“Don’t Touch” — Summary
Why This Article
As an active Latter-day Saint marriage and family therapist, I have worked with many clients who have struggled for many years with pornography and masturbation. At the same time, most of my couples work involves a need to cultivate increasing desire. The current approaches of reading more scriptures, prayer, temple attendance, more faith, and the 12-step addiction treatment model are just not working. In some cases, this approach of sin and fear-based motivation does more harm than good and makes the problems worse.
I have found a solution to struggles with masturbation and pornography that matches The Church of Jesus Christ doctrine on sexuality and gives dramatic results within months.
Historical Background
Church leaders in the 1800s and early 1900s, in contrast to prevailing notions of the day, taught that sexual urges and feelings are to be celebrated and encouraged as God-given. However, not one mention of masturbation as a sin can be found in scripture or in official teachings of this period. This was in stark contrast to culturally common medical quackery ideas from the 1700s, similar to bloodletting, that masturbation led to all manner of physical and mental disabilities. In the early 1900s, as medical research disproved these inaccurate fears, The Church published manuals that embraced the science that masturbation did not cause insanity.
Beginning in the 1950s, perhaps as a reaction to zoologist Alfred Kinsey’s 1948 and 1953 popular books on human sexuality that dismissed marriage and morality, Church leaders began an abrupt shift toward emphasizing sexuality as a serious sin. They also for the first time began asserting masturbation as a sin. This emphasis continued in various teachings through the 1980s. All of these assertions about masturbation, however, were given without support from scripture, and without support from medical research, which now mostly contradicted leaders’ assertions. Some people even specifically opposed medical science on the topic, in at least one case resulting in the suicide of a client and a wrongful malpractice settlement.
Current Teachings And Research
Anti-masturbation pamphlets and books are no longer available from official Church sources, though they are widely mocked among critics of The Church and are viewed with deep concern by medical professionals. The best known current official publication on the topic, For the Strength of Youth (2011), does not mention masturbation, but does suggest, “do not arouse these emotions in your own body” in the context of sexual contact with others. This statement is helpful in the context of caution around premarital sexual relations. However, it can also leave youth confused and guilty when they experience hormonal surges in which “these emotions” are aroused every day, without intention, through all kinds of normal healthy activities. Concerned young men are praying for God to take away the daily erections that are part of normal, healthy development. Local leaders vary widely in their approaches — some asserting masturbation is a serious sin, others convinced it is not a sin at all.
In the past few decades, the idea of “sexual addiction” has been introduced, and Latter-day Saint efforts often utilize ideas based on the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program. Elder Oaks’ 2015 Ensign article did not discuss masturbation but suggested caution about the over-use of addiction treatment for pornography, asserting, “In fact, most young men and young women who struggle with pornography are not addicted.” His article cited extensively from medical research. Many medical professionals argue that research does not support categorizing sexuality as an addiction and that treating it as such does not work because it reduces personal responsibility and uses fear as a motivator. In addition, this anti-biology mentality can lead to many married couples who struggle with overcoming past fears and shame to cultivate healthy sexual desire.
A Solution That Works
Below is a solution that I found works and is compatible with scripture with the restored gospel that sexuality is a God-given, healthy and positive part of our mortal experience. It avoids fear or addiction as a motivator and is compatible with scientific research.
The goal: sexual self-mastery, not sexual self-rejection
Understand the truth that God created your sexual feelings because He loves you and wants you to have joy and to multiply and replenish the earth. Recognize that masturbation is not supported as a sin in any scripture, and was not mentioned at all by Church leaders until the 1950s. Therefore, it cannot be as serious as sins such as failing to love yourself or others and a number of other issues repeatedly emphasized in all the standard works. Medical science does not support physical or mental harms from masturbation, but does show significant harms from excessive guilt, shame, fear, and aversion to sexual feelings. Involve the Lord in the process of cultivating, appreciating, and mastering, and not removing, suppressing, or rejecting sexual desire.
Track baseline activities for 2-4 weeks. Measure your normal daily activities without attempts at abstinence — record when you use porn or masturbate as well as prayer, scriptures, temple attendance, and physical activity, and note emotional or other life challenges.
Measure progress toward your own individual goals on these items and report to the Lord in prayer. Use these data charts to identify patterns related to scripture, prayer, temple, fitness or time connecting with others. Continue to masturbate as a beautiful, respectful discovery of one's individual sexual desires, including planning time to explore and enjoy your body. The goal is sexual self-mastery, not rejection and elimination.
Study and learn from the best books. Using accurate and well-researched information, become familiar with your own arousal cycle and desires, and male and female biology and hormones.
For parents:
Teach by example the beauty of sexual desire. When addressing your child’s sexual desires and masturbation, focus on the beauty of desire and emphasize how amazing those feelings are. Offer them insights into how we are to learn and master our bodies. Celebrate with them that they are experiencing this new phase of life and how much more amazing it will be if mastered and learned. A youth learning and developing into their pubescent years is no more experiencing a sin by masturbating than a diabetic learning how to control and regulate their blood sugar.
For leaders:
Teach self-mastery concepts to parents. Stop telling youth that masturbation is a sin or dwelling on spiritual or physical fears. Avoid abstract timelines like abstinence for 14 days. Also, your role is spiritual counselor, not a mental health professional. You are not qualified to call a struggle with self-mastery an addiction. Don’t immediately send youth to the church’s Addiction Recovery Program or an effort modeled like Sons of Helaman or Daughters of Light. If the problem is severe enough that they cannot function in everyday life, recommend a professional therapist and let that professional determine the mental health issues that may or may not be involved.
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages”
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
________________________________
Read the full blog here:
Table of Contents
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Intro
In this exploration of Latter-day Saint sexuality, we venture into a realm often shrouded in complexity and sensitivity: masturbation within the LDS faith. This subject is not merely about the broader spectrum of sexuality — a topic our faith community is progressively engaging with more openness — but rather, it focuses on the intricacies of addressing masturbation, a matter deeply intertwined with our doctrinal beliefs, cultural nuances, and personal spiritual journeys.
The discussion of sexuality within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has evolved over time, reflecting broader societal changes and internal dialogues within the faith. However, masturbation remains a topic that is often met with hesitation and uncertainty. It is a subject that touches upon the core of individual morality and spiritual health, demanding a conversation that is both respectful and insightful.
Addressing this topic requires a careful balance. On one hand, there is the need to uphold the doctrinal teachings of the Church, which has historically viewed masturbation as contrary to the laws of chastity. On the other hand, there is a growing recognition of the complexities of human sexuality and the challenges individuals face in their personal lives, especially in an era where information and diverse perspectives are more accessible than ever.
This article aims to bridge this divide, offering a thorough exploration that respects the faith's doctrinal foundations while acknowledging the personal struggles and questions many Latter-day Saints face. It is an attempt to provide a compassionate, understanding, and doctrinally informed perspective on a subject that is often mired in silence and misunderstanding.
In the LDS context, masturbation is not just a matter of physical action; it encompasses a range of emotional, psychological, and spiritual concerns. It's often tied to feelings of guilt, shame, and confusion, particularly among youth and young adults who are navigating their formative years in a faith-centered environment. The Church's teachings on chastity and the sacred nature of the body are central to understanding the LDS perspective on this topic. However, there is also a need to consider the realistic experiences of members who grapple with these teachings in their daily lives.
This multi-part article will explore the historical context of the Church's stance on masturbation, tracing how teachings have evolved and how they are interpreted in modern times. It will delve into the scriptural and doctrinal underpinnings of the Church's position, while also giving voice to the experiences and struggles of individual members.
We will also examine the role of Church leaders, educators, and parents in guiding and supporting individuals in understanding and living the principles of chastity. This includes a discussion on the resources and approaches available within the Church to address questions and concerns related to masturbation.
Ultimately, this exploration is about finding a path that respects and upholds the teachings of the Church while also being sensitive to the personal journeys of its members. It is about fostering an environment of understanding, compassion, and open dialogue, where questions can be addressed without fear and individuals can find support in their efforts to live in harmony with their faith and personal convictions.
Through this book, readers are invited to engage in a thoughtful, respectful, and informed dialogue on a topic that is integral to our understanding of self, our relationship with God, and our interactions within the LDS community. It is a journey towards greater understanding, empathy, and spiritual guidance.
Next Chapter: Background - It Happened Again
Table of Contents: TL;DR — Summary
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again: Unveiling personal stories and experiences that bring to light the recurring struggles within our community.
2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Tracing the historical perspectives on masturbation within the Church, providing a foundation for understanding present views.
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning: Examining the balance between fostering healthy sexuality and addressing spiritual concerns.
4. What Went Wrong?: Identifying shifts and changes in the Church's approach to sexuality and its impact on members.
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine and Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s: Exploring the intersection of doctrine, addiction, and the return to earlier perspectives in modern contexts.
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity: Discussing the challenges of navigating sexual morality within the framework of LDS teachings.
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality: Proposing pathways towards a harmonious understanding of sexuality and faith.
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Part 6
Previous Chapter: 5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
Purity, Modesty And Moral Ambiguity
A quick word on purity and modesty and how it’s negatively feeding into our perception/paradigm and preventing healthy solutions. These are probably two of the most ambiguous terms I hear in the context of sexuality. Possibly due to the misunderstanding of lust and coveting in Matthew 5:27–8, purity is most often used in the context of naiveté. Jason A. Staples Ph.D., professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at NC State University addresses this topic well: “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages.” Also see “Modesty: I Don’t Think it Means What You Think it Means” by Rachel Held Evans and “The Costs of Misunderstanding Modesty” by Julie de Azevedo Hanks.
Our current paradigm, I believe, is a product of our reincorporating 1700s ideas into our cultural belief system. A phrase parents use in “sharing too much” with their children is they must “protect their purity.” Some parents have described how exposure to various media and forms of pornography puts their children’s purity at risk. The “For the Strength of Youth” (FSOY) reinforces this idea in its section on “Sexual Purity.” it reads,
“Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.
“Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.”[1]
I believe there is great wisdom in the cautions given in this guidance while at the same time it seems to communicate a confusing paradox. It placed parents and youth in a potentially double bind predicament. Will discussing sexual development, sexual desire, exploring concerns, curiosities, questions, discoveries intentionally or unintentionally lead to “arousing sexual feelings”? As loving parents, we would never want to make our children impure. I have worked with youth and adults who “remove” themselves from therapeutic discussions involving sexually related topics. One wife experienced this paradox when she sought out help for “intimate issues” in her marriage, but refused to discuss or explore any sexually-related details. Unfortunately, soon after she stopped coming to therapy.
Biologically, pubescent youth will, without any intent at all, experience arousal. It’s not just expected; it’s normal and healthy. YAY! Their body is functioning exactly as designed. Will discussing sexuality lead youth (or adults) to experience some sort of arousal? Maybe, yes. This predicament appears to leave parents, youth, and leaders with ONE option: “Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.” Which is to not do any of the above or anything that will potentially increase your temptation.
As one insightful YSA woman observed, “Leaving all the confusion, arousal, blame of inadvertent arousal, and curiosities to fester inside the child in silence. Building up fear in the child of themselves, their body and the thought to seek answers. Resulting in the child either repressing the natural curiosity that it is to understand their body or seeking the answers out through individuals who may not have the right intentions in mind — or accurate understanding of it themselves (kids to kids or kids to porn, or to experience it themselves just to understand).”
Under this interpretation, I do not fault parents’ fear of harming their child's purity.
But I don’t believe this is the intent of the message of sexual purity. I don’t believe it discourages meaningful, preparatory discussions with our children or those we have stewardship over. The above message is a warning against engaging in sexual relationships. The FSOY is providing a definition of sexual purity in the context of physical relationships with others. “Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage. Do not allow the media, your peers, or others to persuade you that sexual intimacy before marriage is acceptable.”
As for the part that says “Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body,” at best, this is confusing and at worst fosters anxiety, depression, guilt and sexual dissociation. This can lead to tragic consequences which are medically substantiated and unfortunately occurred in the case of Kip Eliason, in the early ‘'80s.
The Church has made leaps and bounds in updating its material and pulling away from the moral absolutes of President Kimball and Elder McConkie, not to mention the decades of Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone’s personal mission to purge masturbation from the earth, with his quoting from President Clark and teaching medically incorrect information. In a somewhat bizarre lecture to a group of Latter-day Saint counselors at an Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists (AMCAP) meeting, Elder Featherstone makes some bold and impossible-to-substantiate claims about the missionaries he presided over. Further he called a married couple to repentance for participating in masturbation together as a couple.[2] The interviewing behavior he described appeared to be in conflict with a First Presidency letter in January 5 and October 15, 1982, that stated “When interviewing married persons, the one doing the interviewing should scrupulously avoid indelicate inquiries…” and interviews were to precisely follow as outlined in the “temple recommend book.” Further, no one should ever “inquire into personal, intimate matters involving marital relations between a man and his wife ... if in the course of such interviews a member asks questions about the propriety of specific conduct, you should not pursue the matter …”
Nonetheless, the hard-hitting, absolute statements made in the ‘60s and ‘70s are culturally difficult for people to part from. Ironically, as often as we boast in the uniqueness of our faith by repeating the Prophet Joseph Smith’s “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves,” we are a very directive people. We crave black and white answers. These absolutes are spoken with such conviction as to either be interpreted as doctrine or literally taught as doctrine. As in the case of this mission president in 2003, who is teaching “doctrine” while clearly not knowing what he is talking about. Saying “the brethren call that ‘self abuse’ instead of masturbation. It’s a little softer word. It’s more dignified.” What’s even more surprising is that this mission president is also an OB/GYN physician. He should know better. It’s more dignified? Culture is difficult to change. But these statements are becoming less and less frequent. Is anyone else excited we haven’t heard a single mention of porn in priesthood conference the last couple years?! Why? Because it’s a poor and ineffective approach.
Therefore, simply saying “Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings,” etc., is confusing and sets youth up for failure. Based on the previous comments and our cultural understanding of purity, ANYTHING can arouse sexual feelings. For a 14-year-old boy, mind pumping full of hormones, walking into a donut shop can elicit all sorts of sexual feelings. Not to be silly, but real and honest. Does that innocent boy now swear off all donut shops? By the way, that’s a real example. Youth (and adults) struggle to differentiate between intentional arousal and the biological experience they are naturally having.
I have often wondered why the Lord would “bless” a child so young to experience something so powerful as sexual desires and arousal. One youth expressed, “I’m two different people: the worthy priesthood holder passing the sacrament and the other a dark, isolated kid who enjoys these ‘feelings’.”
Furthermore, what FSOY doesn’t address is what to do when you do nothing that “arouses sexual feelings,” and a young boy has an erection for going on for hours and all he did was wake up. What about the young girl who experience butterflies in her stomach and can’t seem to shake the urge? Furthermore, and I say this in the most sincere and respectful tone, have faith and be obedient to what righteous counsel of parents and leaders? Even if the child was unashamed and fortunate enough to have adults in their lives who could discuss the topic, what are they putting their faith and obedience into?
As a result from these teachings, you leave children with a couple of options. One, somehow completely suppress the feelings. Two, spend years battling the compulsion. These are such negative perspectives and have lasting consequences as previously discussed. There are more options than sucky choice A and sucky choice B, as my wife so often says.
Next Chapter: 7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
4. What Went Wrong?
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
[1] https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng
[2] Featherstone, Vaughn (1 October 1990). "However Faint the Light May Glow". Issues in Religion and Psychotherapy. 16 (1): 65–66 http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=irp
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Part 7
Previous Chapter: 6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Masturbate. Yes, masturbate.
Learn your body. Cultivate and master your God-given desires as early as possible. Rejection, suppression, and ignoring are not tools of self-mastery. We treat sexuality as an exception to the concept of self-mastery. We have convinced ourselves that it’s a gateway drug to all sorts of illness, addictions, and selfish behavior. We shouldn’t tell people they can’t pray if their prayers aren’t in harmony with God’s will, that they are in danger of the “sin of the Zoramites.” We don’t tell people they can’t bear their testimonies because what they’re sharing is not really a testimony. We don’t tell people they can’t eat if they don’t know how to eat healthy; at least we shouldn’t. You might say, “It’s different, it doesn’t involve those powerful sexual chemicals.” If that’s true, ALL the more reason to learn and master earlier on.
Self-mastery is a physical discovery of limitations and passions through intimate knowledge of oneself. Why is it any different with sexual desires and masturbation? I would argue that forced abstinence from masturbating is just as sinful as those who say that doing it is because you are not valuing, understanding, nor mastering the body God blessed you with. Why have we pulled away from the healthy understanding of this concept taught in the 1920s? Because modern day Tissots, Kelloggs, Martens, and organizations such as FTND have convinced us that sexual desire is the “New Drug”!
What I am not saying: Free-range masturbation. That is not self-mastery. It’s interesting, when I teach self-mastery, it’s often interpreted as “no limits,” but when I work with clients on fitness, diet, or emotional behaviors, it’s well understood what self-mastery is in those cases. When I say, “you need to master your anger,” no one has yet snapped at me (fortunately) saying, “How dare you say it’s okay for me to be angry.” Yet that’s what people both hear and believe is being communicated when the topic involves masturbation.
Self-Mastery: Specifically. Although the concept is simple, the concept needs to be adapted to various situations: personal, biological, and emotional needs. These will not be covered in this post, but will be addressed in my book. After identifying four general concepts, I will suggest what that might look like for an individual, parents, and leadership in general.
The goal is to bring souls closer to Christ, by cultivating sexuality through self-mastery.
The Lord must be included in every step of the process.
This should go without saying. But the paradigm change since the 1920s has changed the way we include the Lord in the cultivating of sexual desire. Instead of praying to remove sexual desire, pray to understand it, to value it, to learn it. Whether it’s for yourself or in teaching your kids. Confront the awkward with the Lord. Call it what it is, don’t make up words. Discuss masturbation (and sexuality) openly with the Lord and your children.
1. Track baseline.
One of the most ridiculous concepts I hear people convey regarding masturbation or sexual drive is that it's the same for everyone. This is communicated in the idea that everyone is to be absinate from masturbating. This is a form of perfectionism and prevents an individual from learning and mastering their own body. Learning and understanding your sexual desires is between you and the Lord. Discover how your body and mind function at their best. This is critical in our sexual development and happiness.
When I began to improve my physical health, I made the mistake of just hitting it as hard as I could. As long as I showed up at the gym, I was good. I would eventually get frustrated I wasn’t make the expected progress, burn out or get injured. Without making a plan and tracking my progress, I was setting myself up for failure. I had no clear data to assess and understand how to improve. Working out would become dreaded and feel impossible. Many make the mistake believing the idea, “Just don’t masterbate because its a sin. The goal is just to abstain.” Those who are not successful with this rejection method may move on to tracking “failures” or duration between episodes. But this would be like me just walking in to the gym and running 20 miles or lifting 500 lbs when I’ve never done either. Then tracking how many times I failed to run 20 miles or lift 500 lbs.
"When performance is measured, performance improves. When performance is measured and reported, the rate of improvement accelerates." [1]
When one decides with the Lord that a behavior needs to be mastered, tracking allows for meaningful discovery. Here is an example of how to track this in a spreadsheet. Each of the following are column headers, which are tracked daily.
Important: Spend 2-4 weeks tracking behaviors as typically engaged. That's the baseline. Sometimes individuals start recording during a time of forced abstinence. This skews the data and doesn’t accurately reflect and individuals starting baseline.
Date
Pornography (Duration in minutes)
Masturbation (Frequency)
Kneeling Prayer (Frequency)
Scriptures (Duration in minutes)
Gospel (General study: such as preparing for Sunday School lesson, duration in minutes)
Workout (Duration in minutes)
Connections (Meaningful interactions, duration in minutes)
Temple Attendance (Frequency)
Key Measurements and Concepts: These are NEVER to be used as a form of punishment. Success is celebrated in the context of self-mastery, NOT merely abstinence. Although abstinence, in the case of porn, might be the ultimate goal, success in self-mastery is celebrated by following a plan and or the reduction in a specific behavior. This will be further explained in the next section.
2. Measure performance and report
The importance of measuring is being able to see things “as they really are.” Too often I have met with youth and adults who express their “addiction” has caused them to fail again, only to discover they had AN episode of porn or masturbated. Not to dismiss their very real concern, but the way in which they viewed their “failure” was horrifying and only contributed to the problem. I then ask, “How long has it been since you engaged in the behavior?” Depending on the individual, they may say a month, a year, or years. Then I reply, “Then it appears you’re successful!”
This inability to see success in sexual struggles, I believe, has been exacerbated by the misuse of D&C 82:7 — which again, oddly enough, only ever seems to be used in the context of sexual sins. It reads,“but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God.” Therefore, individuals feel they have never made progress. Their belief is real; individuals hold to decades of sexual “sin” because of a new occurrence. No wonder there is such a sense of hopelessness in conquering this issue. This scripture, used in this context, was popularized with the book “Miracle of Forgiveness,” but is a misuse of this scripture and misrepresents the atonement. Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, in their “A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants” address this misunderstanding.
“Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 must be understood against the backdrop of Mosiah 26:30: "Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me." Faithful Saints need not fear that their occasional weaknesses will put them outside the covenant and the power of the Atonement. On the other hand, those whose loyalty is to their sins first and to Christ second, third, or not at all, need not expect to be shielded from justice in any degree for all they may have done in this life. If we sin, we must repent. If we sin often, we must repent often. But we must never let go of the rod, never shift our commitment from Christ to our sins. Finally, should we repudiate our covenants, thus losing the shield of the Atonement, not only will our former sins return but they will bring with them a disposition to evil even greater than before (see Matthew 12:43-45).”[2]
In the case of masturbation, it provides a biological baseline from which we can more effectively address and learn unique individuals behaviors. It becomes a beautiful, respectful discovery of one's individual sexual desires. This data can now be specifically discussed with the Lord in individual prayer, allowing the Lord to guide your mind and heart in areas that are determined in the spirit of cultivating and self-mastery. This is usually a private matter in which one is returning to the Lord and learning. However, in cases where one feels they need extra support, a therapist or a loved one can review the data to help point out potential issues the individual is struggling to see.
For example, one individual couldn’t understand why they were increasing an undesired behavior, at what seemed to be random times with no obvious triggers. When the data was graphed by date, two things became clear. The frequency of undesired behavior occurred in proportion to when the individual's fitness and time connecting with others decreased. It was obvious after the discovery, but when you are in the emotion of the struggle it's difficult to make those observations without the data.
3. Out of the best books — Study and learn body
Learn about your body. It's beautiful and awesome. No matter your age or marital status, find the best that experts have to offer. Become familiar with your arousal cycle and desires. As you learn to cultivate your sexuality, your confidence and desires will become a wonderful and positive experience. For those feeling a need to improve their impulse control, in combination with learning your body, tracking the above data becomes an educational experience and exercise in cultivating God-given desire.
There are many great resources. But here are a few I recommend:
Jennifer Finlayson-Fife, Ph.D
LDS Relationship and Sexuality Counselor
http://www.finlayson-fife.com/
And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage through Sexual Fulfillment
by Laura M. Brotherson
Link: http://a.co/aPExHqZ
Kristin B. Hodson
http://www.realintimacybook.com/
Real Intimacy: A Couples' Guide to Healthy, Genuine Sexuality
by Thomas G. Harrison et al.
Buy the book on Amazon here.
Here is some specific advice for individuals, parents, and leaders:
Individuals
Hopefully you see your body and its arousal as beautiful and not something to fear. However, if you have decided with the Lord that there is a need to improve impulse control, find power by using a loving strategy and reclaiming agency instead of just shear will and rejecting of the desires. Stop punishing yourself. Learn yourself. Identify and build on the successes. DO NOT use fear or pain of any kind to motivate you. For example, instead of going for abstinence, identify your baseline in masturbating. As you track your behavior, let's say the data shows that on average you masturbate once a day. Therefore, in prayer and learning your body, you’ve determined that twice a week is a more healthy behavior for you. Schedule and plan the masturbation.
Yes, you heard me correctly. Schedule and plan the masturbation. This is absolutely critical. I can’t emphasize it enough. The old, broken approach of aversion concepts and sheer willpower ignores everything beautiful about desire and biological function — even in the cases of replacing arousal and desire with other good things, to distract yourself. You are not actually learning about your desire or mastering it. Your biological sex drive is individual, and those who say you can live without sex and everyone can be abstinent is akin to saying everyone can live off of 1000 calories a day. Yeah, maybe, but should they? Each individual is different. You must learn your body with the Lord and with the best science and medical information has to offer. But more importantly, you are actually now reclaiming your agency!
One can say, CHOOSING to be abstinent is using your agency. Yeah, then go choose to live off a 1000 calories a day — that makes just as much sense. No, the power in scheduling and planning the masturbation is that you are taking a proactive, line upon line, approach. There is little to no learning or self-mastery in the abstinence approach.
In the case of Kathryn, shared at the beginning, she has completely rid pornography from her life, after almost two decades of “failure.” It was by learning, understanding, and mastering her sex drive. Scheduling planned masturbations gave her power to withstand impulse control issues in the moment, knowing she would be able to masturbate and cultivate her desires in the way she and the Lord dictated, at a specific time.
When one starts this approach, maybe they have a history of porn associated with masturbating and they battle pornographic thoughts during masturbation. The goal is to reclaim that beauty in sexual desire. This can be done by praying before engaging in the masturbation. Are we not to include the Lord in all things? The fact that many find the concept of including the Lord as weird is evident of the adversary's success at making sexual desires a dirty thing. What better way to prepare individuals to include the Lord in marital sex. A formal prayer may not need to continue with every scheduled masturbation, as long as the pornographic is disentangled from the Godly.
Parents
Teach and prepare your children for the experience of sexual desire. The best way to do this is naturally and daily in your interaction with your spouse. Let your children observe how you discuss it with each other. Confront the awkward and make it beautiful. My wife and I have openly discussed details of sex (not our personal acts of sex) in front of our children from a young age. Integrating it this way creates a very comfortable environment; it allows them to learn and know it’s safe to ask questions. The whole idea of “age appropriate,” conversations around sex, I feel, is a fear-based concept. This fear or concern of conversations being age appropriate, I believe, prevents us from speaking openly in general. It’s the sit down, focused conversations, that I believe are inappropriate and create more awkwardness.
When addressing your child’s sexual desires and masturbation, focus on the beauty of desire, and emphasize how amazing those feelings are. Offer them insights into how we are to learn and master our bodies. Celebrate with them that they are experiencing this new phase of life and how much more amazing it will be if mastered and learned. Offer something similar to the above four concepts to support their development.
Remember the case of the young man who was trying to pray his erection away? He has reclaimed a joy and peace he had lost by cultivating and masturing his desires with the Lord. He again loves attending church and has found a new confidence.
There’s no need to mention sin. No need to say “stop it.” Masturbating isn’t the sin; avoiding self-mastery is. Approaching it this way will empower youth to feel in control of their desires. They will not see their desires as a curse but a blessing from God. It will also teach them that they are in control of their own sexual experiences. Porn will have less power and influence, and they will learn how to honor, master, and respect their sacred sexual experience. They will treat their dates and future spouse with the same respect as they have learned to treat themselves.
Leadership
Teach the concepts of self-mastery to the parents. There is absolutely no need for you to dive into these topics in detail in an interview. The best and most efficient path to success is changing the culture of how parents teach sexuality to children. Stop telling youth it's a sin. They already believe that and that's why they are in your office. Telling them that again doesn’t improve health or faith. Educate parents. Help them understand the importance of restoring beauty in sexuality and desire. Be the example of confronting the awkward and making the taboo easy to discuss. Help parents understand the importance of healthy, loving, respectful sexual education. Provide them with the concept of cultivating and measuring — being able to see things “as they really are” — for the purpose of self-mastery.
Avoid abstract timelines. Although I don’t believe it's within the stewardship of the leader to counsel on the biological functions of their ward members, some insist on giving “spiritual” challenges and goals. These include “go without masturbating for two weeks.” This is ironic since I often get pushback for my approach of scheduling masturbation. But isn’t that what these leaders are telling them to do? Are they telling youth to abstain for 14 days and on day 15 they may reward themselves with a day of masturbation? No, no they’re not. Again, it's confusing and makes no sense. The child or adult struggling knows that, at least subconsciously. As a result, the individual doesn’t hear 14 days; they hear eternity. This is why most who get that challenge rarely can make it 14 days. It’s nonsensical.
As you already know, your role is a spiritual counselor. Therefore, if you feel the individual is struggling with sexual self-mastery, do not call it an addiction; you don’t know that. I also caution against immediately sending them to ARP or some other 12-step program, especially if it's a kid. I caution against programs like Sons of Helaman or Daughters of Light. If you sense the issue is significant, encourage the child to discuss it with their parents. Without breaking confidentiality, do your research, find a therapist who understands this concept. Let the therapist determine if it is related to behavioral or mental health issues. Unfortunately, some children don’t have parents capable of teaching these concepts. Where appropriate, provide the above structure and insights in a group setting where that child can be present.
An Important Note On Consistency And Sustainability
For those leaders who are working with individuals on their spiritual development, I share this insight: some individuals tie their “church” performance to their ability to abstain from an undesirable behavior. One of the reasons I track scriptures and gospel study is to observe this pattern. What I have found based on the data thus far is those who increase their time spent in gospel-related efforts more than ~15-20% experience equally undesirable results as those who decide to continue their regular religious behaviors. My theory is twofold. First, is the New Year’s resolution effect. Feeling a rekindling of hope, the individual recommits with increased dedication. Some try to match their dedication with their missionary years and others some vague perception of what constitutes the ideal amount of gospel study. This new surge of activity is neither consistent or sustainable. Like those that flock to the gym in January, the majority are gone in February. When the rekindled hope begins to fade and the intensity begins to become more difficult to maintain, they emotionally and spiritually associate it with faith, or their lack of faith.
The second, individuals begin to associate their increased gospel performance as a repellent to their undesirable behavior. This is due to a false association between success in sexual self-mastery and their time involved in gospel works. For example, one adult male was reading his scriptures daily, for more time than most scholars I know. One day he came in reporting he didn’t do as well as expected in masturing his behavior, to which he said, “If I had only read the scriptures for another 15 minutes today.” Routine, meaningful gospel study is more important than more of it. Even if that individual is only studying 30 minutes, two days a week, I would rather see that individual maintain that routine than have them believe that more gospel study could “cure” them of their behavior issues.
Conclusion
In language much more poetic, Adam S. Miller in “Letters to a Young Mormon,” expressed the concept of cultivating and Christlike self-mastery beautifully when he said,
“Caring for the hunger will take practice and patience. Be kind to yourself as you stumble through. In church, we say: learn to be chaste. This is right, but we have to be clear. Chastity, as a way of practicing care, doesn’t purge or deny this hunger. You are chaste when you are full of life, and you are full of life when you are faithful to the hungers that root it.
To care for this hunger, you must do just as you did with the others. You cannot get rid of your hunger either by pandering to it or by purging it. Both strategies deny hunger and leave you undead. Church-talk about sexual purity is meant to keep you close to life and warn you against trying to end your hunger by carelessly indulging it. And trying to get rid of your hunger by purging it, even for the sake of purity, will just as surely leave you spiritually dead as indulging it. The measure of chastity is life, and life, by divine design, is messy. If used without care, aiming for purity is as likely to maim you as save you. Don’t become a slave to your hunger and don’t try to make a slave of your hunger. Slavery is sin, and sin is death.”[3]
The goal is to bring souls closer to Christ, by cultivating all things including sexuality through self-mastery. Both unbridled indulgence or abstinence are unhealthy in sexual development and have negatively affected many in their faith and marriages. Those who have embraced a self-mastery approach with masturbation have reported a greater feeling of joy and faith in Christ. This is the goal, the hope. Sexuality should not be a scary, awkward, resented, or a painful experience. It’s beautiful and God-given. Let’s teach, model, and communicate joy in the sexual experience.
Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
4. What Went Wrong?
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
[1] Thomas S. Monson, in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 107
[2] Stephen E. Robinson and H. Dean Garrett, in their “A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants” (4 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], 2:12-13)
[3] Miller, Adam S. 2014, “Letters to a Young Mormon” pg 62
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Part 5
Previous Chapter: 4. What Went Wrong?
A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
In my book, I explore in detail the historical development of how we’ve come to culturally believe masturbation is such a serious sin. Even in this brief summary you can see how the leadership appears to have overcorrected from the ‘40s and ’50s. Building on strong cautionary language given by President Clark, Elder McConkie and President Kimball (just to name a few) reinforced those cautions by ironically breaking from the medical field again. But this time, in a regressive way. They were teaching that participating in masturbation was a sin that led to emotional, spiritual and further sexual sins in addition to warning against “would-be authorities” who taught otherwise:
“Youth come into contact early with masturbation. Many would-be authorities declare that it is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify their practice of it. To this we must respond that the world's norms in many areas — drinking, smoking, and sex experience generally, to mention only a few — depart increasingly from God's law. The Church has a different, higher norm.
“Thus prophets anciently and today condemn masturbation. It induces feelings of guilt and shame. It is detrimental to spirituality. It indicates slavery to the flesh, not that mastery of it and the growth toward godhood which is the object of our mortal life. Our modern prophet has indicated that no young man should be called on a mission who is not free from this practice.
“While we should not regard this weakness as the heinous sin which some other sexual practices are, it is of itself bad enough to require sincere repentance. What is more, it too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation — practiced with another person of the same sex and thence into total homosexuality.”[1]
Allen Bergin, a retired psychologist from Brigham Young University and past president of the Association of Mormon Counselors and Psychotherapists (AMCAP), recognized the moral dilemma President Kimball’s “Miracle of Forgiveness” posed and felt the useful parts were "overshadowed by a host of negatives and also outdated policies that the church itself doesn't even endorse anymore." In his respect and admiration for the “Yoda-like Mormon prophet” he recognized the good it offered and said, "It is unfortunate that his reputation for goodwill is obscured by some extreme adjectives he used 45 years ago." President Kimball's grandson Jordan Kimball also said, "I would want him to be remembered ... for his love, compassion and encouragement." Recognizing that the book addressed the needs “of the 1940s, '50s and '60s, and, in its time, it didn't seem out of place," Jordan Kimball says, "but it was used beyond its due date. Even the church has moved on." Jordan Kimball wished the now-anachronistic book could have been "allowed to sunset."[2]
Years after publication, Kimball reportedly remarked that its tone may have been too strong. “Sometimes I think I might have been a little too strong about some of the things I wrote in that book.”[3] Elder Richard G. Scott's wise advice was to “read the last two chapters first to appreciate the full miracle of forgiveness before reading anything else.”[4] That comment probably came 30-some years too late.
Nonetheless, President Kimball’s bold clarity, echoing McConkie's “Mormon Doctrine” established itself as an unquestionable measurement of righteousness. If the “doctrine” that masturbatatory insanity wasn’t re-established by this time, it would become a concrete and irrefutable commandment in The Church culture over the next two decades. He gave members and professionals no other option than to agree, as mentioned earlier: “Many would-be authorities declare that it [masturbation] is natural and acceptable, and frequently young men I interview cite these advocates to justify the practice of it. To this we must respond that the world’s norms in many areas ... depart increasingly from God’s law. The Church has a different, higher norm.”[5]
Stop Calling It An Addiction
“In thirty-one years as a sex therapist, marriage counselor, and psychotherapist, I’ve never seen sex addiction. I’ve heard about virtually every sexual variation, obsession, fantasy, trauma, and involvement with sex workers, but I’ve never seen sex addiction.” —Marty Klein
To further complicate the issue, the “sex addiction” model was popularized during the ‘70s when a couple of individuals involved with Alcoholics Anonymous decided to organize a special group for those who routinely cheated on their spouses. There was absolutely no scientific evidence or support that sex addiction existed. Although we are discussing masturbation specifically, I am going to address it in the following comments under the idea of “sex addiction,” as that is often the reason given to avoid masturbation.
“After 40 years of the sex addiction model existing, there is not a single published randomized-controlled empirically-reviewed study that reveals that sex addiction treatment works.” —Dr. David Ley
Why is that? If this sex addiction existed and was so dangerous, why hasn’t there been a single study on its effectiveness? Try to find statistics on addiction recovery programs (ARP), other than the ARP missionaries bearing their testimonies that it saves lives. If ARP mirrors AA at all, then peer-reviewed studies peg the success rate of AA somewhere between five and 10 percent.
David J. Ley, Ph.D., doesn’t mix his words when he expresses his concern with this fake diagnosis:
"Criticisms of the concept of sexual addiction are not just intellectual egocentrism. There are real dangers inherent in the sex addiction concept. I believe that for the field of health care, medicine, and mental health to endorse and reify a flawed concept creates a very dangerous slippery slope of moral relativism, where any socially unacceptable behavior is labeled a mental disorder subject to psychiatric treatment.
“The concept of sexual addiction is intimately connected to the conflicted sexual morality embedded in our culture at its deepest levels, where sexuality is seen as a dangerous evil temptation that must be constantly constrained and feared. It also reflects the influence of the media and the changing strategies of the 24-7 news and entertainment industry. The concept of sexual addiction is driven by the news and entertainment industry as well as the professional treatment providers, facilities, and industry that serve the needs of self-identified sex addicts.
“Lastly, the label of sex addiction affects our efforts to enforce expectations of responsibility, holding ourselves, and especially men, responsible for their choices and actions. If we accept the notion that sexual addiction is a disorder, what is the impact upon our understanding of sexual arousal itself, and upon our view of masculinity and personal responsibility for one’s sexual behaviors? A challenge to those of us who criticize the concept of sex addiction is that we are ignoring the very real suffering of clients who are desperate for help.
“People around the country are dealing with the effects of their sexual desires and behaviors, as they affect their lives and the lives of those around them. Men and women are struggling with answers to why they or their intimate partners are making unhealthy, destructive sexual decisions, decisions that destroy families, careers, and marriages. I don’t disagree with the idea that there are people who are desperate for help. I just frankly don’t think that giving them a label of sex addiction is ultimately going to be helpful to them, to society, or to the field of mental health. I’m troubled by the defensiveness and attacking response to criticism." —David Ley, Myth of Sexual Addiction
But what about all the research that “proves” sex addiction is real? There is none. For example, one popular study Fight the New Drug (FTND) and others love to reference to prove sex addiction is just as harmful as drugs, is the Voon study titled, “Neural Correlates of Sexual Cue Reactivity in Individuals with and without Compulsive Sexual Behaviours.” You’ll notice FTND “quote mining” these studies like a Jeremy Runnells googling Church History, concluding “pornography harms the brain almost exactly the same as drug addiction.”
But not too fast — even the authors of the research say that’s a bad idea.
“Voon is quick to caution against using her studies to leap to conclusions about the addictiveness of sex or porn. ‘Much more research is required,’ she explains. Meanwhile, a study from Nicole Prause at the University of California, Los Angeles, used electroencephalography (EEG) to measure the brainwaves of people presented with sexual images and found something different. She observed that volunteers who believed they had a problem with porn reacted to the pictures with low levels of excitement in the brain, unlike other addicts faced with triggering cues. ‘These people may be having problems, but of some other type,’ says Prause. ‘Addiction is not a good way of understanding it.’” —Emily Borrow, “Can You Really Be Addicted to Sex?”, The Economist
In a movement I call “Compassionate Kelloggs,” FTND and other organizations like them, such as Sons of Helaman, may not use penis-sized iron maidens or suggest sewing your foreskin, but their emotional message is still damaging. They set themselves up as saving the public from the dangers of these behaviors but are using fear to accomplish their objectives.
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf summed up this concept brilliantly and precisely when he said,
“People who are fearful may say and do the right things, but they do not feel the right things. ... They often feel helpless and resentful, even angry. Over time these feelings lead to mistrust, defiance, even rebellion.” — President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Perfect Love Casteth Out Fear, April 2017 Conference
There are few things I’ve seen more clearly than this: when fear is used as a motivator, we cause people to feel and experience the wrong things. As a result, resentment, pain and rebellion often occur. This is by far the number one problem I see when individuals — regardless of age — visit with me regarding sexually-related issues. One of the discoveries is that those who used fear to avoid sexual stimulation, pursuits and desires now struggle as married individuals to function in healthy sexual relationships.
These compassionate Kelloggs are modeling the 1700s sexual messages: “If you engage in this behavior you will become addicted, you are ill. And we love you.” In the case of the Sons of Helaman, the creator Maurice W. Harker identifies in his trademark “The Chemical Spill,™” wherein he defines God’s gift of sexual desire as “Deviant Sex Chemicals.” The intellectual dishonesty of organizations like these is blatant, but few question their legitimacy. Why not? Because it’s “something.” It makes people feel good when they are doing “something,” rather than nothing.
This lazy, fear-based message is so far reaching and pervasive that we’ve become experts at shaming with love. I hear it all the time from leaders. It usually goes something like this: “We are removing the shame around masturbation and reminding them it’s a sin.” Guess what? They never forgot it was a sin. Additionally, I would argue a youth learning and developing into their pubescent years is no more experiencing a sin masturbating then a diabetic learning how to control and regulate their blood sugar.
Even FairMormon posted some standard, run of the mill, lazy, fear-based masturbation material done in the tone of love. The material is intellectually dishonest and forced to fit a moral view that can’t be scientifically or doctrinally supported. This podcast is far below the standard of FairMormon.
“Any claims you have heard that you will be physically harmed unless you do masturbate are simply false, or greatly overblown. There is a study that shows that older men have a lower risk of prostate cancer if they ejaculate more frequently. However, this same finding was not replicated in the case of young men. In fact, higher rates of masturbation raise the risk of prostate cancer in young men. Interestingly, more frequent intercourse did NOT raise the risk, but masturbation did.”[6]
Yes, Steve Densley Jr., made a refute of “simply false” and used a “study” that contradicted its own findings to support his argument. Of course, it was a cancer study too, but I don’t blame him; there is NO research to support his claims. Yet, he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to quote from Spencer W. Kimball’s “Love Versus Lust” talk (Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [Provo, 5 Jan. 1965], p. 22) and concludes, “if we are not willing to obey him in the ‘little’ things, when faced with a greater trial, we will not have developed either the strength or resolve to obey in the big things.” Densley Jr.’s usage of these sources and “studies” is an example of how pseudoscience of sexuality has, like in Tissot’s day, become a go-to phrase. He is an impressive and intelligent individual whom I admire, and I value what he has done with FairMormon. In this topic, however, he doesn’t appear to know what he is talking about.
Furthermore, Densley Jr. dismisses the valid question, “Can masturbation be done without lusting?” by stating the go-to “sacredness” and “powerful chemical reactions” argument, using these as if to say that personal arousal couldn’t be sacred and using the entirely untrue cop out of the powerful chemical argument.
“Overall, it is clear from the data that the functional neuroanatomy of sex is very similar to that of other pleasures and that it is unlikely that there is anything special about the brain mechanisms and networks underlying sex.” —J.R. Geargiadis & M.L. Bringelbach, in “The human sexual response cycle: Brain imaging evidence linking sex to other pleasures”
Logically, these types of arguments are trite, lazy, and frankly downright confusing to kids. Are we really telling them that their wedding night is a gateway drug to addiction, cancer, and uncontrollable sex? If sex was so addictive, the majority of my couples work would be strategizing planned abstinence and recovery. Nope, the majority of my couples work is interventions in creating desire. That pesky addictive sex drive sure is never around when it counts. Culturally, we have taught — and especially women — how to reject sexual desire so well that the dysfunctions present in their marriage. But of course, they’ll “figure that out” with a spouse who also doesn’t know their own body.[1] [2] [3] [4]
This is the problem. It’s not working. The addiction model is failing and the aversion approach is creating a far bigger problem. It’s creating a bigger problem because the real issues are not being addressed. Why is diagnosing someone as a sex addict problematic?
"Anecdotal reports within sex addiction, and some research, suggests that personality disorder is extremely prevalent in sex addiction. Some estimates suggest that personality disorders and mood disorders are present in almost all cases of sex addiction. Multiple studies show that alleged sex addicts almost always have some other major mental illness. So, when such individuals present for sex addiction treatment, their hypersexual behaviors are most likely to be a symptom of the existing disorders. As one sex therapist and clinician described to me, 'The sex addiction diagnosis is a lazy diagnosis.' It ignores more relevant emotional and psychiatric issues to focus exclusively upon a person's sexual behavior.
“Because periods of sexual promiscuity are a frequent symptom for clients with bipolar disorder when they are in a manic phase, we would not normally diagnose hypersexuality and bipolar disorder, since bipolar disorder would subsume the symptom of periods of hypersexual behavior. According to the theories of sex addiction, the use of sex to manage negative emotions is identified as a core symptom of unhealthy sexuality and sex addiction. But if those negative emotions reflect the influence of depression or post-traumatic stress-disorder, it is more important to diagnose and treat the negative emotions. A diagnosis of sex addiction is superfluous at best and a dangerous distraction from the real treatment needed at worst." —David Ley, "The Myth of Sex Addiction"
The next time a research claims it’s a study of sexual addiction, review whether or not it has factored in preexisting mental health issues. Many studies like this one have found 80% or more actually are suffering from other behaviors; the sexual issues are usually a symptom of coping with the preexisting condition.
Furthermore, what about that very dangerous and highly addictive reward chemical dopamine? Dopamine does not equal reward, or at least, it's not that simple; refer to the study “The Mysterious Motivational Functions of Mesolimbic Dopamine.”[7]
Dopamine has become the scapegoat neurological chemical. It's just not that simple. Yes, dopamine is involved in sexual experience. But no more than a mother breastfeeding, or the pleasure of seeing your kids after a long work trip. Additionally, the brain and biological response to sexual experience cannot be simplified down to one or two chemicals. You can explore this topic further here: The unsexy truth about dopamine. And here: No, Dopamine is Not Addictive.
Next Chapter: 6. Purity, Modesty, and Moral Ambiguity
Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
[1] Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 77-78
[2] Peggy Fletcher Stack (July 24, 2015). "LDS classic 'Miracle of Forgiveness' fading away, and some Mormons say it's time". Salt Lake Tribune. http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID
[3] Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball, SLC: Deseret Book, 2005, 80
[4] Richard G. Scott Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “The Path to Peace and Joy” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/the-path-to-peace-and-joy?lang=eng
[5] Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 77
[6] “Fair Questions 4: What’s Wrong with Masturbation?” Steve Densley Jr. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2013/01/02/fair-questions-4-whats-wrong-with-masturbation
[7] The Mysterious Motivational Functions of Mesolimbic Dopamine http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos in the LDS Faith Part 1
Background — It Happened Again
The recurrent struggle with pornography and masturbation within the Latter-day Saint community is a poignant reminder of the complex interplay between faith, human sexuality, and personal challenges. In this chapter, we delve into the personal stories of those who have bravely confronted these challenges, seeking understanding and solutions within the framework of their faith.
As we delve into the complexities of dealing with pornography and masturbation within the LDS community, it is essential to recognize that while the struggle is profound, the solution can be surprisingly simple, effective, and importantly, sustainable. This chapter explores not just the struggle, but also the journey towards a resolution that eschews conventional methods like addiction recovery programs (ARP), 12-Step programs, or routine bishop visits, for a more direct, empathetic approach.
Personal Narratives: The Struggle for Spiritual Harmony
The experiences of a young man and a young woman who sought help in my office encapsulate a common narrative in our community. They both expressed a profound commitment to the teachings of Jesus Christ and diligently followed the guidance of their bishops. Yet, they found themselves trapped in a cycle of unwanted behavior, feeling a disconnect between their spiritual aspirations and personal struggles.
Kathryn Kirk's story is particularly illustrative. Since her late teens, she has grappled with these issues, consistently seeking guidance from church leaders and engaging deeply in spiritual practices such as prayer and fasting. Despite her unwavering faith and active participation in church responsibilities, including temple service, the challenge persisted, leading her to question the effectiveness of her efforts and the reality of her faith.
These stories highlight the need for a nuanced understanding of how members of the Church confront and cope with issues related to sexuality. They reveal the inner turmoil and emotional conflict that often accompany these struggles, challenging the conventional narratives of faith and obedience.
The Simplicity and Effectiveness of the Solution
In these cases, the solution to the struggles with pornography and masturbation lay not in extensive programs or repeated ecclesiastical interventions, but in straightforward, physical, spiritual, and emotional interventions. These solutions were effective even after just a few visits, marking a significant departure from the more traditional approaches.
This simplicity, however, does not undermine the emotional complexity of the journey. The emotional and spiritual healing accompanying these struggles often requires more time and patience. The process of overcoming deep-seated feelings of guilt, shame, and confusion can be gradual, even as the physical aspects of the behavior are addressed more swiftly.
The Impact on Individuals and Church Leaders
The effectiveness of these solutions has had a profound impact not only on the individuals struggling with these issues but also on church leaders. The story of a bishop from a large Young Single Adult (YSA) ward is particularly telling. Upon learning of this straightforward approach, he was moved to tears, expressing relief and gratitude for finally having something tangible to offer his struggling members. His reaction was a mix of joy and frustration — joy at discovering an effective solution and frustration that such an apparent resolution had eluded him due to the prevailing cultural paradigms.
This bishop's experience underscores a significant challenge within the LDS community — the need to shift our cultural understanding and approach to dealing with issues of sexuality. The prevailing attitudes and teachings, while well-intentioned, often lack the practical tools and understanding necessary to address these complex issues effectively.
Doctrinal and Cultural Context: Navigating the Complexities
Understanding the struggle with pornography and masturbation within the LDS community requires a deep dive into the doctrinal and cultural contexts. The Church's teachings on chastity and the sacred nature of the body form the doctrinal backbone of how sexuality is viewed within the faith. However, the interpretation and application of these teachings can vary, leading to diverse experiences among members.
The cultural aspect of this issue cannot be understated. In many LDS communities, there is a tendency to address matters of sexuality with a degree of reticence and caution, often stemming from a desire to uphold moral standards. This cultural backdrop can inadvertently contribute to feelings of shame and isolation for those struggling with these issues, making it difficult for them to seek help or openly discuss their experiences.
Emotional Landscape: Guilt, Shame, and Faith
The emotional landscape of individuals grappling with pornography and masturbation is complex and multifaceted. Feelings of guilt and shame are common, as members internalize the expectations of purity and chastity emphasized in Church teachings. These emotions can be exacerbated by the fear of judgment from others and the perception that their struggles reflect a lack of faith or moral failing.
However, as seen in the narratives of the individuals mentioned earlier, the struggle is often not indicative of a lack of faith. On the contrary, many of those who face these challenges demonstrate a deep commitment to their spiritual beliefs and a sincere desire to align their actions with their faith. This dichotomy between their spiritual aspirations and personal challenges creates a profound internal conflict that can be difficult to navigate.
Seeking Solutions: Beyond Traditional Approaches
The search for solutions to these challenges has led many, like Kathryn, to explore avenues beyond traditional church guidance. The integration of professional counseling, along with spiritual support, has shown promise in addressing the complexities of these issues. This holistic approach acknowledges the multifaceted nature of the struggle, combining spiritual guidance with practical strategies and psychological insights.
Professional counseling can offer a safe space for individuals to explore their feelings and behaviors without judgment, providing them with tools to understand and manage their impulses. This approach also allows for the exploration of underlying issues that may contribute to their struggles, such as emotional or psychological factors.
The Role of Church Leaders and the Community
The role of church leaders and the broader LDS community is critical in supporting individuals facing these challenges. Church leaders, including bishops and other ecclesiastical authorities, can provide spiritual guidance and support, helping individuals to understand their struggles within the context of Church teachings.
However, there is also a need for greater awareness and understanding within the community. Breaking the silence and taboo around discussions of sexuality and related challenges is essential in creating a more supportive and empathetic environment. This involves fostering open dialogues, reducing stigma, and providing education on these issues.
Cultural Paradigms and New Understandings
The reaction of the bishop and the success of the individuals discussed highlight a crucial point: there is often a gap between the cultural paradigms within the Church and the practical, effective solutions available. This gap can prevent both individuals and leaders from seeing and utilizing straightforward methods that could alleviate much of the struggle.
As we move forward, it is imperative to bridge this gap by fostering a cultural shift within the LDS community. This shift involves embracing a more open, informed approach to discussing and dealing with sexuality. It means moving away from fear-based strategies to ones grounded in compassion, understanding, and practical effectiveness.
Moving Forward: A Paradigm Shift
Moving forward requires a paradigm shift in how the LDS community approaches and understands the issues of pornography and masturbation. This shift involves replacing fear-based and misinformed strategies with approaches that are compassionate, informed, and effective. It calls for a balance between upholding doctrinal teachings and being sensitive to the personal journeys of individuals.
This chapter sets the stage for a deeper exploration of these issues, leading to subsequent chapters that delve into the historical and doctrinal context, examine cultural shifts, and present solutions that harmonize doctrinal teachings with compassionate and practical strategies. It is a journey towards greater understanding, empathy, and spiritual guidance, aiming to foster a healthy, faith-aligned understanding of sexuality and personal struggles.
Next Chapter:
2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
TABLE OF CONTENTS: TL;DR — SUMMARY
0. INTRODUCTION
1. BACKGROUND — IT HAPPENED AGAIN: UNVEILING PERSONAL STORIES AND EXPERIENCES THAT BRING TO LIGHT THE RECURRING STRUGGLES WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
2. CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MASTURBATION BELIEFS WITHIN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS: TRACING THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MASTURBATION WITHIN THE CHURCH, PROVIDING A FOUNDATION FOR UNDERSTANDING PRESENT VIEWS.
3. CULTIVATING VERSUS CONDEMNING: EXAMINING THE BALANCE BETWEEN FOSTERING HEALTHY SEXUALITY AND ADDRESSING SPIRITUAL CONCERNS.
4. WHAT WENT WRONG?: IDENTIFYING SHIFTS AND CHANGES IN THE CHURCH'S APPROACH TO SEXUALITY AND ITS IMPACT ON MEMBERS.
5. A NEW CULTURE IS BORN: “DOCTRINE AND ADDICTION” AND RETURNING TO THE 1700S: EXPLORING THE INTERSECTION OF DOCTRINE, ADDICTION, AND THE RETURN TO EARLIER PERSPECTIVES IN MODERN CONTEXTS.
6. PURITY, MODESTY, AND MORAL AMBIGUITY: DISCUSSING THE CHALLENGES OF NAVIGATING SEXUAL MORALITY WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF LDS TEACHINGS.
7. SOLUTION: REAL SELF-MASTERY CULTIVATING SEXUALITY: PROPOSING PATHWAYS TOWARDS A HARMONIOUS UNDERSTANDING OF SEXUALITY AND FAITH.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos in the LDS Faith Part 4
Previous Chapter: 3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
What Went Wrong?
The Depression, WWII and Kinsey.
The Church leadership noticeably changed their approach to sexuality in the ‘30s and ’40s, which was culturally reinforced in the ‘50s and ’60s.
In the 1942 April Conference, which was a time of great upheaval in the world with much uncertainty, the First Presidency, under the direction of President Heber J. Grant, issued a much needed message to the Saints. The First presidency message filled almost 10 pages and addressed a spectrum of topics including testimony and parenting during a time of medical and doctor shortages (they were being shipped off to help in the war). This was unusually detailed counsel, but understand that for the decades they were in it wasn’t surprising. This counsel included the following:
“We urge all parents to guard with zealous care the health of their children. Feed them simple, good, wholesome food that will nourish and make them strong. See that they are warmly clad. Keep them from exposure. Have them avoid unnecessary crowds in close, poorly ventilated, overheated rooms and halls. See that they have plenty of rest and sleep. Avoid late hours …”
Additional topics included: “Welfare Work,” “False Political Isms,” “Hate Must Be Abolished,” “Mission of the Church,” “Sending of Missionaries,” “Church and State,” “Church Membership and Army Service,” “God Is At The Helm,” “Righteous Suffer With Wicked” and a number of other topics addressing the needs and concerns of the time. However, it is the brief two-paragraph statement on sexual purity in which the First Presidency boldly declared, “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean.” This phrase was a pivotal change in how LDS addressed the topic of sexuality and desire. In its full context the message reads,
“Message to the Youth to the youth of the Church we repeat all the foregoing advice, but above all we plead with you to live clean, for the unclean life leads only to suffering, misery, and woe physically, — and spiritually it is the path to destruction. How glorious and near to the angels is youth that is clean; this youth has joy unspeakable here and eternal happiness hereafter. Sexual purity is youth's most precious possession; it is the foundation of all righteousness. Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean. Times approach when we shall need all the health, strength, and spiritual power we can get to bear the afflictions that will come upon us.”[1]
Not necessarily with the intent of defending the word choice, but in its full context the statement (although still a bold declaration), “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” may feel a little less abrasive when you consider both the historical chaos and the First Presidency’s desire for the youth to experience “joy unspeakable here and eternal happiness hereafter.” Although this was a first presidency message, its wording and theme is very similar to President J. Reuben Clark’s Conference message a few years previous, wherein he spoke specifically about marital relationship issues of “promiscuous sexual relationships that ends in misery, disease, and shame …” In maybe a concern that parents were becoming neglectful in teaching the Law of Chastity, he reminds them to “teach the youth as the children of God, with spirits that are to live throughout eternity and tell them plainly and clearly that the laws of God, and of men also, demand that they live chaste … let us not make the mistake, any of us, of assuming that our children are beyond temptation and may not fall. This is a delusion and a snare that will bring us to the very depths.”
It would seem, from a historical reading, that parents were neglecting to teach healthy sexuality and its eternal significance during these stressful times.
He continues, “Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.”
If his parents did teach him this “doctrine,” it was not one that appears to be common in the culture of the early Latter-day Saints of the time. It’s entirely possible this was a religious concept believed by his parents who were raised in the “New Dunkers” or Church of God before converting. From an early Latter-day Saint “doctrinal” teaching, it doesn’t appear to be present, at least not publically.
There is a fascinating warning Pres. Clark later gives in his talk. In what may well have been insights into behaviors we now recognize as narcissistic and maybe further evidence of the emotional/spiritual climate of the time, he warns of the emotionally manipulative behaviors of individuals who use “love” to convince others to lose themselves, abandon their values. He cautions,
“I say that whenever a man or woman, young or old, demands as the price of his friendship that you give up the righteous standards of your life, or any of them, that man's friendship is not worth the price he asks. You may not trust that friendship; he will cast it off as he does his worn-out coat. Friendship is not now, and never was, the offspring of debauchery or unrighteousness.
“I ask you young women to believe me further when I say that any young man who demands your chastity as the price of his love, is spiritually unclean, and is offering something that is not worth the purchase price; his love will turn to ashes under your touch; it will lead you to misery and shame; and too often it will curse you with dread disease.”[2]
I share this quote not in an attempt to defend the word choice nor the use of fear as a motivator to follow God's commandment, but in light of President Clark’s conference message and the First Presidency message, it was a reminder to parents that they had neglected teaching youth to avoid those who don’t honor their values and also an admonition to hold on to hope in a time of war and uncertainty. I believe this is important to understand and why the idea of “better dead, clean, than alive unclean” became a part of Latter-day Saint culture.
I don’t believe it is better to be dead than unclean, but whether or not he meant it literally, it eventually became a literal belief and “doctrine.” As such, a critical gospel thought process needs to reconcile the apparent contradictions it presents. The first is that the statement “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” is ambiguous. What does it really mean? What specifically, or at what point, is the First Presidency referring to as unclean? Are they also suggesting that purity can’t be obtained again through the Atonement? Are they referring to only sexual intercourse outside of marriage? What about thoughts, desires, feelings, impulses, lusts? “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” seemed to negate the idea that the Atonement redeems.
Maybe this statement would make sense if what the First Presidency meant by “unclean” was in the act of completely denying the Atonement, the saving power of Christ. But even in this context, only those who have had a sure knowledge of Christ are capable of such a dire rejection. Those who “lose” their way from The Church still have the fullness of the gospel available to them through the infinite power of the Atonement. The Atonement also allows for those who have have lost their “purity” before marriage to become pure again. It would seem the idea “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” wasn’t so much a doctrine or absolute, but an emphasis on the need to be ever watchful.
In the following decades, we see this concept morph into beliefs that are not supported by scriptural teachings but merely by logical assumptions at best — and at worst reverting to archaic medical warnings. Where previously The Church’s stance on sexuality was in opposition to the 1920 medical findings that abstinence increased suicidal ideation (a stance which is further supported in current medical and emotional health), it had adopted the unsubstantiated ideas of self-harm and self-abuse. President Clark declared that those who engaged in masturbation were sinful and those — even in the medical and psychological field — who taught it where like "the teachers who prostitute the sex urge."[3]
Why the change in approach at this point?
1953: This change and urgency might have been compounded from publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey (the father of the sexual revolution) on male and female sexual behavior — which sold like Harry Potter.
“President Ernest Wilkinson, alarmed at Alfred Kinsey’s reports on sexual behavior, appointed a faculty committee to determine if the school’s sex education provided a strong defense of chastity. When members of the sociology department learned that the committee had decided ‘who shall teach [sex education] and where,’ they registered ‘strenuous objection to administrative prurience in this regard.’ Wilkinson, however, knowing of ‘no more important need on our campus,’ pushed for a BYU-authored health textbook. One of the school’s faculty assigned to the project became skeptical that his treatment of sex could pass the scrutiny of both trustees and colleagues. Some university administrators agreed, and the project was abandoned. Instead, BYU officials arranged to have a national publisher remove objectionable material from a health text. When the publisher overlooked one offending page in 1967, BYU bookstore employees excised the page before placing the text on store shelves. Student reaction ranged from amusement to outrage. Studies undertaken since have found that many freshmen enter BYU misinformed about sex, and that student attitudes towards sex education become more disapproving following enrollment in the university’s required health classes.”[4]
President Wilkinson’s concerns were valid and spiritually guided. Kinsey wasn’t simply providing scientific findings but actively stripping morality and human emotions out of the research. It's appropriate for science to approach research objectively, however, Kinsey went above and beyond his role as a scientist. As much as he felt morality interfered with science and skewed what normal is, his disdain (a result of his father's abusive aversion methods) for a moral guideline highly influenced his approach, findings, and sample selections.
Scientifically and socially, his findings would be defined as the new “normal,” and his influence was far spread. Kinsey would become known as the “father” of the Sexual Revolution; he would usher in the massive social and cultural upheaval of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. As much as we needed improved science of sexuality, it could have been done with significantly more respect and dignity. Furthermore, many in the science field were questioning his “scientific methods.”
Supporters of Kinsey have claimed that even though he may have been disturbed and engaged in immoral behavior with his clients, his fundamental conclusions and his data still remain accurate. This too proves blatantly false. According to Dr. Reisman,
“1. [Dr. Kinsey’s team] ‘forced’ subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2. Secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3. Based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes, and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man ‘married,’ reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as “Susie Homemaker.”[1]
As a zoologist and with his rejection of morality, he viewed his subjects (including himself) as little more than “animals” and actively removed the human and emotional —let alone the spiritual element — from sexuality. His debasing of the sexual experience wasn’t just a normalizing of sexual behavior but was an attack on a moral center. It is true the Puritan era rejected scientific developments and forced a suppressive and “evil” ideology of sexuality; Kinsey on the other hand entirely rejected a human moral center. This rejection of morality did more harm in the study of sexuality than the Puritan ideology. His lack of ethical center tainted and skewed his research; he engaged in unethical and illegal methods, including sampling children and condoning pedophilia. The disturbing and unethical details of Kinsey’s behavior, much of which would not be revealed for a few decades, don’t need to be included here. But suffice it to say, although the full details of Kinsey’s behaviors were not known at the time, the leaders of the Church were justified in their concern for how he was influencing society and inevitably members in the faith. Kinsey was highly influential and convincing, removing ALL definitions of “right” and “wrong.” Moral guidance was needed. The Church’s response wasn’t unreasonable, like one can find in scripture when a people become so indulgent the Lord will sometimes take a hard line to refocus his followers. This example can be seen with the Children of Israel when the Law of Moses was established. However, like I will demonstrate with the sexual culture of our church, sometimes those laws and commandments grow into something they were never intended to become.
In the following decades of the sexual revolution, you will see a similar response, rigidity and clarity from the leaders. While there was a need for a strong and clear voice of morality, you will also see how this rigidity grew into the sexual shibboleths (Stephen Smoot provided an insightful writeup on shibboleths here) of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Instead of growing into a more healthy view of sexuality, tradition and cultural assumptions turned the moral guidelines into doctrinal absolutes.
Is it any wonder that the leadership increased focus on sexual issues intensified with previously unseen rigidity? As such, and in the desire to save souls, preventing Latter-day Saint moral decay with societal values, they attempted to reinforce the moral lines. Therefore, during this time the Brethren addressed masturbation as a gateway perversion that led to nothing good. Although not medically or religiously supported, masturbation seemed to become the new measure of sexual purity and a “preoccupation” that required complete abstinence. President Kimball published “Be Ye Clean,” which would later be included in his book “Faith Precedes a Miracle.” This became the first track that focused on the “reprehensible nature” of masturbation and thoughts of sex.[5]
General Conference has always served as a guidepost to current social issues. Therefore, in this decade, as in previous, increased attention was given to The Church as a whole regarding sexual issues. It makes absolute sense in context of the history. Society's increase of moral decay was met with an increased moral rigidity. Was it the best way? I can’t judge that. It's not my desire to judge their approach, but it is important to see these developments in the correct context to better understand the solution. Therefore, in this societal context, the conference messages, books and articles more frequently identified behaviors associated with sins “next to murder.” It was at this time that there was a clear Latter-day Saint cultural change in how sexual desire was taught. The idea that sexuality and desire were beautiful and to be mastered and cultivated in one's youth then became a message that thinking and acting on these desires was committing grievous sins; masturbation became a grievous sin.
1956: “Petting is indecent and sinful, and the person who attempts to pet with you is himself both indecent and sinful and is likewise lustful … Is that what you want? Will you not remember that in the category of crime, God says sex sin is next to murder?”[6]
1957: “To keep the Children of Israel from committing these sins, the Lord proceeds to name them and to prescribe penalties for their commission. I am going to name a few of them. First is incest. I am not enlarging on it. In the law incest included more than we now ascribe to it. It included marriage between people within prohibited relationships. The penalty for incest was death to both parties. Fornication, sometimes adultery and fornication are used interchangeably, but for most kinds of fornication the penalty was death. For adultery, it was death for both parties. For homosexuality, it was death to the male and the prescription or penalty for the female I do not know.”[7]
Four years later, Elder Bruce R. McConkie boldly and emphatically stated that masturbation was not only "condemned by divine edict," but was among the "chief means" the adversary is "leading souls to hell."[8] He also solidified the teachings of President Clark with the rebuke of medical, psychiatric and mental health workers who were teaching that masturbation is "not an evil," and stated the “guilt and shame” experienced by individuals was a result of disobedience. In a return to archaic medical beliefs, he said they were keeping Latter-day Saints from being clean and experiencing the blessings of the gospel, which would lead to "mental and spiritual peace" that helps one overcome mental disorders of masturbation.
“An individual may go to a psychiatrist for treatment because of a serious guilt complex and consequent mental disorder arising out of some form of sex immorality — masturbation, for instance. It is not uncommon for some psychiatrists in such situations to persuade the patient that masturbation itself is not an evil; that his trouble arises from the false teachings of the Church that such a practice is unclean; and that, therefore, by discarding the teaching of the Church, the guilt complex will cease and mental stability return. In this way iniquity is condoned, and many people are kept from complying with the law whereby they could become clean and spotless before the Lord—in the process of which they would gain the mental and spiritual peace that overcomes mental disorders.”[9]
The leadership, specifically Elder McConkie, did have a valid doctrinal concern in that psychotherapists prior to 1970 predominately held to Freudian anti-religious ideas: “Trouble arises from the false teachings of the Church.” In the psychodynamic models of the time, they were not equipped to address the various faith practices, rituals and beliefs. But it would have been poor and unethical therapy to clinically assert one's culture is “false.”
It is the responsibility of the practitioner to provide healthy mental/physical solutions that are both within good medical science and within the individual's faith rituals and culture. As such, I completely agree with Elder McConkie in that it was improper for psychologists to be so blatantly rejecting of one's faith and culture — even in those cases where one's faith and culture might be in conflict with current medical standards. To blatantly dismiss the culture of that individual could create additional mental health concerns. However, I see this as a separate issue. Elder McConkie refuted the validity of the scientific intervention while tying it to the treatment method. This would be similar to condemning doctors for prescribing medications because they may be addictive.
Next Chapter: 5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine and Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
2. Context is Important: A Brief History of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
4. What Went Wrong?
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine and Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
[1] First Presidency message, 112th Annual Conference April 1942 p. 89 https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1942a
[2] President Ruben J. Clark, In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 137–39. https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1938sa
[3] Clark, J. Reuben (Dec 1952). "Home and the Building of Home Life". Relief Society Magazine: 793
[4] Religion and Academics at Brigham Young University A Recent Historical Perspective Gary James Bergera “Religion, Feminism, and Freedom of Conscience” Edited by George D. Smith pg. 98-99 http://signaturebookslibrary.org/religion-and-academics-at-brigham-young-university/#20
[5] Kimball, Spencer. "Be Ye Clean!: Five Steps to Repentance and Forgiveness". churchhistorycatalog.lds.org. LDS Church
[6] Apostle Mark E. Petersen, General Conference, 3 October 1956
[7] Apostle J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Address, April 8, 1957
[8] McConkie, Bruce R. (1958). Mormon Doctrine. Deseret Book. p. 708
[9] McConkie, Bruce R. (1958). Mormon Doctrine. Deseret Book. p. 610
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Part 3
Previous Chapter: 2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Cultivating Versus Condemning
In spite of these popular moral and medical views on sexuality and masturbation, which persisted well into the mid 1900s, The Church leaders embraced a progressively healthier view that focused more on self-mastery and cultivating the Godly desire of sexuality (versus the shame and fear-based medical and religious ideas of the time). Among the many beautiful doctrines the Restoration ushered into this new dispensation, the true nature of the Fall was revealed — this while Christendom viewed the fall of Adam and Eve, the “original sin,” as a sexual betrayal of God's commandments.
“As recounted in Mormon’s text, Adam and Eve were instructed from the very outset to ‘have seed.’ Fulfillment of this divine command depended on the commission of a (nonsexual) transgression which brought with it both mortality and fertility … The early Mormons view went far beyond a simple rejection of a devilish origin of sex. Like ‘knowledge of good and evil,’ reproductive sexuality itself was soon held to be an attribute of deity.”[1]
However, there were a few early leaders who warned in private meetings about the dangers of “self-abuse.” These comments were usually tied directly to serious abuses or individuals who expressed their opinions on the topic.
An example of condemning masturbation in connection with abuse, and one of the first times anything is recorded about masturbation, is from the personal diary of Apostle Rudger Clawson in 1902. Church leaders discussed educating parents about The Church leaders’ beliefs regarding masturbation:
“At a meeting in the Temple with the Twelve, Joseph F. Smith was recorded as stating in 1902: that the practice of masturbation was indulged in by many young people in the church schools. Pres. Smith remarked that this was a most damnable and pernicious practice, and the face of every apostle, president of a stake, and high councillor [sic] should be set as flint against it. The priesthood should be called together at the stake conferences and the brethren and parents should be instructed and warned in relation to this matter.’[2]
President Smith's admonition to warn, and the leadership’s vocal increase might have been indicated in the the above quote: “Many young people in the church schools …” During this time and years previous, there were abuses of leadership involving children and group masturbations. In one case, a little more than a decade previous (1886), the polygamous leader of Salt Lake City’s Fourteenth Ward, Bishop Thomas Taylor “was excommunicated for masturbating with several young men in southern Utah” (O’Donovan, 1994, p.135). There might have been continuing issues with similar behavior, if not with adults, then with the students engaging in this behavior together. This type of behavior is definitely not in keeping with the beauty and direction the Lord has established. In this case, it is absolutely within reason to condemn the practice of masturbation and similar behaviors. This context, I believe, is important to understand on two fronts: it wasn’t masturbation or sexual desires as much as it was orgy and pedophile behaviors that were evil. Their focus specifically on masturbation might be reinforcing the scientific belief of the time that the “indulging” in masturbation would ultimately lead to types of “mental illnesses” and sin.
In the following example Apostle Rudger Clawson wrote of a meeting of the general board of education of the church:
“[Wednesday, 24 June 1903] Salt Lake City. Clear and mild. I spent the forenoon at the President’s office. At 2:30 p.m. attended a meeting of the general board of education of the church. During the meeting I called attention to the importance of the study of the science of life, which I thought was being neglected in our schools. It seemed to me, I said, that [more] of [the] young people should receive instruction in relation to love, courtship, and marriage, and should be warned against self-abuse and kindred evils. Many of the young people acquire the habit of self-abuse without knowing its baneful effect upon the health.”[3]
Elder Clawson’s wording is particularly interesting here, as it mirrors the medical guidance of his time. This is indicated by his emphasis on “the importance of the study of the science of life” and “its baneful effect upon the health.” What baneful health concerns would he have? “Insanity,” “homosexuality,” and mental/physical health. These ideas would persist well into the new century. These, among other documented comments, appear to be more medically informed than doctrinally established.
With exception to these few occasions, the Church as a whole cultivated sexuality in harmony with the restored knowledge. As time went on, the medical field gradually rejected the prior quackery and published evidence-based sexual guides, and the early church leadership embraced the medical field again. The healthy view of sexuality among the saints was obviously visible:
“The late 1920s and most of the 1930s saw a more explicit ‘sex education’ in church lessons, to a degree not matched before or since. As one invited speaker explained to a general conference of the Relief Society, adults needed to realize that ‘you and I have been brought up in a generation where we just could not talk about sex. Not so our youngsters. They are talking and thinking about sex as frankly as anything else, and so far as I can discover, as wholesomely.’ Official church manuals endorsed secular books about sexuality and suggested that sexual interests be guided rather than inhibited. During this time masturbation did not always carry the same onus that it does in the popular Mormon literature of today. Rather than focusing on abstinence supervision as is practiced today with current church youth interviewing policies, lessons instead warned parents that they could create emotional problems in their adolescents by an ‘unintelligent’ over-response to their masturbation (Bush, 1993).”[4]
For all the criticism The Church and its leadership gets for failing to address sexuality in a healthy way, the leadership — at least in the beginning of the Restoration— were insightful and ahead of their time. This would become evident at the turn of the century when a few brave individuals in the medical field began to refute the established science.
Austrian physician Wilhelm Stekel confronted the medical field in the early 1900s about the dangers of prescribing masturbation abstinence and the unsupported diseases associated with it. He later published his findings in his 1953 book “Auto-Erotism: A Psychiatric Study of Onanism and Neurosis,” informing the general reader of the medical misconception of sexuality. His keen insight and observations clearly identify the underlying problem:
“Suicide represents merely the extreme consequence of abstinence. It is possible to construct a scale, approximately as follows: anxiety, neurosis, hypochondria, moodiness, depression, melancholia, suicide. From the day masturbation is given up life ceases to be worth while[sic] for these persons.
“The inexperienced inquirer may raise the question: why do these persons fail to find gratification upon the allerotic [focused on another] path? Why do they not seek their libido in normal sexual intercourse, or even in perverse acts with other persons? Precisely because masturbation is the only possible adequate form of gratification for them ...”
I have personally observed the concept “adequate form of gratification,” as Stekel will point out. There is this emotional, moral and spiritual conflict that individuals raised in a rigid moral system experience. Bottling up and resisting doesn’t always work, but they also know that acting out on another is viewed more seriously. Also, those who are avoiding masturbation are not sick, disturbed or going insane as the doctors of the time were saying. A good individual who loves the Lord and desires to do right still struggles. Many viewed masturbation as the only “adequate” way to deal with this struggle. But when they stopped, in the hopes to end the “addiction,” it escalated:
“We have seen that the neurosis breaks out as soon as the masturbation is given up and that the consequences of the abstinence are then regarded as the result of the habit … These cases demonstrate to our satisfaction that many persons are unable to live without masturbating and that they would rather renounce living altogether than try to get along without the customary gratification.
“... I only want to emphasize that the warnings by which parents attempt to scare children away from the practice of masturbation frequently have the opposite effect …
“There are persons who have lost the courage to love, who have been inculcated by well-meaning but mischievous parents, and such persons are unable to experience pleasure without a sense of guilt.”[5]
It was these scientific findings that were taught within The Church in the early 1900s. For example, in the official instruction manual for Latter-day Saints, “Community health and hygiene: a study-course for adult-education” on page 138, the Latter-day Saints were taught,
“The pernicious fallacy that insanity is the result of excessive masturbation. The facts do not support any such view, and if they did, the attempt to control self-abuse — injurious as it is — by capitalizing the child's fear of insanity, would still be morally reprehensible and mentally unhygienic.”[6]
Next Chapter: 4. What Went Wrong?
Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
4. What Went Wrong?
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine and Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
[1] Health and Medicine among the Latter-day Saints: Science, Sense, and Scripture by Lester E. Bush, Jr pg. 140
[2] The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson,” http://signaturebookslibrary.org/confidences-held-sacred/
[3] The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson,” http://signaturebookslibrary.org/balancing-the-ledger/
[4] Health and Medicine among the Latter-day Saints: Science, Sense, and Scripture by Lester E. Bush, Jr pg. 144
[5] Wilhelm Stekel Auto-Erotism - A Psychiatric Study of Onanism and Neurosis
[6] “Community health and hygiene; a study-course for adult-education” https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89097565964;view=1up;seq=144
“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos In The LDS Faith Part 2
Previous Chapter: 1. Background — It Happened Again
Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
"Some persons have supposed that our natural affections were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are 'carnal, sensual, and devilish,' and therefore ought to be resisted, subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection, or progress in the spiritual life...Such persons have mistaken the source and fountain of happiness altogether." —Elder Parley P. Pratt, Essential Parley P. Pratt Ch 10, p.124a[1]
Understanding the context of Latter-day Saint beliefs about masturbation requires a journey through history, examining how cultural, medical, and religious views have shaped current attitudes. Elder Parley P. Pratt's insights offer a starting point, as he challenges the idea that natural affections are inherently negative: "Some persons have supposed that our natural affections were the results of a fallen and corrupt nature, and that they are 'carnal, sensual, and devilish,' and therefore ought to be resisted, subdued, or overcome as so many evils which prevent our perfection or progress in the spiritual life...Such persons have mistaken the source and fountain of happiness altogether" (Pratt, Essential Parley P. Pratt, Ch 10, p.124a).
As Latter-day Saint medical historian Lester Bush notes,
“The procreative process is so central to Mormonism’s cosmic view that at one time or another developments in every issue here addressed have been measured in terms of their impact on ... LDS thought ... on sexuality and sex education, birth control, abortion, sterilization, infertility, homosexuality, and sex change surgery [masturbation, eugenics, reproductive technologies, birth defects, and ‘ensoulment’ of the fetus are also treated]. As with nearly all other LDS teachings, those related to birth and sexuality can be understood only in the context of a considerable historical legacy …”[1] As such, exploring the historical ‘legacy’ of masturbation is critical to informing how we view it culturally and ‘doctrinally’ within the LDS faith today.”
Early Perceptions and Misconceptions
During the 19th century, masturbation was widely regarded as a harmful practice, a view significantly influenced by publications like "Onania; or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution." This pamphlet made erroneous connections between masturbation, various illnesses, and moral degeneration. Its impact, alongside similar literature, was pivotal in shaping societal and religious attitudes towards masturbation.
The understanding of masturbation during this period, both in medical and religious contexts, was largely based on misconceptions. Masturbation was frequently labeled as “self-abuse,” a term popularized by the British pamphlet "Onania." The pamphlet erroneously linked the biblical story of Onan (Genesis 38:9-10) with masturbation, suggesting that Onan's death was a divine punishment for this act. This interpretation led to the belief that masturbation was a sin equivalent to Onan's actions. “Onania; or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution.” “Onania” or “Onanism” refers to Onan in the Old Testament (Genesis 38:9-10). It was a predominant belief at the time (and is still held by many today with many LDS still equating self-induced orgasm equivalent to the sin next to murder) that “Onan’s sin” and punishment of death was a result of him masturbating. Therefore, individuals who masturbated were committing the sin of Onan.
Contrary to this interpretation, Ben Spackman, a contemporary LDS Biblical scholar, offers a proper interpretation of the biblical texts often cited in historical discourses on masturbation. He suggests that Onan's sin, as depicted in the Old Testament, was not masturbation but his refusal to fulfill his levirate marriage obligations. This interpretation challenges the traditional view that linked Onan's story directly to masturbation. Demonstrating within the context of ancient and biblical practices that Onan's sin was not masturbation, but his refusal to fulfill his levirate duties to Tamar, an act considered incestuous and punishable by death in ancient Israelite society. “Onan’s actions vis-à-vis Tamar were particularly heinous in Israelite eyes: ‘By frustrating the purpose of the levirate institution, Onan has placed his sexual relationship with his sister-in-law in the category of incest—a capital offense.'[21] Thus the death of Onan at the hand of the Lord.”
Interestingly, "Onania" graphically detailed various illnesses and treatments associated with masturbation, using fear and persuasion to convince readers of its severe health risks, ranging from minor ailments to life-threatening diseases. The pamphlet stopped short of equating masturbation with murder, acknowledging biological factors beyond one's control, though its logic remained flawed.
"Onania; or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution" detailed these illnesses and treatments with voyeuristic testimonials. Using this persuasiveness and fear-laced pamphlet told readers that masturbation would lead to essentially every illness and life-threatening disease, ranging from the common headache to rheumatism, short-sightedness, bowel disorders, and gonorrhea. If left unrestrained, the habit would inevitably lead to a lonely and agonizing death. (Sound familiar?) His only avoidance to equating masturbation and its resulting emissions to murder, he states;
“What is wafted might prove a Child; if it were, all Nocturnal Pollutions, which No-body can prevent, would be so many Murders; but, because the Seed is wafted in a sinful Manner, it is a Crime which God hath punished with Death.”[2]
Although not logically consistent, he at least acknowledged there were biological exceptions and that there are some things one has no control over.
The wide acceptance of this pamphlet would later infiltrate reputable science and medical practitioners who would expand on it with little to no medical or scientific evidence. In the mid-1700s, well-respected Swiss doctor Samuel Tissot, a prominent Swiss physician and authority in medical science during the 18th century, played a crucial role in perpetuating the stigma against masturbation. His assertions, based more on moral judgment than scientific evidence, were widely respected and disseminated, especially in the American medical community. Tissot's influence extended to the point where masturbation was considered a significant health hazard. He controversially claimed that all forms of orgasm, whether through self-stimulation or sexual intercourse, were detrimental to health. This view was radical for its time and significantly shaped medical and public opinion. Tissot further argued that ANY orgasm, whether induced by masturbation or marital sex, was medically dangerous. This belief persists today among those who still believe that sex should only be engaged for conceiving children.
For Tissot, the very worst kind of sexual activity was the solitary orgasm since it could be indulged in so conveniently and at such a tender age that excess was inevitable and the resulting supposed nerve damage irreparable. Let me again interject, there is a persistent paradigm today, among even the most “sex positive” members of the church, who believe that masturbation only leads to pornagraphic, indulgent, erotic and selfish thoughts. This idea is also rooted in early quackery. Although the correlation does occur, I believe it's because we are predisposed to believe it will occur. I’ll address this specifically in the solution section.
Tissot medically advanced the ideas associated in the dangers of wasted semen to include weakness, cloudiness of ideas, madness, decay of bodily powers, pains in the head, rheumatic pains, aching numbness, pimples, blisters, itching, impotence, premature ejaculation, gonorrhea, priapism, tumors and hemorrhoids. His association of masturbation with weakness and an almost endless list of symptoms were particularly frightening to his readers, which led to hysteria and initiated popular new belief that came to be known as “masturbatory insanity.” One medical solution was circumcision. It was believed that exposing the head of the penis would eventually deaden its sensitivity, preventing arousal. “In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity.”[3] For women — and get this irony — you know what the solution was for female hysteria (which was believed to be in the uterus floating around in the body)? Orgasm — which could only be performed by a medical doctor. There is some evidence that the vibrator was invented to aid the practitioner in this “cure” because it was taxing on the doctor to routinely perform this treatment, but was apparently safer for the practitioner to perform than patients self-stimulating for fear of increasing the risk of insanity or death.
Ergo, the use of the phrase “self-abuse” is a medically archaic belief that orgasms led to illness and even death. By the 1830s, religionists were embracing, popularizing and capitalizing on what they believed to be the harmful effects of masturbation. Sylvester Graham gave public lectures about Tissot’s findings and expounded on those beliefs when he published “A Lecture to Young Men on Chastity,” wherein he warned about the scourge of masturbation and the perilous nature of excessive sexuality.
He agreed with Tissot’s claim that the loss of semen was a major cause of mental, physical, and societal ills:
“Semen may be called the essential oil of animal liquors … [It] contributes to the support of the nerves ... [Semen] imparts to the body, peculiar sprightliness, vivacity, muscular strength, and general vigor and energy … that it causes the beard, hair, and nails to grow — gives depth of tone, and masculine scope and power to the voice—and manliness and dignity to the countenance and person; and energy, and ardor, and noble daring to the mind.
“Enfeebles the body more than the loss of 20 times the same quantity of blood … [H]ence the frequent and excessive loss of it, cannot fail to produce the most extreme debility, and disorder, and wretchedness of both body and mind.”[4]
Graham — like Tissot with Marten’s ideas — took the concept further, asserting that sex-induced orgasms were equally dangerous:
“[It] rapidly exhausts the vital properties of the tissues, and impairs the functional powers of the organs: and consequently, that it, in a greater degree than any other cause, deteriorates all the vital processes of nutrition, from beginning to end; and therefore, more injuriously affects the character and condition of all the fluids and solids of the body.”[5]
In 1877, Dr. Kellogg published “Plain facts for old and young: embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life.” Stating his beliefs and medical solutions to the “heinous sin” of masturbation, he said,
“If illicit commerce of the sexes is a heinous sin, self-pollution, or masturbation, is a crime doubly abominable. As a sin against nature [again current ideas of what constitutes a sin against nature rooted in archaic science], it has no parallel except in sodomy (see Gen. 19:5; Judges 19:22). It is the most dangerous of all sexual abuses because the most extensively practiced. The vice consists in an excitement of the genital organs produced otherwise than in the natural way. It is known by the terms, self-pollution, self-abuse, masturbation, onanism, manustupration, voluntary pollution, and solitary or secret vice. The vice is the more extensive because there are almost no bounds to its indulgence. Its frequent repetition fastens it upon the victim with a fascination almost irresistible. It may be begun in earliest infancy and may continue through life.”[6]
But it was Kellogg whose solutions to preventing masturbation were sadistic and mutilating, including sewing the foreskin of the penis closed and using metal constraints to prevent erections (to be used if his intentionally bland cereal — created for the purpose of preventing arousal — didn’t work). Although these devices didn’t become universally used, it wasn’t rejected and is evidence of the fear associated with the practice of masturbation. This was the sexual climate during the time period of the Restoration of The Church.
What Kellogg did would become known as aversion therapy. This aversion-type treatment, although not mutilating, was used in one form or another for another century. "Steps in Overcoming Masturbation” by Mark E. Petersen is an example of aversion therapy approaches. Essentially, it's a “method in which a person is conditioned to dislike a certain stimulus due to its repeated pairing with an unpleasant stimulus.” Aversion therapy not only doesn’t work but the process of this type of therapy (also known as reparative therapy or conversion therapy) can lead to negative effects. As an American Psychological Association Task Force noted, conversion therapy can lead to “loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety.”[7]
I CANNOT emphasize this enough. The anxiety, stress and sexual confusion that is associated with any type of aversion treatment is damaging and unhealthy. The damaging results are the same whether it be “think[ing] of having to bathe in a tub of worms, and eat several of them as you do the act,” to prevent masturbating or using fear/pain in any way to avoid the behavior. Even the fear that if you masturbate you’ll have to tell the bishop again is unhealthy. Some aversion techniques use pacts with friends — that you have to pay money to them if you engage in the behavior. These are all varieties of using fear and pain to avert from what should be a beautiful, natural and God-given desire. Even the teaching that masturbating is addictive and will lead to impotence, cancer — or whatever FTND’s flavor of fear is for the month — is driven by fear and pain and often done under the pretense of “informing.”
There are very real consequences that are long lasting and often unseen for decades from aversion treatments, usually later identified in marital relationships. Many have attempted to convince me that, “it will be worked out in marriage when it's condoned by the Lord to explore sexuality.” That is both naive and dangerous thinking. I believe there is significant sexual dysfunction in Latter-day Saint couples. What further complicates this dysfunction is that our culture views a lot of it as “normal” and even healthy. These issues will be addressed in my upcoming book and possibly in a separate post, but for the purpose of this post, there is sufficient evidence that aversion therapy approaches have lasting and damaging consequences.
As for the leaders who used these approaches, please don’t misunderstand me; I am not criticizing Elder Petersen or other leadership. I believe our leaders were doing the best they could in the context of what they understood — especially in the ‘70s. Even though there was evidence that this technique wasn’t effective, it was still commonly used in drug treatment. But again, I address these topics in great detail in my book. Back to the historical context.
To further demonstrate the widely accepted sexual views of the time, in 1850, an editorial in the New Orleans Medical & Surgical Journal inveighs against self-abuse: “Neither plague, nor war, nor smallpox, nor a crowd of similar evils, have resulted more disastrously for humanity than the habit of masturbation: it is the destroying element of civilized society.”
And finally, the issue with polygamy might have had more to do with the secular view of disease than religiosity itself (I am not an expert on polygamy). It could be argued too that the religionist and medical practitioners of the time were one in the same. Nonetheless, the climate of fear and rejection of polygamy appear to be in line with the belief that increased sexual activity (more orgasms) caused and spread illness and disease of all sorts. This was at least one of the arguments made by Dr. Robert Bartholow, an army surgeon who published a paper on the “physical deterioration” of the Mormons despite the “excellent climate of Utah:
“He attributed this to the practice of polygamy, which subjected them to debilitating diseases and produced genetically poor offspring. He stated that this religious practice had made ‘Mormon people a congress of lunatics.’ In his paper, entitled The Physiological Aspects of Mormonism, he described the typical Mormon as "lean and weak of body, depraved[sic] of mind (with) … the cadaverous face, the sensual countenance, the ill-developed chest, the long feeble legs, and weak muscular system: typical of a hyperactive sex life. He attributed a rapidly diminishing population to lack of male virility and a high infant death rate. The number of defective children born in the community increased each year as well. Only new converts brought in from Europe and Canada prevented the complete and rapid disappearance of Mormonism.”[8]
As you’d expect, it was much to the surprise of those making these claims to see the members when they arrived in Utah. They found no ill-developed youth. They were in fact met with a thriving population of healthy and happy Latter-day Saints.
Next Chapter: 3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
2. Context Is Important: A Brief History Of Masturbation Beliefs Within The LDS Church
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
4. What Went Wrong?
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine And Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality
Additional Resources
Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"
Blog, "Mormon Marriages"
[1] Health and Medicine among the Latter-day Saints: Science, Sense, and Scripture by Lester E. Bush, Jr pg. 139
[2] “Onania; or the Heinous Sin of Self-Pollution” https://archive.org/details/b20442348
[3] Paige KE (May 1978). "The Ritual of Circumcision". Human Nature: 40–8. http://www.noharmm.org/paige.htm
[4] Graham S. (1834) A lecture to young men. Providence, RI: Weeden & Cory pg 52
[5] Graham S. (1834) A lecture to young men. Providence, RI: Weeden & Cory pg 56
[6] Kellogg, John Harvey “Plain facts for old and young : embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life” pg 231 https://archive.org/details/plainfaorold00kell
[7] American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on the Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Pg. 3 Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=635da942bd-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Full_Text_02_26_2013&utm_medium=email
[8] E. Victoria Grover-Swank “Sex, Sickness and Statehood: The Influence of Victorian Medical Opinion on Self-Government in Utah” pg 64 http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5729&context=etd
Female Struggles With Porn And Masturbation
Anonymous Question Series:
Q: "What is your advice to females who have watched pornography or masturbate?"
A: The quick answer: Love yourself, be kind to yourself, retain the joy and beauty that is your sexuality, come out of hiding, and be confident in your struggle.
Your question is important to me, one I am addressing in depth in my book. There are too many women struggling alone. There are few resources and even fewer good resources. There is much I want to say, but there is so much misunderstanding, negativity and flawed ideas around the subject, and a more lengthy response is required. I am working frantically to get good resources out to our dear sisters alone in this battle.
But for now, avoid negative self-talk and avoid viewing sexuality as bad or evil. Discover joy and beauty in sexual desire. Understand these desires are of God; they are not evil. Also, recognize that every individual's biology and sexual drive is different. Be careful to not compare your sexual urges and desires to another person's. Focus more on untangling the unhealthy views of pornography from your own sexuality. Develop a true self-mastery plan that measures progress as apposed to abstinence.
Continue to be brave! Porn is everywhere and everyone defines it differently. You do not need to be ashamed. In fact, I encourage you to put off all shame that is preventing you from feeling joy. You love the Lord and you know that. Don't let your struggle define your love for Father.
Take a moment and read Kathryn Kirk’s blog:
"Being open about my struggle with pornography has changed my life. I haven’t been wide open about it, but I have opened up to some very key people, and as you can see from this blog, I’m starting to share my stories and experiences with whoever wants to listen. Once I stopped trying so hard to hide from everyone, I slowly started finding room to heal. This ongoing transformation has been something I never could have imagined, and now I want others to experience it too." (A Place of Healing, Not Hiding)
See also:
A Place of Healing, Not Hiding
As I have stated in other posts; this is a great question and will be a little difficult to answer concisely, for me. This has been a topic of GREAT interest and equal concern for me, so much that I have taken up the opportunity to write about it. I am over 100 pages into a book I hope to complete by the end of this year that addresses this issue and other related topics and their solutions. Additionally, Kathryn Kirk and I have attempted to fill this gap (of women not having a resource) with the "LDS Women Struggle Too" Blog and Group. But because of our Latter-day Saint culture, it is very hard to get the word out.
I Do Not Govern Them At All
"‘How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?’ Said he, ‘I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to gather out His people from the wicked, and He is going to cut short His work in righteousness, and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.'" —Brigham Young, “Leading in the Lord’s Way” (Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 7, 1870, p. 3)
Lately, I have noticed a popularity in various family contracts, specifically for regulating cell phone usage. As a principle, I caution families to avoid this approach to parenting. It communicates the wrong message, teaches the wrong principles and can lead to increasing the behavior you are trying to avoid. We'll see this same experience happen in missions: very well-intended, spiritual, insightful mission presidents pile rules on top of the standard missionary guidelines. The already obedient continue to be obedient and the less obedient tend to become less obedient. However, the obedient often become more focused on the "rule" and neglect the quiet whisperings of the Spirit.
With the advent of smartphones, youth have open access to the internet. I understand parents’ concerns and fears. A phone contract can be done if it is done well and with the right amount of seriousness and lightheartedness. But it’s interesting; in therapy we are discovering that “contracts” are not usually an effective method. In fact, it often enables problems.
For example, creating a contract has a tendency to remove one from living the principles and concepts to living by the letter of the law — making the parent have to spell everything out, as the child then becomes brilliantly (or desperately) clever in finding loopholes: “Well, that’s not what was said in the contract …” It can inadvertently make the contract into the parent, and both the child and parents subject to the document instead of to the spirit or intuition.
Take for example, a well-intended family who attempted to create a contract intended to help teach, remind and encourage gospel values, all with wit and humor. The son was excited and, of course, agreed to all the terms and signed the contract. It went well for the first few months. But as clever as the parents were at writing the document, it was of course impossible to consider all details and potential issues.
Like the contract in this post, it defined specifics about a curfew and never having the phone in his room. But it failed to mention that he couldn’t get up early before school and use it in the living room while everyone else was in bed. The parents were impressed that their son who never gets up on time, let alone early, was now fully ready for school most mornings. When inquiring what the new motivation was, they discovered what he was doing.
It was clear to the parents that what he was doing was not what they desired. But nowhere in the contract was it considered. Tension grew as the son continued to get up early and play his games, and because no one was up, every room became a private place. The parents told him that he was not to do that, and he argued back that that’s not what they agreed on. Do the parents revoke the contract and create a new one in greater detail or insert a provision that the contract can be edited or modified at any point per parents’ discretion? Both of those options defeat the purpose of the contract and discourage the very teachings they were intending.
While serving in the Phoenix Arizona Mission in 1995, Elder Lynn A. Mickelsen of the Quorum of the Seventies came and spoke to the leaders in the mission, which is where I served. He shared with us an interesting pattern of experiences he had while working with the mission presidents in his area. He was praising our mission president, Val Christensen, for the way he ran the mission, and that it was done on principles and concepts, not rules.
Elder Mickelsen said there are mission presidents who pride themselves on the binders of rules they institute in their missions. Upon Elder Mickelsen’s arrival, one such president laid a three ring binder of rules on his lap as he drove him from the airport. Elder Mickelsen said he removed it and discarded it. He warned that such things destroy missionaries.
We cannot foresee every issue, and the moment we attempt that in a contract, it becomes a burden. Natural parenting is interrupted, and you become bound to yesterday’s knowledge.
Such contracts are sometimes used to inappropriately control the behaviors of others. Another family intentionally established a contract they knew would be difficult for their daughter to follow. Whether they were cognizant of it or not, they were setting her up to fail. Instead of using the contract to govern and guide, it was used to get her to stop behaviors that annoyed the parents. Although the parents believed it was geared toward teaching her good habits, the message was one of shame and not a reminder of her being a child of God.
Creating a contract lends itself to a subtle communication that the behaviors are more important than the individual. It defines what one can’t do, but not what one should become or how they can use their behaviors for good. And good behaviors should never be contracted.
I have seen, even in the best of contracts, that it ends up binding the parents more and setting up an unhealthy power dynamic in the family — where kids will demand they have followed every rule in the contract and argue against a parent’s desire to remove them from their usage.
Using a contract can be good, but I would suggest it as more of an “articles of (faith) use” policy. As Joseph Smith taught, teach them principles and let them govern themselves. It is tempting to list rules and not principles, but I have seen this promote only rule following and not Spirit guiding. As a result, children develop the expectation “to be commanded in all things.”
Phone or no phone, my children know their electronics usage is NOT private. Their passwords are not private and at any time and length of time, we get to remove them from their usage. No questions asked.