- and it still blows my mind that YW are allowed to go behind a closed door to speak to a bishop about a wide variety of things, but a business lunch between a man and a woman is discouraged.

Having said that, I don't understand the problem with #5. I'm grateful my wife (and daughters) almost always try to look put-together -- clothes, exercise, diet etc.... I try to do the same. I don't get it.

[pellegrino]

This one hits close to home. I have three daughters and the thought of how to educate them so that they do have healthy attitudes/perceptions about sex. To that end we are open about things and have had age appropriate discussions thus far.

I'm ambivalent about the whole bishop interview thing. I think it would be a good idea to have a parent there, but I wouldn't want that made policy because it could potentially backfire. What if a child has/is being sexually abused by a parent and that parent is required to be there? Not to say that the child would always offer that information in a private interview, but still, that type of a scenario would be a mess.

I think what we'll do is have frank discussions with our daughters about what should go on in a bishop's interview. I'll also discuss my expectations with the bishop. We plan on fostering an environment in which our girls would feel comfortable discussing sexual activity with us as parents. Anything that would need to be discussed with a bishop will (in theory) be known by us beforehand and so we'll be able to discuss how to take care of it with priesthood authority, if there is that need.

I also think it's important to follow their lessons in YW with them so that we can discuss and correct any misguided or patently false assertions being made.

It's not an easy thing to grow up in this world and being Mormon can sometimes complicated that with guilt and distorted views on sex. It would be nice to see the church approach sex in a refreshing way that wasn't straight out of the 1950s, but I'm not confident that it will. Instead, I'll do my part and hope it works out.

Thanks for posting that Mrs. Funk, I think it will be very helpful in our efforts.

[Goatnapper'96]

Is masturbation definitively a sin in the Mormon church? It's been my observation that some, probably most, active LDS members think it absolutely is but I also know of some active LDS who think it absolutely is not. Some may think that since some prophets/apostles preach against it it therefore is a sin, but I would venture to say that not all prophets/apostles have preached against it (and maybe some of those are higher-ups who don't think it's a sin). The reason I ask the question -- if active LDS adults are conflicted about it, I don't think browbeating teenagers and young adults about it is a healthy thing. Just my opinion, of course.

I don't know if this is LDS doctrine but this is my belief. I view much of the LDS teachings/practices /doctrine/habits/cultural shortcomings/the fact that SeattleUte probably has a small penis as little more than gateways to attitudes. I think the LDS Church's stance is pretty clear, sex outside of marriage has serious potential to negatively impact the lives of individuals as well as create societal problems. Hence, it is a belief that God has instructed His children to only participate in it within the bounds of matrimony. Because I interpret the primary concern of LDS theology to be about mankind's individual pursuit for salvation and exaltation, I think the fundamental concern is within the attitudes of the individual. I don't think making out, dry humping or yanking ones own wank is going to bring to pass any Alma the Younger with an Angel experience. Most societies and cultures use fear tactics to influence folks away from actions and habits the culture determines unhealthy or threatening. Mormons are no different. This is what sums up my perspective. I don't think masturbation is a serious sin, but I do think that not learning to control oneself can lead to attitudes about sex or habits that can lead to immorality. I view masturbation within that light. It is not the end of the world and will not lead to one wanting to pork the family pooch and I doubt it makes one's palms hairy, but I think the habit or attitude that fulfilling one's sexual urges outside of marriage - even with just yourself- is an unhealthy attitude. I believe the primary purpose of life's journey is to learn to control the natural man.

And for the record when I was in the U of U masturbaterium to provide my half of the in-vitro raw goods, I did not even open the third drawer for the available reading material. It really might have been the girls of the SEC for all I know, I just chose Pac-10 because at the time it was where the Utes lusted to go........

[shoganai]

My personal view is that it is okay for a Bishop to ask a child whether they live the law of chastity. If the child says "what is that" I think the answer should be "that is a question I would prefer your parent answer and once you have talked to them about it we can talk again."

I agree with this. I also think church HQ generally agrees with this. Everything I've come across instructs bishops to be extremely delicate and get/give no more information than is absolutely necessary with regards to chastity interviews.

Having parents present in bishop's interviews might solve these problems, but it just opens up a whole separate can of worms. It's an opportunity for abusive parents to exert more control. Also, there are a lot of teenagers that are probably MORE comfortable talking about their sins and struggles with a bishop than a parent.

The fact is, bishops are designated as judges in Israel, and there are certain sins a teenager can commit that require action or assistance on the part of a judge. There's really no getting around that.

Will there be certain bishops that don't handle that responsibility correctly? Of course. And in exceptional cases that could be extremely damaging to the youth involved. But, of all the ways I'm worried about protecting my children, this one is down the list quite a ways.

I think they're much more likely to experience trouble elsewhere. And, the fact is, there comes a point where you have to be practical and realize you can never protect them from every possible bad situation, no matter how hard we try.

[UtahDan]

I agree with this. I also think church HQ generally agrees with this. Everything I've come across instructs bishops to be extremely delicate and get/give no more information than is absolutely necessary with regards to chastity interviews.

Having parents present in bishop's interviews might solve these problems, but it just opens up a whole separate can of worms. It's an opportunity for abusive parents to exert more control. Also, there are a lot of teenagers that are probably MORE comfortable talking about their sins and struggles with a bishop than a parent.

Yes, children are at risk from their parents as well. But I don't view having a parent in this interview as foreclosing the only other place this could come out. If a child is ready to disclose abuse, I think it is infinitely more like to be disclosed to a trusted friend, relative or teacher, not a Bishop who they see all the time but have virtually no interaction with week to week. Balancing the harms, I still come down on the side of wanting to be there. I know that seems really paranoid to some, but bad things have happened in these settings and I just see no reason to run the risk.

The fact is, bishops are designated as judges in Israel, and there are certain sins a teenager can commit that require action or assistance on the part of a judge. There's really no getting around that.

Will there be certain bishops that don't handle that responsibility correctly? Of course. And in exceptional cases that could be extremely damaging to the youth involved. But, of all the ways I'm worried about protecting my children, this one is down the list quite a ways.

I think they're much more likely to experience trouble elsewhere. And, the fact is, there comes a point where you have to be practical and realize you can never protect them from every possible bad situation, no matter how hard we try.

Forgive me but this makes no sense to me at all. There are lots of things that threaten our kids, some very likely and some not very likely. But we teach them to look both ways before they cross the street AND not to talk to strangers. This argument would have more merit to me if there were a very high cost of prevention but the cost is minuscule. My house burning down is remarkably unlikely. But I still have an escape plan and own fire insurance. As I say, there really is no cost to this. No one is offended, you aren't reaching paranoia, etc.

To me the bottom line here is this is a situation invariable involves discussion of sex, even if it is only very indirectly, with your child by someone who is not a family member. I think it is not responsible to not be involved in that in some fashion, even if what you are doing is preparing them for it or discussing it after. I would assume you would not send them in blind. So the only thing we are really talking about is the way in which you decide to get involved. If anyone really is thinking "well I know sex may come up with my 12 year old but I'm not really worried about it, no need to address it with them or anyone else" I would respectfully suggest reflecting a little more on whether that is adequate (I really doubt that is you).

[Surfah]

So since Bishop's shouldn't discuss sex with kids, should our often equally untrained/unqualified school teacher's be discussing sex in school?

[Mrs. Funk]

These are very good questions, and could even be an interesting separate thread, but I'm feeling bad for contributing to the derailing of this thread and hope that it can get back to the subject of the excellent post on Feminist Mormon Housewives.

Sorry Mrs. Funk!

Hey, don't worry about it. I think your comments were very relevant.

[UtahDan]

So since Bishop's shouldn't discuss sex with kids, should our often equally untrained/unqualified school teacher's be discussing sex in school?

I'm glad someone said this because it is worth comparing. We both have little kids who at some point will have a sex ed class to take in school. When that happens the school will notify us that it is about to teach this, give us access to precisely what the curriculum will be and give us a chance to opt out. If we do elect to allow them to do it (most do), we will prepare them for it and discuss it with them afterwards. They will be taught by someone who has some training and experience with covering this material (not perfect, but more than a Bishop has) and it will be in an open door setting where lots of other children, and perhaps some other adults, are present.

So the concerns I have about closed doors, not knowing what will be said, having someone who may or may not know how to appropriately broach the topic and having the person be God's representative in my child's eyes...none of those things are present.

So my answer is I am fine with it being taught in public school, but I am going to be getting an advance copy of the curriculum and what they hear in school will be a supplement to what I have already covered.

[Sleeping in EQ]

That's a great article, Mrs. Funk.

Yes, somehow much of the discourse in the Church about sex manages to be both anti-male and anti-female.

[DrumNFeather]

Yes, children are at risk from their parents as well. But I don't view having a parent in this interview as foreclosing the only other place this could come out. If a child is ready to disclose abuse, I think it is infinitely more like to be disclosed to a trusted friend, relative or teacher, not a Bishop who they see all the time but have virtually no interaction with week to week. Balancing the harms, I still come down on the side of wanting to be there. I know that seems really paranoid to some, but bad things have happened in these settings and I just see no reason to run the risk.




Forgive me but this makes no sense to me at all. There are lots of things that threaten our kids, some very likely and some not very likely. But we teach them to look both ways before they cross the street AND not to talk to strangers. This argument would have more merit to me if there were a very high cost of prevention but the cost is minuscule. My house burning down is remarkably unlikely. But I still have an escape plan and own fire insurance. As I say, there really is no cost to this. No one is offended, you aren't reaching paranoia, etc.

To me the bottom line here is this is a situation invariable involves discussion of sex, even if it is only very indirectly, with your child by someone who is not a family member. I think it is not responsible to not be involved in that in some fashion, even if what you are doing is preparing them for it or discussing it after. I would assume you would not send them in blind. So the only thing we are really talking about is the way in which you decide to get involved. If anyone really is thinking "well I know sex may come up with my 12 year old but I'm not really worried about it, no need to address it with them or anyone else" I would respectfully suggest reflecting a little more on whether that is adequate (I really doubt that is you).

I don't know if this is what you're doing, but compairing talking to a bishop to talking to a stranger might be overstating a bit. I would think that a child's positive or negative relationship with his or her Bishop is 100% under control of the parents. If the parents are teaching their child that the bishop is not to be trusted and as such, no information should be divulged in a worthiness interview, then it seems to me that that is not a bishop issue at all.

[Surfah]

I'm glad someone said this because it is worth comparing. We both have little kids who at some point will have a sex ed class to take in school. When that happens the school will notify us that it is about to teach this, give us access to precisely what the curriculum will be and give us a chance to opt out. If we do elect to allow them to do it (most do), we will prepare them for it and discuss it with them afterwards. They will be taught by someone who has some training and experience with covering this material (not perfect, but more than a Bishop has) and it will be in an open door setting where lots of other children, and perhaps some other adults, are present.

So the concerns I have about closed doors, not knowing what will be said, having someone who may or may not know how to appropriately broach the topic and having the person be God's representative in my child's eyes...none of those things are present.

So my answer is I am fine with it being taught in public school, but I am going to be getting an advance copy of the curriculum and what they hear in school will be a supplement to what I have already covered.

I knew the response I'd get, I just wanted to flush out some of the details. I hope I am never called to be Bishop.

In 5th grade when all the boys in my grade got the talk we were gathered into a classroom and sat on the floor. After watching an awesome filmstrip, then the Miracle of Life, and some brief instruction we had a Q & A session. All my friends dared me to ask if sex hurt. So I did. The teacher, not particularly attractive and the mother of a girl in our grade said no, and that it actually feels great. A collective ewwwww! erupted from the class and we were dismissed.

[UtahDan]

I don't know if this is what you're doing, but compairing talking to a bishop to talking to a stranger might be overstating a bit. I would think that a child's positive or negative relationship with his or her Bishop is 100% under control of the parents. If the parents are teaching their child that the bishop is not to be trusted and as such, no information should be divulged in a worthiness interview, then it seems to me that that is not a bishop issue at all.

I think that is a valid point. I can't think of any reason to teach a child to mistrust a Bishop. What I'm saying is that the danger of a child having a damaging experience is greater, in my opinion, than the danger that the child will lose her only opportunity to disclose that I am an abuser by me being there. I don't say the Bishop is a stranger, but I still think abuse is much more likely to be disclosed to someone with whom they have a personal rather than arms length relationship, even if they have all the love and respect in the world for him. Does that make sense?

[shoganai]

Forgive me but this makes no sense to me at all. There are lots of things that threaten our kids, some very likely and some not very likely. But we teach them to look both ways before they cross the street AND not to talk to strangers. This argument would have more merit to me if there were a very high cost of prevention but the cost is minuscule. My house burning down is remarkably unlikely. But I still have an escape plan and own fire insurance. As I say, there really is no cost to this. No one is offended, you aren't reaching paranoia, etc.

To me the bottom line here is this is a situation invariable involves discussion of sex, even if it is only very indirectly, with your child by someone who is not a family member. I think it is not responsible to not be involved in that in some fashion, even if what you are doing is preparing them for it or discussing it after. I would assume you would not send them in blind. So the only thing we are really talking about is the way in which you decide to get involved. If anyone really is thinking "well I know sex may come up with my 12 year old but I'm not really worried about it, no need to address it with them or anyone else" I would respectfully suggest reflecting a little more on whether that is adequate (I really doubt that is you).

The only thing I was talking about, was my personal feeling on youth having closed-door discussions on chastity with a bishop.

I made no comment about preparing for, or discussing these conversations.

I do want to throw out one more point I briefly referenced before, though. How do we know our kids even want us in that room?

Are we all assuming that we're such perfect, wonderful parents that our kids will be completely open and willing to talk about intimate, embarrassing topics or mistakes during all the teenage phases? I think some of us have faded memories of our own adolescence if we really expect that. Even the best parents aren't going to always have that relationship with every child.

I'm certainly going to work as hard as I can to foster communication, discussion, and openness with my kids. But, I'm not going to be offended if they go to a trusted spiritual advisor for help. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were initially more comfortable with that, than having a confession or discussion in front of Mom/Dad.