Revision as of 15:47, 2 September 2021 (view source) SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:06, 2 September 2021 (view source) SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) Newer edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:
	|L14=Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rules for facial hair?		|L14=Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rules for facial hair?
	|L15=Question: What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers “preside” over their families?		|L15=Question: What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers “preside” over their families?
		+	|L16=Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?
	}}		}}
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>
Line 37:		Line 38:
	{{:Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rules for facial hair?}}		{{:Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rules for facial hair?}}
	{{:Question: What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers "preside" over their families?}}		{{:Question: What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers "preside" over their families?}}
		+	{{:Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?}}
	{{endnotes sources}}		{{endnotes sources}}

---

Revision as of 16:06, 2 September 2021

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Clarifying Mormon Teachings

Jump to details:

• Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?
• Question: How should we collectively view the concept of judgement?
• Question: How should Latter-day Saints view the concept of harm?
• Question: How should we view the concept of shame?
• Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?
• Question: What is the significance of the temple garment worn by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and what is the appropriate way to wear them?
• Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?
• Question: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?
• Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?
• Question: Is belief in the Book of Mormon’s historicity essential to Latter-day Saint theology?
• Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly discourage their members from getting tattoos?
• Question: Do Mormons really believe that drinking tea (or alcohol, etc.) is "morally wrong"?
• Question: Is The Family: A Proclamation to the World against feminism?
• Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have rules for facial hair?
• Question: What does the Family Proclamation mean when it says fathers “preside” over their families?
• Question: Was “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” drafted by lawyers in Hawaii in response to legal concerns the Church had over the legalization of gay marriage?

Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?

Introduction to Question

Many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been confused about the meaning of love from a Gospel point of view. This article seeks to outline principles of love that will affect the attitudes and behavior of the Saints towards commandments, their views about their identity, and so on.

This reflects the best efforts of the author to define love from the scriptural canon of the Church. Others are free to disagree with this if they have better scriptural exegesis and/or better philosophical considerations. The author has tried to follow the principles and procedures for reading and interpreting scripture outlined in this article.

Response to Question

Definition of Love

The scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contain many mentions of love. In fact, there are over 600 occurrences of the words “charity,” “charitable,” “love,” “loved,” “loves,” “lovest,” “loving,” “loving kindness,” and “loving kindnesses” in the entire canon. Readers are encouraged to either search out these words on the Gospel Library app or purchase concordances for the scriptures and explore each use.^[1]

Love is the cardinal virtue one can master as a Latter-day Saint. The prophet Alma compares those that don't possess it to the worthlessness of the dross of metal.^[2] The prophet Moroni likewise says we are nothing without charity.^[3] The Savior bases his entire ethic on the law of love.^[4]

After the author’s own review of the scriptures, the following definition of love can be derived:

Freely, rationally, selflessly, and non-grudgingly acting without the expectation of reciprocity (and even in the absence of reciprocity) so as to recognize and respect the intrinsic, absolute worth of all humans and introduce, reinforce, ensure, and/or restore telic flourishing, survival, comfort, and/or happiness—both temporal and spiritual—to all creatures (including God) so that ultimately all exist in a relationship marked by unity of both heart and mind.

As can be seen immediately, Latter-day Saint scripture makes love a concept pregnant with meaning. As will be demonstrated, that’s the point.

Let’s break down each part.

Freely

A person must act freely when entering a loving relationship. Love can neither be coerced nor determined. This necessitates that there exist some ability in humans for genuinely free action. The locus classicus for the Latter-day Saint belief in free action is found in 2 Nephi 2:27:

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.^[5]

Rationally

It requires a rational enough mind to give the moral law content. A person who has significant enough mental impairments cannot construct if/then statements like are required for morality. Some are not capable of thinking something like “if I murder a person, then I’m doing something wrong." Thus, one needs to have a rational enough mind to formulate moral sentences and evaluate their truthfulness.

Those who can’t form moral sentences rationally such as infants and the cognitively impaired are not of any less worth than others. All humans, as will be explained below, are of infinite, intrinsic moral worth.

Selflessly

Love is an act that seeks the good of the Other (the Other being everyone). It is not one that seeks the good of oneself. As The Book of Mormon tells us, “charity...seeketh not her own."^[6] The Savior taught us that "[h]e that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."^[7] He also taught that we should love our neighbors and God with all we have: heart, might, mind, and strength.^[8] However, selflessness counterintuitively doesn’t imply that we are completely bereft of self love and don’t seek to help ourselves at least on occasion. It is important to love ourselves since, if we don’t, we won’t be able to love others. We can’t love others if we’re emaciated from hunger and thus too tired to help others. We can’t help others when facing crippling depression. Sometimes other people can’t be there to love us and help us and we need to provide things for ourselves. Thus, we should love ourselves. King Benjamin taught us that "it is not requisite that a man [or woman] run faster than he [or she] has strength."^[9] We should seek to love ourselves not as an end in and of itself, but always as a means to the end of loving others.

Non-Grudgingly

We shouldn’t be hesitant with our love. Love should also not be given out of duty. If given out of duty, then it is not love. Moroni tells us that we shouldn’t give gifts grudgingly.^[10] The Lord told the Saints that they should be equal in temporal things, "and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld."^[11]

Acting

As the late Baptist minister and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary George Ladd wrote in his seminal work on New Testament theology, on the New Testament's view "[l]ove is a matter of will and action."^[12] Love is not merely being. You can say that you love someone until you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t mean anything until you actually do something to show it. The Lord told us that “if ye love me, keep my commandments."^[13] The author of 1 John tells us to "not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."^[14] To really be loving, you have to do things.

This is a crucial point that many don’t understand. In protest to certain Church standards, people will often say that we should just “focus on the heart” and “not judge others” by certain standards. The point deemphasizes the fact that love is and always will be a principle of action and God reserves the right to judge people by how well they act in accordance with Church standards.

Without the Expectation of Reciprocity

Love should be given without the expectation of reciprocity. To give care to someone's needs with the expectation of reciprocity is to treat someone of merely instrumental and not intrinsic worth. Love is when we care for someone's needs because of their intrinsic worth. An action can be called loving merely by someone not having the expectation that the other will care for their own needs. It does not necessarily need to be the case that there is no chance for reciprocity when trying to act lovingly towards others.

And Even in the Absence of Reciprocity

Love is not something that is given only when the Other cares about us. It is something that we give even when the Other doesn’t care for us in return. It is given even when the Other maligns us, tries our patience, abuses us, and makes us uncomfortable.

The Sermon on the Mount records the Savior’s teachings that support this.

[R]esist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain…Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven…For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?^[15]

So as to Recognize and Respect the Intrinsic, Absolute Value of all Humans

Latter-day Saint theology holds that all human beings are of infinite, intrinsic (and not merely instrumental) worth. This because it is believed that they have 1) always existed and 2) with human like intelligence.^[16] All humans are believed to be sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents and thus have a potential to become divinized like them and hold dominion over the universe.^[17] Thus, along with being of infinite, intrinsic worth, humans are also believed to always of absolute worth. Nothing conditions their worth because they are, inherently, of the highest worth being gods in embryo. Humans are also the only creatures capable of having dominion over the earth and replenishing it.^[18] They have the power to access other ecosystems and bring balance to them. A human can enter an ocean and bring balance to the habitat of fishes. A fish can't enter the habitat of a human and bring balance to it. They don't (and indeed can't without some form of miraculous technological intervention perhaps) have that type of intelligence.

Humans should thus never be treated as mere means to an end. They are persons and should never be treated as anything less than a person. Such would dehumanize them. If we love human beings, then we will never treat them as merely a means to an end.

The recognition of a person as having infinite, intrinsic, and absolute value should accompany every act we perform in relation to another. It will be demonstrated by both the attentiveness and tenderness we lend to people’s wants and needs.

Any loving relationship requires a lover and a beloved. Without one or the other, the relationship cannot exist.

And Provide Survival

It’s intuitive that love should have particular effects. The effects are what we use to discern what we value so much about love. Of course, whether or not your act actually produces these effects does not necessarily determine whether or not your act can be considered loving. Most important is that you intend to produce these effects and that you make efforts to produce them. Your intentions are subjective but they are reflected in your objective speech and action and in the effects that those actions produce. There is also a way in which we need to inflict pain in order to bring about a greater good. Getting a shot and the pain of working out are moral goods that involve pain but bring about a greater good. The scriptures themselves teach that God scourges and chastens his children in order to bring about their future, greater happiness.^[19] Love can involve the infliction of pain.

Among these effects that we want to provide, making people feel that they have absolute value (as discussed above) is a good effect. Survival is also a good effect. We are commanded to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and administer to the relief of the sick.^[20] We are commanded to not kill (in the sense of murdering someone. Not killing in self-defense, for example) nor do anything like unto it in the Doctrine & Covenants.^[21]

Telic Flourishing

Telic flourishing is also a good effect. A telos is a particular purpose or design that a thing has. The philosopher Aristotle posited that a thing flourishes when it acts or is used in accordance with its design. A basketball flourishes when it is bounced, passed, and shot through a hoop. Latter-day Saint theology teaches something similar. One thing that Latter-day Saint theology explicitly indicates is part of the human design is that of being united sexually after marriage.^[22] A man is designed to be united with a woman and a woman is designed to be with a man. Thus, homosexual behavior (including same-sex marriage), pornography, most cases of masturbation, adultery, and other sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage, since they can and do lead men and women away from fulfilling their telos, are not acceptable under Latter-day Saint moral standards.

Another human telos that Latter-day Saint scripture recognizes is “keep[ing God’s] commandments and glorify[ing] him forever.”^[23] All commandments help us to love God and love our neighbor as ourself according to Jesus. Thus, part of the human telos is to love. One reason to adhere to this telos is that others flourish. Doing anything that would prevent others from adhering to this telos would be immoral. Helping people to live in accordance with this telos is moral and encouraged.

Latter-day Saints who have gone through and done initiatory ordinances in the temple may, from a blessing they receive during those ordinances, know the telos of many parts of the human body.

An understanding of the human telos will not only ground a Latter-day Saint sexual ethic, but it may also ground a Latter-day Saint understanding of health. Latter-day Saint scientists and other medical professionals might look at the way we understand the telos of the human body given what we know from the temple and scriptures and ask "how can I restore this body to its original order?" They can recognize how the body has fallen from its original order—thus becoming disordered—and seek to restore that order to the body. We typically define health in terms of presence of comfort and happiness, absence of pain, parity with like creatures, and longevity. Latter-day Saints and others who believe in the concept of a telos—a certain purpose created in the mind of a creator and reflected in the design of the creation—can understand health in terms of restoring the body to that order.

An understanding of the human telos may also ground gender roles for Latter-day Saints. The Family: A Proclamation to the World states that men's primary role in the family is to preside over, provide for, and protect his family. A woman's primary role is to nurture her children. A Latter-day Saint can have an understanding of self-love that includes making decisions that help one adhere to their telos. How can a man better prepare to protect his family? Could that include building his body or purchasing a firearm and understanding its use? How can a woman better prepare to nurture her children? These may be good questions to ask and in a spirit of prayer.

Happiness

Another thing that is likely a part of the human telos for Latter-day Saints is joy.^[24] We find our greatest joy in committed, loving relationships. This is part of why the Savior commands that we love. Joy comes as we survive, flourish according to our telos, and have other things helped. For instance, a person with bad eyesight is loved by helping them regain it. True enough that a person with poor eyesight can be happy, but there are times when providing eyesight back can make them more joyful. We all want joy. Love given in this way can bring it. There is also a difference between temporal joy and spiritual joy. Temporal joy is getting a cool treat at the store from your parents. Spiritual joy is more enduring and primarily comes when we are acting in accordance with the thing that will bring us the most lasting joy like cultivating an abiding, intimate relationship with God. Temporal joy isn't necessarily bad, it's just not as valuable as spiritual joy. This may be why we're commanded to be "spiritually minded."^[25]

Some may wonder here why we have separated these effects. The reason is that it's the author's belief that a person can have one or two of these things provided to them without the others. One can survive without being comfortable or happy. One can survive and be comfortable without being happy or experiencing telic flourishing.

To All Creatures

These effects should be brought to all creatures and not just humans. All creatures want to survive, to flourish according to their telos, and to be happy. Latter-day Saint scripture tells us that animals have spirits.^[26] They also apparently have a telos. Doctrine & Covenants 59:16-19 explains this telos of animals and plants:

16 Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;

17 Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;

18 Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;

19 Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.

However, verse 20 of the same section provides this injunction:

20 And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

This same caution against the use of animals in excess is repeated in Doctrine & Covenants 49:21. Another revelation in the Doctrine & Covenants clarifies that the Lord ordained the consumption of animals for times of winter, cold, famine, and excess of hunger.^[27]

Including God

Love is not just a virtue that should be shown towards other animals and other humans. It should also be shown towards God. Jesus teaches that the first great commandment is to love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength by keeping his commandments.^[28]

There are commandments in scripture that clearly show God trying to get us to be in a totally unified, loving relationship with him (or, at least, can be interpreted as such). For instance, God commands us that we set aside the entire day of Sunday as a day to rest from labors and pay our devotions to him.^[29] We spend most of our weeks not thinking about God. Isn't it intuitive that God would ask for one day for himself? Additionally, God expressly condemns witchcraft, sorceries, soothsayers, and idolatry since these types of people/behaviors can lead us to believe in other powers besides his. Engaging in these things becomes an affront to his omnipotence and total majesty. Idolatry is linked to adultery throughout scripture and God is depicted as the betrayed lover.

Jesus sets up a perfect triangle of love distribution between us, others, and God in Matthew 22:33–40. He commands us to love both God and our neighbor. The purpose of this life is to discern how to create a totally unified, loving relationship between God, us, the rest of the human family, and all of God's creation.

So that Ultimately All Exist in a Relationship Marked by Unity of Both Heart and Mind

Love ultimately brings about unity. This unity should be a unity of both heart and mind. Love is the "bond of perfectness."^[30] The Doctrine & Covenants exhorts us to be clothed in the bond of charity and calls it a bond of perfectness and peace.^[31]

Unity of heart is being 1) willing to continue providing for the needs of the person you are in a relationship with and 2) having trust that they feel the same for you. What should our universal purpose be as creatures? Love. Particularly, loving in the right way at the right time. By loving in the right way at the right time, we all grow into understanding of the principle of love.

Unity of mind is being agreed in and knowing all things including purpose, morality, science, and so forth. Unity of mind can thus happen now, but it can also grow further into the eternities. Scripture tells us to "be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind."^[32]

At the very root of the Latter-day Saint hope for the world is to create a relationship "of one heart and one mind" with everyone dwelling in righteousness and no poor among us.^[33] It is by this relationship that Latter-day Saints and indeed the entire human family can take on the very nature of God and become love personified.^[34]

If everyone were to face their attention outward and focus on the needs of others, eventually, no one's needs would need to be met. This is why the Savior wants us to lose our lives and begin to love others: so that we can eventually save ours and everyone else's life.^[35] If everyone is loving someone, no one will need love. If everyone has love, then we will all experience the greatest amount of joy that is possible to experience. This is the concept of Zion elucidated by Latter-day Saint scripture.

Conclusion

Thus, the Latter-day Saint philosophy of love would be something of a synthesis of the union, robust concern, appraisal, and emotion complex models in the philosophy of love.^[36] Love, for Latter-day Saints, is both an attitudinal and active virtue.

Continued reflection may yield additional understanding on this vital theme. Readers are encouraged to seek it.

Appendix: Bible Project Word Studies - Love

The Bible Project has produced two excellent videos exploring the meaning of the word "love" in both the Old and New Testaments exegetically. These videos are on YouTube and are linked here for a scholarly but accessible way of understanding love from a scriptural perspective.

Question: How should we collectively view the concept of judgement?

Introduction to Question

The concept of judgement is probably one of the most frequently misunderstood facets of Christian ethics and religious life in general in today’s world.

Frequently, the concept is brought up in discussions where one person is attempting to give correction to another in light of Christian/Latter-day Saint moral values. The person who rejects correction will usually cite the scripture where Jesus tells his followers “judge not that ye be not judged.”

This article will correct a few misconceptions surrounding this concept.

Response to Question

Scripture Holistically

It will be best to cite the relevant scriptural data in full so as to get a better understanding of this. In the scriptural canon there are over 1300 combined uses of the words “judge,” “judged,” “judges,” “judgest,” “judgeth,” “judging,” “judgement,” “judgements,” “judgement-hall,” “judgement-seat,” and “judgement- seats.” A sizeable number of these have to do with God as our Eternal Judge, sitting on his judgement-seat, ready to enact judgement against those who have sinned without repentance at the last day.

There are upwards of 15 different Greek and Hebrew words that the canon uses to translate the above 11 words. Readers are encouraged to purchase a concordance for the scriptures or search these terms using the search function in the Gospel Library App and explore each use.^[37]

What can we learn from this data? One thing we can learn is that judgement is not an inherently bad thing. Indeed, if it were, God would be sinning and, as a religious truism, God is perfect.

The real problem, then, can’t be judgement itself, but perhaps who is doing the judging. But even this has some problems as will be demonstrated.

Scripture in Context

Let’s take the most important scripture of this debate and reproduce it in full for analysis.

Matthew 7:1-5

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

What are some of the lessons that we can draw from these verses? The first thing we might learn is that Jesus’ condemnation of judgement does not have to do with judgement itself. It is the way and time at which judgement is used. Jesus condemns hypocrisy, pettiness, and presumptuousness with judgement. Indeed, Jesus even commands his followers to judge righteous judgement (John 7:24)! How could we even do missionary work or invite anyone to repent (Doctrine and Covenants 88:81) if we cannot recognize weaknesses or other sins in others and help them address them?

But what are some of the ways in which we judge unrighteously? Jesus has some things to say about this as well. In this scripture, it is heavily implied that we often have a greater weakness than our brother. Indeed, Jesus makes this clear by making a contrast between a mote (like a speck of dust) and a beam (a large piece of wood). So, we should examine ourselves and see if we have that same weakness. If we do, then we will be judged by our brother and, likely, God too. We should repent if we have that weakness. If we have fully repented, then we will have the opportunity to see the mote in our brother’s eye more clearly and be able to help him or her address it. When we do, we should do it in a spirit of meekness, humility, lowliness of heart, and love unfeigned. We should not seek to gain a sense of spiritual superiority by our helping others with their weaknesses. Indeed, we are all ultimately fallen men and women (Mosiah 3:19). This is what really upsets the person receiving correction: not judgement itself, but the way in which others judge. Does a person’s judgement lead them to help the other person receiving correction to only feel shame that produces self-loathing? Or does it inspire the other to see greater blessings in keeping the commandments?

Another way we judge unrighteously is by overlooking important details when judging someone's moral character (John 7:24).

In other articles we will explore the concepts of shame and harm and see how these might round out discussion of this important concept.

Main article: Question: How should we collectively view the concept of harm?

The best ways to encourage people to live by a standard are to live the standard yourself and show how one is happier as they live it or advocate for the standard in a way that doesn’t feel as direct and confrontational such as giving a sacrament meeting talk or Sunday School lesson on the issue. Direct, face to face confrontation is perhaps the least effective way for guiding social harmony and for changing people’s behavior.

One Scripture That May Contradict the Viewpoint of This Article

There is one scripture that may contradict the view of this article.

The Lord told the Saints headquartered in Kirtland to make friends with their non-Latter-day Saint neighbors.

Doctrine and Covenants 82:22-23 states:

22 And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you.

23 Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you.

Some may use this scripture to say that we shouldn't judge anyone at all. Though this scripture more intuitively refers to merely pettiness in judgement. It cannot be used to invalidate the main point of this article: that unrighteous and righteous judgement both exist.

Conclusion

It is clear that there is something to learn for everyone regarding judgement. If others have better scriptural exegesis or philosophical considerations, they are welcome to send some of those disagreements to FAIR volunteers so that this article might improve if necessary. Continued meditation on this theme will almost certainly bring greater understanding to it.

Moving forward, it will be best to distinguish between unrighteous judgement (such as judgement that is petty, hypocritical, and/or presumptuous) and righteous judgment (such as judgement that helps us know what associations are going to lead us to always keep God's commandments).

Question: How should we collectively view the concept of harm?

Introduction to Question

The concept of harm is often misunderstood from a Gospel perspective. What can we learn about harm from the scriptures?

Response to Question

Harms that Bring about a Greater Good are Often Okay

One of the first things we can learn from the behavior of God and Jesus is that not all harms are bad. Indeed, it seems that if a harm brings about a greater good, then the harm may be justified.

Why would Jesus harshly criticize Peter (Luke 4:8)? Why would he rebuke unclean spirits (Luke 9:42)? Why would we be under the obligation to reprove our fellowmen with sharpness at times (Doctrine and Covenants 121:43)? It seems that not all harm is bad.

Harms that Do Not Bring about a Greater Good are not Okay

Only when harm treats others as if their lives were expendable or when a harm otherwise does not bring about a greater good should a harm be viewed as bad. That is one purpose of the whole moral ecosystem we know as the law of love laid out in scripture: to do away entirely with unnecessary harm and to allow us to know when it is appropriate to enact necessary harm.

Conclusion

It seems, then, that the task of any discussion of harm is to determine whether a particular action done by God or someone else does or does not bring about a greater good.

Continued meditation on this theme may reveal other important insights into this important concept. Readers are encouraged to seek it and send any thoughts to FAIR volunteers at this link so that we might consider it and add it to the article.

Question: How should we view the concept of shame?

Introduction to Question

The topic of shame has been one of the most discussed in recent years. What is the value of shame? What is shame?

These questions are explored in this article.

Response to Question

Distinguishing Shame From Guilt?

The primary concern of many when dealing with shame is that shame is associated in people’s minds with feelings of self-loathing rather than hope and change. Popular psychological researcher Brené Brown speaks about how shame is thinking “I am bad” whereas guilt is more like “I have done something bad.” Brown’s distinction has become quite popular in others’ consciousness and it is indeed useful.

In the author’s view, Brown’s distinction does run at least one risk: that we forget that shame and guilt are qualitatively very similar feelings. When we associate any bad feeling that is similar to shame (guilt, embarrassment, remorse, etc.) with the label of shame—and we view all shame as entirely bad—we can start to reject moral norms that are placed on us by the Gospel and the Lord's servants as merely conduits to self-loathing. It is not that Brown's distinction is wrong or bad; but that it can have adverse, unintended affects on our psyches/spirits and moral thinking if we do not monitor our thoughts and feelings carefully.

Is Shame Useful?

It is important to remember that not all shame is bad. Shame that only produces self-loathing is indeed bad, but shame also has other functions like instilling moral wrongs into people. Whenever we do something we feel is morally wrong, we may feel a degree of shame. That isn’t bad. Even in the scriptures the Lord tells us that there may be a time for others to feel shame. Doctrine and Covenants 42:74-93 lays out procedures for performing Church discipline for when a member offends another member:

88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.

89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be chastened before many.

91 And if any one offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God (emphasis added).

Thus, there should be a function for shame to some degree. Not self-loathing, but godly sorrow and the change it inspires within us.

Conclusion

Hopefully this article will serve as a point of insight for those seeking to understand this vital concept. Continued reflection is surely to reveal more on this. Readers are encouraged to seek it.

Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?

Introduction to Question

Many confuse the difference between agency and freedom from a Gospel perspective. For instance, some complain against the Church’s strong discouragement of its members getting tattoos by saying that such “takes away a person’s agency” and that taking away agency was “Satan’s plan."^[38] This article seeks to outline the true meaning of agency and freedom.

Response to Question

Definition of Freedom

The Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (contemporary to Joseph Smith) defines freedom as “[a] state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious.”^[39]

Definition of Agency

The Webster’s 1828 Dictionary teaches that agency is “The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world.”^[40]

Explanation

Thus agency is the capacity to make an undetermined decision whether or not a particular freedom is given to you. Freedoms can and are stripped rightfully at times. The freedom to kill an innocent person is not one that is granted by basically anyone. Religious organizations have a right just like anyone else does to take away and give certain freedoms that define the parameters within which one must remain in order to be counted as members/full participants in those organizations.

Conclusion

Hopefully this will serve as a point of clarity for those that are wishing to gain added insight into this vital concept. Additional reflection may yield more insight.

Question: What is the significance of the temple garment worn by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and what is the appropriate way to wear them?

Introduction to Questions

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints perform several sacred ordinances or ceremonies for individuals that they believe are necessary for individual exaltation. A few of these ceremonies are performed in temples: holy places dedicated to serving God.

In the initiatory portion of the endowment, "the member is authorized to wear the temple garment. The garment represents his or her personal relationship with God and the commitment to obey covenants made in the temple."^[41].

Members of the Church who go through these ceremonies and put on these sacred garments are sometimes confused as to two things:

1. Whether or not they make a covenant to wear the garment
2. When it might be appropriate to remove or modify the garment

This article seeks to answer these questions given what we know from official Church sources.

Response to Questions

1. Do Latter-day Saints covenant to wear the garment?

According to the official leadership handbook of the Church, “[m]embers who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives.”^[42] Among the questions asked to candidates for temple recommends is "[d]o you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?" A "covenant" is defined by the Church (and, indeed, by most dictionaries) as “a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions.”

Another way to argue that it is a covenant to wear the garment is to recognize that there is no substantive distinction between an instruction from God and a commandment. "Members who receive the endowment make a covenant to wear the temple garment throughout their lives." We covenant, both at baptism (Mosiah 18:8–10; Moroni 4:3; Doctrine & Covenants 20:37) and in the temple, to keep all of God’s commandments. Thus it is at least part of a covenant to wear our garments.

2. When might it be appropriate to remove or modify the temple garment?

The official leadership handbook section on wearing the garment states that “[t]he garment should not be removed for activities that can reasonably be done while wearing the garment. It should not be modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect. Endowed members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer personal questions about wearing the garment.”

What are those activities where it might be unreasonable to wear the garment? Examples might include exercise or water activity.

As the quote states, the garment should not be removed nor modified to accommodate different styles of clothing. One of the purposes of the garment is to encourage modesty in how we dress. The garment as currently designed indicates what parts of the body should be clothed in order to meet a more objective/specific standard of modesty in how we dress.

Several concerns have arisen because of various health and practical considerations. The garment, as currently designed, can potentially assuage some of those concerns. If concerns persist, these might be directed to God in prayer.

1. Some have been concerned about having to be in extreme heat when wearing the garment. When to remove the garment in heat is a personal choice. Members may also benefit from understanding the different fabric types designed for different climates. The chart above lists the different fabric types.
2. Some have been concerned about the flaring of hemorrhoids when wearing the garment. Wearing loose-fitting clothing and cotton underwear may help avoid excessive moisture and friction which may aggravate the hemmorroid.^[43]
3. Some women have been concerned about the garment causing yeast infections and/or urinary tract infections. It should be noted that all garment styles for women "have a 100% cotton bottom panel for breathability and hygiene, as recommended by OBGYNs."^[44] A few of the fabrics are either 95% or 100% cotton.
4. Some have been concerned about the potential for the garment to aggravate psoriasis when contracted. Those who suffer with psoriasis may be encouraged to avoid clothing and bedding that touches the affected area that is made of wool and other synthetic materials, are made with dyes, or have tight waistbands.^[45]
5. Some have been concerned about potential skin allergies that garments might cause. As noted above, there are several different styles of fabric that one can choose from in order to avoid allergies.
6. Some have been concerned about the itchiness of certain fabrics. The chart above gives ratings for how soft and comfortable each fabric style is. Consumers can pick what works best for their circumstances.
7. Some have been concerned with the garment's potential to aggravate ingrown hairs. The medical counsel for this is to wear loose clothing that surrounds the area to avoid excessive friction.^[46]
8. Special styles of garments exist for women who are pregnant and/or nursing and for those that are terminally ill and/or bedridden for an extended period of time.
9. Some women have concerns about how the garment can hold menstrual pads. If another piece of underclothing works well for this, it may be used in addition to the garment. "It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn over or under the temple garment."^[47]
10. Some complain about uncomfortable waistbands. This might be solved by keeping the garment top tucked into the garment bottom, or buying garment bottoms with a larger waist size.
11. Some assert that they don't want to wear the garment because it imposes an arbitrary notion of modesty. They assert that the garment style has changed a lot over the years that fit with different cultural definitions of modesty. It is true that the garment has changed over the years and that it likely reflects a response to changing societal standards of modesty and what is considered fashionable. As directed by the First Presidency, any necessary modifications to the garment will be made in the future.

Fundamentally, garments should not be removed when we have the reasonable opportunity to wear them and that, generally speaking, we should be seeking for opportunities to wear them rather than not wear them. Why would there be so many fabrics and styles that one can choose from if the Church didn't expect us to wear them as much as possible? We should be intuitive about our garment wearing and be in the communication with the Spirit to know when it may be necessary to remove them.

Conclusion

Wearing the garment is a sacred privilege. They are expressly not "just like any other underwear." Wearing the garment communicates love for God by keeping our promises to him and love for others by giving them an example to follow that leads them to Jesus Christ.^[48] We often want so much to conform our garment-wearing to the world rather than help the world conform to garment-wearing. We shouldn’t be afraid to be different from others. The Lord has told us that, as Christians, we should “[l]et [our] light so shine before men [and women], that they may see [our] good works, and glorify [our] Father which is in heaven.”^[49] He wants us to be "a peculiar people, zealous of good works."^[50] Being different by wearing our garments and treating them with sacredness is an excellent way that we can humbly follow the Lord and, by so doing, be peculiar and interesting to other people. This interest may lead them to explore the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ and be converted to it. Thus, by wearing the garment we can fulfill the Lord’s commandments. As Latter-day Saints, we should be model disciples of Jesus Christ. Wearing the garment is one way that we can do that and it brings tremendous spiritual blessings.

Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?

Introduction to Question

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a large and well-established organization of leadership. This video outlines that leadership in detail:

The President of the Church, considered to be a prophet of God, receives revelation on behalf of the entire Church. Each person receives revelation for his or her own position and correlative sphere of influence in the Church. The more general the leader, the more general their stewardship. An Elder’s Quorum President can receive revelation to direct the Elder’s Quorum, a Bishop might be able to receive revelation to direct the Elder’s Quorum, but the Elder’s Quorum President cannot receive revelation on behalf of the whole ward like the Bishop can.

Occasionally in the Church, it is asked when, if ever, it is okay to disagree with the decisions, teachings, and/or actions of local and/or general Church leaders.

This article will outline those occasions when it may be okay to disagree with leaders of the Church.

Four Important Initial Considerations

Before we get into the occasions when it may be okay to disagree with Church leaders, it is important to keep four things in mind.

The Ideal: Agreeing With, Defending, and Living Out as Much of Leaders’ Words and Actions as Humanly Possible

First, we should lay out what the ideal is for every Latter-day Saint in relation to all leaders (both general and local) of the Church. That is:

We should try and agree with, defend, and live out the words and actions of all leaders of the Church (past and present, ancient and modern, recorded in scripture and not, general and local) as much as humanly possible. We should defend their words as true (that is, corresponding to reality),^[51] logically consistent, and morally good.

This is what it means to sustain a leader: to uphold their influence in human hearts as much as possible. When we disagree with them or criticize them, they can start to lose their influence either in our own hearts, the hearts of other people that hear our criticism, or both.

Particularly in regards to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, we are told over and over again in the scriptures that they are holy.^[52] We should try and treat them and their words as such.

We are also told in scripture to receive all the prophet's words as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith.^[53] Additionally, we are told that if we do lift our heels against them and say they have sinned when they haven't, that we will be cursed.^[54] Latter-day Saints who have gone through temples to receive their endowment have covenanted to not speak evil of the Lord's anointed.

This is absolutely not to say that we make an assumption that the leaders of the Church (both general and local) are incapable of error. The scriptures expressly declare that the prophets are capable of error. The first section of the Doctrine and Covenants declares that when leaders make errors, it shall be made known.^[55] It also declares that when they sin, they will be chastened so that they will repent.^[56] All this means, again, is that we agree with, defend, and live out as much of their words and actions as humanly possible so as to uphold their influence on human hearts and minds. How much it will be humanly possible to defend them will be defined naturally by logical limits of reason and morality.

When they do make mistakes, and when they’ve made the steps necessary to correct it, we shouldn’t hold those mistakes in our hearts and minds like a grudge that we can hold over their heads. We should forgive, forget, and trust that they won’t make the same mistake in the future.

We're trying to get the whole human family into a relationship of one heart, one mind, with no poor among us, and everyone dwelling in righteousness by living the Savior's law of love.^[57] We can't accomplish that task unless the human family trusts God's appointed spokesmen to accurately relay how we can all achieve that type of relationship with one another given the world's circumstances. We are, as the author of Ephesians tells us, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone…That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive”.^[58] They logically can’t perform that task if every word that they utter is subject to our “personal interpretation” of it.

If we don't assume a priori that we should agree with, live out, and defend the words and actions of our leaders, it's guaranteed that we we'll flounder in a kind of epistemic nihilism. Think about it, we live outside of the presence of God. There is no way that we can know for certain that any of the revelations recorded in the scriptures actually came from him. We have the Spirit, but anyone can recognize that our spiritual experiences offer us a different kind of knowing than having God right in front of us declaring that what a prophet says is true. We should assume that all of their words and actions are true and good until proven otherwise. Additionally, the scriptures teach us that our spiritual experiences should confirm what is taught in the scriptures. Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60; 105:58–59). This since they have been revealed by the Lord's duly appointed prophet: the only person authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church (Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5; 28:2; 43:2–7), submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (Doctrine & Covenants 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (Doctrine & Covenants 26:2; 28:13). The best that we can do is assume that they're right and do everything we can to agree with and defend them and wait to have that position proven wrong somehow whether it be by logic or further revelation from the prophets.

Many of the Church, with all good intention, want for the Church to “hold space” for those that disagree with the top leaders of the Church on even foundational issues and doctrines. These members forget the words of Jesus himself who said that “[e]very ​​​kingdom​ divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”.^[59] We should be trying to create unity in God’s Kingdom. Intellectual diversity isn’t good in and of itself. It’s only good as a means to the end of building common understanding and agreeing one with another.

In another article on our website we’ve talked about how one can view contradictions in scripture in a faithful way. We believe those same principles can apply to perceived contradictions in the teachings of the top leadership of the Church and, for those that may want to know how to defend them, we encourage those people to see that article.

Numerous other reasons to hold to this injunction will become apparent as one continues to study the history and teachings of the scriptures and leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Recognizing a Fault or Mistake vs. Criticizing and Backbiting

Prophets and apostles have consistently taught that there is a difference between the type of differences of view that members can have with Church leaders and criticism or backbiting. Elder Dallin H. Oaks noted that there is a difference between the type of criticism that is "the act of passing judgement as to the merits of anything" and "the act of passing severe judgement; censure; faultfinding" which Church members are to refrain from in relation to Church leaders. Elder Oaks notes that the latter is condemned repeatedly in scripture.^[60] There is a large difference between recognizing that what some Church leader said is mistaken or wrong and openly criticizing them and faultfinding. When we have disagreements, we can do the former and not the latter.

The strongest word that the scriptures use in relation to addressing the faults of top leaders is admonish which means "[t]o warn or notify of a fault; to reprove with mildness."^[61] That word is used twice in scripture in relation to leaders of the Church and only directed to people that have close relationships with the prophet. In the first instance it is with Oliver Cowdery in 1829 before the organization of the Church:

19 Admonish him in his faults, and also receive admonition of him. Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and charity.^[62]

In the second instance it is given to Thomas B. Marsh who was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

12 And pray for thy brethren of the Twelve. Admonish them sharply for my name’s sake, and let them be admonished for all their sins, and be ye faithful before me unto my name.^[63]

In this latter scripture, it does say to admonish "sharply." But, again, it's used in relation to someone who is already in high positions in the Church. Also, "sharply," in this context, more than likely means "with plainness, truth, and clarity" rather than "with harsh censure." Such has been argued persuasively by Kent P. Jackson and Robert D. Hunt.^[64]

Five procedures to follow if you have differences with Church leadership

Elder Oaks gave five things that members can do when they have differences with Church leadership.

1. Overlook the difference
2. Reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference
3. Take up our differences privately with the leader involved.
4. Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
5. Pray for the resolution of the problem.^[65]

These procedures, as Oaks astutely observes, help one to address the point of pain while also keeping in accordance with the principles of moral truth outlined in scripture—thus allowing an individual to keep the Spirit of the Lord with them.

There may be times where we believe that personal revelation has told us something that contradicts the prophet’s revelation. In these cases, review the principles and procedures outlined in this article.

You Need a Good Way to Read Scripture in Order to Disagree with Church Leaders

Many of the occasions we have outlined below in which it may be okay to disagree with Church leaders involve being a good student of scripture and having a way to read them accurately and intelligently. In another article on the FAIR Wiki, we have outlined important principles for reading scripture. We strongly recommend that all readers get familiar with it if they haven’t done so already.

Main article: Question: How can one best read and understand the scriptures?

Occasions When One May Disagree With Church Leaders

Now we list the occasions in which one may disagree with Church leaders. These are not automatic exceptions. Disagreement should be handled in a spirit of charity, prayer, and seeking the good of the Kingdom of God.

1. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when what they teach is out of harmony with the Standard Works

The first place where it would be okay to disagree with any Church leadership is when they say something that is out of line with the standard works. Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church.^[66] This since they have been revealed by the Lord's duly appointed prophet (the only one authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church),^[67] submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve,^[68] and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification.^[69] Scripture should be read contextually (that is, in the historical context of the people who would have first heard the revelation) and holistically (seeing everything scripture has to say on the topic at hand) to acquire accurate theological conceptions that members judge every person's doctrine against. This article explains in more detail how to read the scriptures.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.^[70]

It's important to remember that just because a doctrine doesn't immediately and explicitly pop up in scripture, doesn't mean that that teaching isn't inspired. For instance, President Russell M. Nelson taught the following at the October 2017 General Conference of the Church:

My dear brothers and sisters, I promise that as you prayerfully study the Book of Mormon every day, you will make better decisions—every day. I promise that as you ponder what you study, the windows of heaven will open, and you will receive answers to your own questions and direction for your own life. I promise that as you daily immerse yourself in the Book of Mormon, you can be immunized against the evils of the day, even the gripping plague of pornography and other mind-numbing addictions.^[71]

This is a promise connected to a specific action. This promise and action are never explicitly laid out in scripture, but the Lord does bless us as we treat the prophets as holy, are anxiously engaged in a good cause of our own free will without God's revelation (like sustaining the prophet by lovingly accepting his challenges),^[72] and receive the words of the prophet as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith as we are bound to do by the Doctrine and Covenants.^[73]

2. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when they try and claim revelation for something that is outside the bounds of their stewardship

As mentioned before, Church leaders have a specific sphere of influence that they are given with their calling and they are only allowed to receive revelation for that calling.

Elder Oaks taught the following. His words are supported by scripture (cited in the footnotes):

First, we should understand what can be called the principle of “responsibility in revelation.” Our Heavenly Father’s house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to “act in the office in which [they are] appointed."^[74] This principle applies to revelation. Only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own areas of responsibility. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility—such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church—you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord. “There are counterfeit signals.”^[75] Satan is a great deceiver, and he is the source of some of these spurious revelations. Others are imagined. If a revelation is outside the limits of your specific responsibility, you know it is not from the Lord and you are not bound by it.^[76]

3. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when their decisions don’t come from revelation

Members may disagree with Church leaders' decisions when those decisions do not come from revelation. When a decision, new doctrine, new policy, etc. is claimed to come by revelation, this adds a confirming, divine witness on that action and disagreement with that decision may very likely be disagreement with God. Since revelation almost always comes from God through the Holy Spirit, it follows that when the Holy Spirit does not touch us, that we are usually not receiving revelation.

As the Lord told all prospective missionaries in 1831, we are inspired when the Holy Ghost touches us:

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.^[77]

Here we echo the above caveat to not immediately reject a teaching, policy, promise, and/or other action that is not explicitly laid out in scripture/not explicitly said to have come by revelation. Just because a certain utterance from someone is not couched with words explicitly stating that that message came from revelation, that that does not mean that the message didn’t come by revelation. Thus we need to be methodical about how we’re deciding what to reject on that basis.

4. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when their conduct clearly does not fall in line with the moral standards and other statutes laid out in scripture

Another area in which members can disagree with Church leadership is when their conduct clearly does not fall in line with the moral standards and other statutes laid out in scripture. What are the moral standards laid out in scripture? See this article for an informative yet non-exhaustive summary.

As mentioned before, the Doctrine and Covenants expressly states that when Church leaders make errors it will be known. It also states that when they sin, they will be chastened so that they will repent. No one is exempt from the laws of the Church given through prophets by God via revelation. All must be held accountable before the appropriate authorities for their transgressions.^[78] The Doctrine and Covenants even provides a procedure for excommunicating the President of the Church.^[79]

5. It may be okay to disagree with Church leadership when their words do not accord with science

This last one is perhaps the most fraught with difficulty and complexity. We absolutely do not want to make science our idol. We do not want it to have higher authority than revelation or the prophets. We do not want to reject doctrines of the Church just because the current scientific community accepts something that might be at odds with Church doctrine and other moral standards placed upon us by the Church.

However, we also do not want to be hostile to science either. We want to have science inform our perspectives on things pertaining to the Gospel as much as possible. Take, for instance, the words of the revelation given to Joseph Smith when organizing the School of the Prophets:

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you.^[80]

It is clear from the revelation that our theology is expressly not hostile to science. We welcome it in order to be better instructed in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. Thus, we will have to do a continuous dance with our scripture and the academy: seeing how revelation and science converge. For instance, we can see what miracles, characters, and other events in scripture that we must logically see as literal and historical and which we do not. We might be informed about other things about the nature of those miracles, characters, and other events.

As President Brigham Young taught:

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods.^[81]

Should I "Vote With My Feet" When I Disagree With Something and Leave the Church?

Many today are concerned with how their participation in or affiliation with a certain organization reflects on them morally as a person. It's standard practice for us, when we disagree with an organization or political party or other group, to leave that group and find other groups to become a part of and support.

Many apply this question to the Church and ask if they should leave the Church when they disagree with something in the Church. Tragically, some feel that their values and the values of the Church have come into conflict and that they cannot, in good faith, remain a member of the Church. What should a person do in this kind of situation?

As we have talked about in this article, we should make every effort possible, mental and spiritual, to be in line with the Church in terms of moral values. Many people leave the Church too quickly and ignorantly. They refuse to see things from the Church's point of view or refuse to look deeper into what the Church teaches. That is yet another reason that we have stressed in this article to defend Church leaders' words and actions as much as humanly possible. Joseph Smith taught that "[i]f the Church knew all the commandments, one half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance."^[82] Even if the Church supports something that you find reprehensible at first, continue to seek light and knowledge. It is in that wrestle that you are going to find the most powerful testimony of the Gospel you have had yet. The Lord will guide you and give you drops of light that will eventually lead you to resolution. As the Doctrine and Covenants declares that "[t]hat which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."^[83] Nowhere are these principles more evident than with how many people struggle with issues of perceived sexism and the Church and how, with contemplation and with a different philosophical framing of sexism, virtually all of these individuals' issues regarding this would be eliminated.

Main article: Question: What is sexism?

The Lord does tell us that leaders can make errors. We've quoted the relevant scriptures from Doctrine & Covenants in this article. To quote them again, "And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent".^[84] Perhaps the Lord will reveal errors and correct them as you claim to spot them. Perhaps the light will grow brighter and you'll see how the prophets were right and you were wrong. Either way, a person has every reason to stay until things are made right.

See also: Question: Do the scriptures promote racism?

Conclusion

It is the hope of the author that these principles and ideas will serve productively to show that there is room for disagreement in the Church without undermining the (very) essential governmental structure and holy authority of Church leaders.

Question: How does official teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view those that receive revelation that contradicts that of the Prophet?

Introduction to Question

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in living prophets—men who literally can speak for God in our day.^[85] They boldly and proudly proclaim that the heavens are open and that God speaks today on behalf of the entire human family through these prophets. Prophets speak for God by way of revelation. This revelation can sometimes constitute the Church's policy on something, a commandment given by God to the Church, and can sometimes indicate what Latter-day Saints believe to be eternal, unchanging truths.

See also: Question: What is official or core Mormon doctrine? and Question: How do Mormons understand prophetic revelation?

Members of the Church enjoy the opportunity to hear from the prophet. They are encouraged to seek revelation of their own to know if God calls prophets today and if the current president of the Church is God’s authorized prophet. They are also encouraged to seek revelation as to how to best apply the words of the prophets into their daily lives.

Within the Church there are occasionally claims by those who affirm to be members of the Church (and sometimes by those even outside of official Church membership) that they have received a revelation that contradicts revelation claimed by the prophet on behalf of the whole Church. These claims to revelation are spread publicly and often stir controversy among Latter-day Saints because of the opposition the person enacts against the Church's leadership.

These claims are all too familiar for mature Latter-day Saints. Such claims are heard frequently and to hear that revelation contradicts the prophet can cause some dissonance for those that are seeking to understand what Latter-day Saint doctrine can inform these epistemological discussions and provide answers to resolve these seemingly difficult problems.

This article will seek to identify principles and procedures that people can follow if they believe that they have received revelation that contradicts that of the President of the Church, the First Presidency, and/or the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These will be sought for from the official scriptures and teachings of the leaders of the Church.

Five Things to Do in Case of Belief of Contradictory Revelation

1. As a first step, members ought to consider whether they are mistaken or misled.

Many members of the Church who find themselves in this situation ought to consider if they are simply wrong. There are a few ways in which members might be wrong.

President Henry B. Eyring stated the following in the October 2021 General Conference of the Church:

It is hard to keep the Lord’s commandments without faith and trust in Him. As some lose their faith in the Savior, they may even attack His counsel, calling good evil and evil good.^[86] To avoid this tragic error, it is crucial that any personal revelation we receive be consonant with the teachings of the Lord and His prophets.^[87]

1. Can’t have Spirit if in transgression or if in rebellion of Church leaders. President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

We cannot have the companionship of the Holy Ghost—the medium of individual revelation—if we are in transgression or if we are angry or if we are in rebellion against God’s chosen authorities.^[88]

His words are supported by the official scriptures. According to them, the Spirit of God cannot abide in unclean hearts (hearts of people who have willfully sinned and/or rebelled against God) and to receive the First Presidency is to receive God.^[89] If Latter-day Saints are in purposeful rebellion towards the leaders of the Church, it is believed that they may be in great danger of being deceived by false Spirits.^[90] The scriptures teach clearly that hearkening unto the revelation received by prophets is how members will not be deceived in the last days before Christ's second coming and how they can become like God--thereby achieving salvation and exaltation.^[91] Several scriptures address how to discern the difference between true and false Spirits.^[92] This may seem surprising to modern Latter-day Saints that evil and/or unclean spirits might have influenced them to believe something false, but the Book of Mormon documents how this very thing happened among the Nephites.^[93]

Latter-day Saints would also know that there are people who may intentionally want to be led by false Spirits--people that will spiritual experiences to pass that convince them of their own prophethood, so to speak. There are also those that might claim to have had a spiritual experience telling them that the prophets are wrong (when they haven’t actually had any revelatory experience) simply for the purpose of stirring up contention, mocking the epistemology of the Saints, and/or to simply troll. These are those that might be said to “pervert the Gospel.”^[94]

2. Seeking revelation on everything can make us susceptible to self-deception or influence of false spirits. President Oaks had another thing to say on this regarding those that seek revelation on everything:

Closely related to this example is the person who has a strong desire to be led by the Spirit of the Lord but who unwisely extends that desire to the point of wanting to be led in all things. A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. Persons who try to shift all decision making to the Lord and plead for revelation in every choice will soon find circumstances in which they pray for guidance and don’t receive it. For example, this is likely to occur in those numerous circumstances in which the choices are trivial or either choice is acceptable. We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment. Persons who persist in seeking revelatory guidance on subjects on which the Lord has not chosen to direct us may concoct an answer out of their own fantasy or bias, or they may even receive an answer through the medium of false revelation. Revelation from God is a sacred reality, but like other sacred things, it must be cherished and used properly so that a great strength does not become a disabling weakness.^[95]

The scriptures confirm his teaching. We are told in Doctrine & Covenants 58:26-28 to not be commanded in all things and bring about righteousness through our own agency.^[96]

3. Over-interpreting a heart flutter. It may be that an emotional reaction to something can be over-interpreted as a spiritual impression. Latter-day Saints should seek more dynamic confirmation if they are unsure they’ve felt the Spirit. Prophets have warned us about mistaking emotion for revelation. President Howard W. Hunter taught:

Let me offer a word of caution. . . . I think if we are not careful . . . , we may begin to try to counterfeit the true influence of the Spirit of the Lord by unworthy and manipulative means. I get concerned when it appears that strong emotion or free-flowing tears are equated with the presence of the Spirit. Certainly the Spirit of the Lord can bring strong emotional feelings, including tears, but that outward manifestation ought not to be confused with the presence of the Spirit itself.^[97]

4. Can’t receive revelation outside of stewardship. Lastly, members should remember the concept of stewardship. For example, only the President of the Church may receive revelations on behalf of the entire Church.^[98] Only those members of the Church that are appointed to a particular office may receive revelation for that office. Again from Elder Oaks:

First, we should understand what can be called the principle of “responsibility in revelation.” Our Heavenly Father’s house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to “act in the office in which [they are] appointed."^[99] This principle applies to revelation. Only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the stake president receives revelation for the special guidance of the stake. The person who receives revelation for the ward is the bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own areas of responsibility. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own area of responsibility—such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church—you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord. “There are counterfeit signals.”^[100] Satan is a great deceiver, and he is the source of some of these spurious revelations. Others are imagined. If a revelation is outside the limits of your specific responsibility, you know it is not from the Lord and you are not bound by it.^[101]

The First Presidency wrote in 1917:

When visions, dreams, tongues, prophecy, impressions or any extraordinary gift or inspiration, convey something out of harmony with the accepted revelations of the Church or contrary to the decisions of its constituted authorities, Latter-day Saints may know that it is not of God, no matter how plausible it may appear. … In secular as well as spiritual affairs, Saints may receive Divine guidance and revelation affecting themselves, but this does not convey authority to direct others. … The history of the Church records many pretended revelations claimed by imposters or zealots who believed in the manifestations they sought to lead other persons to accept, and in every instance, disappointment, sorrow and disaster have resulted therefrom.^[102]

Members may feel some discouragement that it takes such effort to receive and recognize revelation; but this is, in a somewhat ironic way, strictly in line with the Lord's requirement for his people to be "tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that [he has] for them, even the glory of Zion[.]"^[103] Learning to receive and recognize revelation would logically not be an exception to such a requirement.

In order to guard themselves against false revelation, members should seek to understand what is already laid out in the revelations contained in scripture. Joseph Smith left clear revelation that the canonized scriptures should govern the Church (Doctrine & Covenants 42:12–13, 56–60; 105:58–59). This since they have been revealed by the Lord's duly appointed prophet: the only person authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the entire Church (Doctrine & Covenants 21:4–5; 28:2; 43:2–7), submitted to and approved by all members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (Doctrine & Covenants 107:27), and submitted to the general body of the Church for ratification (Doctrine & Covenants 26:2; 28:13). Scripture should be read contextually (that is, in the historical context of the people who would have first heard the revelation) and holistically (seeing everything scripture has to say on the topic at hand) to acquire accurate theological conceptions that they judge their spiritual impressions against. This article explains how to do this in more detail.

One may wonder how far we can take this principle of only receiving revelation within one’s stewardship when it’s a fact that we often pray to help others and can receive revelation on how to help them such a concerned friend prays for another. A good rule of thumb is that we can receive revelation that supplements someone else’s seeking. Our revelation can serve as suggestions for how someone will direct their life. If they receive revelation and inspiration that does not agree with our own, then we bow to their revelation.

2. Members should pray to have their heart changed if this is necessary.

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi didn’t understand the meaning of his father Lehi’s vision. He was given the opportunity to either reject his father’s words or accept them. As a result of the confusion Nephi felt, he prayed to God to have his heart softened if necessary. All Latter-day Saints can learn from this example that Nephi set.^[104] There may be things with which they do not fully agree with or understand at this moment. We learn from the Book of Mormon that a witness comes after the trial of faith.^[105] We also learn that as one continues in light, that light can grow brighter and brighter until the perfect day.^[106] Thus if we disagree with something right now, we may at some point grow in understanding of what has been revealed by prophets that we can reject the influence of false ideas and, yes, even false spirits that may have influenced us into believing something that wasn't true. A time of personal disagreement is fine. What isn’t fine for a person committed to the truths of Latter-day Saint theology is to not consider that one may be wrong and/or not approaching God with an honest heart seeking an answer from him when they have these types of questions. He promises that if we ask, we will receive.^[107]

3. Members should be patient.

Closely related to this last point, members should be patient. For Latter-day Saints, the answer to prayer as to if something is right may not come until a bit later.

Consider a case from President Brigham Young. Brigham Young talked about the first time Joseph Smith taught something that he didn’t and couldn’t believe. It happened when Joseph taught about three degrees of glory in heaven. Said Brigham:

I was not prepared to say that I believed it [three degrees of glory], and I had to wait. What did I do? I handed this over to the Lord in my feelings, and said I, ‘I will wait until the Spirit of God manifests to me, for or against.’ I did not judge the matter, I did not argue against it, not in the least. I never argued the least against anything Joseph proposed, but if I could not see or understand it, I handed it over to the Lord.^[108]

Note that Brigham does not “blindly follow” Joseph. He does not start believing the doctrine simply because Joseph preached it. Brigham insisted that he have his own witness prior to believing.

Yet, Brigham did not go too far the other way either. He did not engage in learned debate, or publish an “alternative” newspaper (today such folks would probably start a blog or post on Facebook) detailing all the reasons why he did not believe what Joseph was teaching. He conformed his outward behavior in accordance with his covenants, but he did not abdicate his inner responsibility for building his testimony by confronting his sincere doubt and uncertainty. He waited for revelation, but he did not let that which he did not know destroy that which he did know.

If he had not taken this approach, he would never have gotten a revelation. There is an old adage in Latter-day Saint culture that says "faith precedes the miracle." Perhaps this can include the faith to simply be patient for revelation that we need.

President Boyd K. Packer cautioned:

There are those within the Church who are disturbed when changes are made with which they disagree or when changes they propose are not made. They point to these as evidence that the leaders are not inspired.

They write and speak to convince others that the doctrines and decisions of the Brethren are not given through inspiration.

Two things characterize them: they are always irritated by the word "obedience," and always they question revelation. It has always been so.^[109]

As mentioned previously, in The Book of Mormon it is taught that one receives no witness until after the trial of their faith.^[110] Latter-day Saints might consider this in their efforts to be patient in receiving the light and knowledge they need to be in line with the authorities of the Church.

4. If, after all this, we still believe we are being told that the leaders of the Church are wrong, we are still not authorized to publicly preach or urge a different course of action or teaching.

President George Q. Cannon observed:

We could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term. We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the Authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him, and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church.^[111]

Dallin H. Oaks gave five things that members can do when they have differences with Church leadership.

1. Overlook the difference
2. Reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference
3. Take up our differences privately with the leader involved.
4. Communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression.
5. Pray for the resolution of the problem.^[112]

These procedures, as Oaks astutely observes, help one to address the point of pain while also keeping in accordance with the principles of moral truth outlined in scripture—thus allowing an individual to keep the Spirit of the Lord with them.

Revealed policy vs. non-revealed policy. It’s important to know that Latter-day Saints can have differing opinions as to the efficacy of policy. Policy is a different matter entirely from revelation that teaches truths about heaven. Latter-day Saint scripture teaches that they are meant to seek all that is "virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy" and use all disciplines to be better instructed in the Kingdom of God.^[113] We may find things that may be helpful in supplementing the already good principles being used by the leaders of the Kingdom in building it up. As matters of policy and, more particularly, policy that is not claimed to have come by revelation, Church members may be free to agree and disagree and opine on ways the Church might improve through constructive dialogue. As matters of revelation that teach eternal truths and policy that is claimed to come from revelation, however, it’s difficult to conceive of a member that would go against revelations as claimed and approved by the top counsels of the Church. Such seems to be bad epistemology. It’s to ascribe self-delusion to the top leadership of the Church even when they’ve claimed to receive genuine revelation from God and followed all necessary steps for making something official.

The Doctrine & Covenants is explicit that a person cannot "lift up [their] heel" against the President of the Church and the other leaders and believe that they have sinned when they haven’t.^[114] Are we sure that we want to deny that someone has received revelation when 15 people claim to have unitedly received revelation? Denying that they've received revelation speaks to the ability that all humans have in general to receive revelation from God. If humans can be wrong about receiving revelation even when unified in claiming that they have in regards to any particularity, then how much more ability do we, as "regular people," have to receive revelation that doesn't simply confirm our own biases? This claim makes it so that God’s word is not, in Latter-day Saint scriptural vernacular, "sharper than a two edged sword" and makes it so that "the law hath no claim on the creature."^[115]

5. Members may be taught things by revelation that may be true, and for their comfort, but it is still not their place to spread them publicly, use them to advocate for change, and so forth.

Another point closely related to this is to know how revelation that gives us a mystery not yet known to the general body of the Church is to be taught. The Book of Mormon teaches that there will be times when people will receive revelations that may provide them instruction about the mysteries of God. Nevertheless, whenever they’re given mysteries, they are, according to Latter-day Saint doctrine, to not preach that as revelation until such knowledge is given to the whole Church through the appointed prophet.^[116]

Doctrine & Covenants 28:4–5 tells us that:

4 And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the church, thou mayest do it.

5 But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but by wisdom;

All this begs the question of how we'll know it's the Spirit that prompts us to share. We will recognize that the Spirit is the one that prompts us to share when we feel that it doesn't motivate us to share it as factual knowledge. It will also not motivate us to go spread the information and stir up contention and strife among the Saints or stir up malice against the Church.^[117] There may be times when the Spirit can prompt us to share our knowledge with someone, but it will likely be on a very individual basis and in private. You will likely not be bothered with the general rule being taught as the position for the entire Church.

Other Latter-day Saint prophets have taught similar things:

• Brigham Young: “Should you receive a vision of revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for He cannot safely reveal Himself to such persons.”^[118]

• Joseph F. Smith: “Not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority—the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints. . . .The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated [i.e., taught and distributed/published] until proper permission is given.”^[119]

• Joseph Fielding Smith: “If a man comes among the Latter-day Saints, professing to have received a vision or a revelation or a remarkable dream, and the Lord has given him such, he should keep it to himself. . . . the Lord will give his revelations in the proper way, to the one who is appointed to receive and dispense the word of God to the members of the Church.”^[120]

As a matter of caution, it would be wise to again point out that the Book of Mormon records how Satan went about the land, stirring up contention among the Nephites with rumors, gossip, and false teachings. If there is a spirit that tells us that we should publicly disclose our revelation and seek to bring others to our side, this would likely need to be seen as coming from Satan. Members may be taught things for their instruction or their comfort, but they should not disclose those revelations unless the Prophet of the Church reveals the same thing.

Answering Objections

There has been an objection raised to the model presented in this article regarding the relationship between personal and general revelation that we address here.

Nephi and Laban

Critics of this model have asserted that Nephi’s killing of Laban as recorded in the Book of Mormon is an example of someone receiving personal revelation outside of the explicit commandments of scripture that was evidently God’s will. According to these critics, Nephi was outside of God’s commandments in that God commanded that we murder no one (Exodus 20:13). Nephi was not the prophet at the time that this commandment was received but this was the standing law for him and other covenant Israelites. Yet Nephi received the commandment from the Holy Spirit to slay Laban. How can we assert that someone outside of a particular kind of stewardship generally can’t receive revelation that contradicts the prophet’s?

The fatal flaw of the argument is that Nephi was not acting outside of the commandments of scripture.

Like many modern laws, Biblical law recognized that there were different types of killing. The next chapter in Exodus tells us:

13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.(Exodus 21:13-14)

This ties into the "cities of refuge" principle. Someone who did not intend to kill, but committed what we might call "manslaughter"—killing someone without premeditation—was allowed to flee to a "city of refuge" in Israel, where they could not be killed by family bent on revenge.^[121]

A key aspect in all this was pre-planning. Did you "lie in wait" for them? Did you try to "slay him with guile", i.e. did you plot and plan it out?

Nephi is quite clear about this: he went into Jerusalem, "And I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do."^[122]

He also repeatedly emphasizes that the Spirit told him that the Lord "hath delivered him into thy hands."^[123] Nephi is clearly placing himself into this Jewish legal framework—he did not plot the death of Laban, did not go into the city with the intent to kill him, and the Lord merely "delivered him into his hand.”

Nephi is not acting outside of his stewardship but in strict agreement with the scriptures.

Even if we can find other examples in the scriptures of people receiving revelation outside of a stewardship, it doesn't mean anything for today when, by revelation, the Lord has established that general revelation comes by the prophet, is affirmed by the unanimity of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other two members of the First Presidency, and ratified as canon as the law to govern the Church. The system of spiritual government that the Lord has set up in the last days will generally not allow for exceptions to the rule.

Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has astutley observed: "Some might point out that Nephi violated a commandment when he slew Laban. However, this exception does not negate the rule—the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God’s commandments. No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects. The episode did not begin with Nephi asking if he could slay Laban. It was not something he wanted to do. Killing Laban was not for Nephi’s personal benefit but to provide scriptures to a future nation and a covenant people. And Nephi was sure that it was revelation—in fact, in this case, it was a commandment from God."^{[124]:17. Bold added.} In a footnote, Elder Renlund writes:

The Lord often does change, amend, or make exceptions to His revealed commandments, but these are made through prophetic revelation and not personal revelation. Prophetic revelation comes through God’s duly appointed prophet according to God’s wisdom and understanding. These exceptions include the Lord’s revelation to Moses and Joshua to kill the inhabitants of the land of Canaan despite His commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). The Lord, through His prophet, can and will revise His commandments for His purposes. We are not free, however, through personal revelation to alter or ignore established commandments that God has revealed to His Church through the prophet. See 1 Nephi 4:12–18; for a fuller discussion, see Joseph Spencer, 1st Nephi: A Brief Theological Introduction (2020), 66–80.^[124]:19n23

Conclusion

It’s not uncommon to hear difficult questions such as this one being leveled against the Church by its more secularist critics as if this were some sort of slam dunk on its epistemology. Although many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may feel confused by these questions and some not as well read in order to provide answers to these questions, the reality is that these epistemological questions have been answered by the official scriptures and teachings of leaders of the Church since the Church's inception. Understanding the previous principles and being able to articulate them to others will provide an excellent “reason for the hope that is within us” and help us to live more as Zion—as “one heart and one mind.”^[125]

See also: Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider the practice of masturbation sinful?

Introduction to Question

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views the practice of masturbation to be sinful.^[126] The Church's current handbook for leaders (2020; 2021) lists abstaining from masturbation as among the standards of conduct placed on Church members. But it states that "a church membership council is not held for" it. "However, a council may be necessary for intensive and compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family," which usually is accompanied by masturbation. The rulebook for the Church's missionaries (2019) says to "avoid any thought or action that would separate you from the Spirit of God. This includes but is not limited to adultery; fornication; same-sex activity; oral sex; arousing sexual feelings; inappropriate touching; sending or receiving messages, images, or videos that are immoral or sexual in nature; masturbation; and viewing or using pornography (see 7.5.3). See For the Strength of Youth (2011), 'Repentance,' 28–29, for additional information." The youth pamphlet For the Strength of Youth (2011) has said to "not do anything…that arouses sexual feelings" and to "not arouse [sexual] emotions in your own body."^[127] The newest edition of the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (2022) tells us that “[i]n your choices about what you do…avoid anything that purposely arouses lustful emotions in others or yourself.” True to the Faith (2004), a doctrinal reference work written for Church members of all ages and approved by the First Presidency, tells members to “[d]etermine now that you will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage. Do not arouse those emotions in another person’s body or in your own body.”^[128] Church leaders have long been clear that masturbation should not be regarded nearly as bad as other sexual practices, but that it is bad enough to require sincere repentance.^[129]

Many have wondered why the Church takes this stance. Much of the modern scientific community views the practice as normal in humans of all ages. Many benefits are associated with masturbation such as improved sleep, a better mood (due to the flood of feel-good chemicals released in brain during intercourse and orgasm), a better immune system, a better cardiovascular system, reduced stress, and reduced sexual tension—especially when a partner is not available, whether by their own choice or not, for sexual relations. Certain health professionals recommend masturbating to mitigate tension in relationships where one partner has a higher libido than the other and doesn’t want to demand intercourse of the lower libido partner (or the lower libido partner doesn’t want to accept demands). Masturbation exercises and thereby delivers blood and oxygen to the penile and pelvic floor muscles in men so that they can prevent erectile dysfunction and incontinence as well as improve the duration and quality of erections. It is claimed that masturbation allows men to experience intercourse longer before orgasm. There are a number of health issues that can cause pain (aka “dyspareunia”) for one or both partners during sex. A number of psychological issues can also limit someone from enjoying partnered sex such as trauma. For some of these conditions, there are certain health professionals that recommend masturbation as a form of treatment for the patient or as a release for their partner. Prior to marriage and after engagement, it is sometimes recommended that men and women masturbate in order to explore their bodies and determine what kind of touch they would like during intercourse. There is at least some evidence (though currently inconclusive) that more frequent ejaculation in men can result in reduced risk of prostate cancer.^[130] Limited evidence suggests that orgasm might help women relieve pain from menstrual cramps and increase their pain threshold.^[131] Orgasm has also been correlated with relief from headaches in some individuals.^[132] A 2008 study at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences in Iran found that ejaculation in men can help reduce swollen nasal blood vessels (nasal congestion).^[133] Masturbation is seen as having an evolutionary utility in that it flushes out low motility sperm in men so that higher motility sperm will compete to more quickly reach the ovum and fertilize it. According to some evolutionary psychologists, in earlier days of human evolutionary development, men competed for females to mate with. Women would be inseminated multiple times by different partners. Evolution allegedly instilled in men a biologically determined need to masturbate in order to have agile sperm and get offspring before other men. Masturbation also allegedly has an evolutionary utility for women in that it can change the state of the cervix, vagina, and uterus and make chances of conception more likely if climaxing one minute before insemination and 45 minutes after. It can increase acidic content in the cervical mucus as well as move debris out of the cervix to protect against cervical infection. Some have seen a restriction on masturbation as a form of sexual repression, which is seen as negative.

This article will explore, by study and also by faith,^[134] why the Church might take the stance that it does on masturbation even given the potential benefits of it. Almost all of these points apply to a discussion about pornography. This article can thus be considered a response outlining the Church’s potential rationale against masturbation as well as pornography.

Both the main body and citations of this article contain information that may be enlightening and helpful to the reader. We strongly encourage reading both.

Response to Question

Sexual Desire is a Fundamentally Good Thing

Before we proceed with the rest of our response, it should be first noted and emphasized that our sexual desires are fundamentally good things, given to us by God to be used for “strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife” and bringing children into this world.^[135] As For the Strength of Youth says, "[p]hysical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife."^[136] Thus, sexual desire in and of itself should not be considered bad. Indeed, it should be celebrated.^[137] No one should feel dirty, embarrassed, or shamed for their natural sexual desires.

As Parley P. Pratt once wrote:

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.^[138]

All this said, since sexual desire has a proper use, it follows that it should be exercised or put to use for that purpose and that boundaries should be in place to guide us towards fulfilling that purpose. It is not a sin to have a sexual desire. It is sinful, however, to exercise that desire in illicit ways as defined by God. It is also sinful to begin to plan to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways.

The Act is Bad. The Person is Not.

Another thing to be emphasized is that the person that engages in masturbation is not a bad person. The act is bad. We are not "good people" and "bad people”. We are people that do good things and bad things. It is true that Jesus says that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit and neither a bad tree, good fruit.^[139] But, for Jesus, it is not who you are that will determine what you do; it is what you do that will determine who you are. What you do creates proclivities and habits that become parts of you. Undoing one or more of those and becoming a different creature requires deliberate and sometimes ongoing self-restraint and change. This change can happen for everyone and Jesus lovingly invites us with open arms to make that change if those habits are not in line with God's will as outlined in prophetic teaching/revelation.

Jesus' view of identity is similar to that of Parable of the Two Wolves told here:

The Scriptural Case Against Masturbation

The scriptures are the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the whole Church.^[140] Citing James 4:17, the Church argues on its website that "sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth".^[141] Sin is to disobey the (presumably explicit and scriptural) law of God as defined by 1 John 3:5 and, apparently, 1 John 5:17. It is therefore logical that if we wish to establish something as sinful, that we make our best scriptural case—since scripture contains revealed truths from God—for it actually being such. We will generally examine passages in the order they appear in the canon of scripture. Only those passages that the author believes have relevance to the question of the morality of masturbation will be cited and discussed.

The sexually relational "telos" of men and women. The great Greek philosopher Aristotle considered all things to have a telos or purpose for which they were created/designed. He believed that things (including human beings) flourish when they adhere to their telos. Telic thinking (aka "teleology") became the foundation of Aristotle’s theory of morality (known as “virtue ethics”). According to Aristotle, human excellence consists of adhering to their telos to be virtuous.

The scriptures and other official pronouncements of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a similar view of human sexuality. They teach that men and women are designed to be united with each other sexually after marriage. Scripture repeatedly affirms that men and women are meant to be united sexually—becoming "one flesh”.^[142] Becoming “one flesh” does not merely refer to physically joining the complementary reproductive sexual organs of a man and woman (and more particularly toward the end of procreation and family life: the all-encompassing, instrumental, and intrinsic good of male-female unions),^[143] but also to that man and woman becoming psychologically and spiritually unified through their sexual union. Individuals, communities, and nations flourish when men and women adhere strongly to this “telos”. Sex is therefore a relational (rather than isolated) act between married men and women for Latter-day Saints.^[144] Any act that takes men and women away from living in accordance with that design (or at least has a high probability of taking them away from it) is going to be viewed as sinful/immoral by the Church.^[145] This understanding of men and women's sexually relational telos will pervade much of the rest of our response.

C.S. Lewis wrote:

For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival. Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself…After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.^[146]

One may still wonder why we have this telos and why it is so important to make sexuality relational as much as possible. Latter-day Saints believe that one of the central purposes of marriage is child-bearing and rearing. Doctrine & Covenants 49:17 states that one of the purposes of marriage is to fill the earth "with the measure of man [i.e. the amount of spirit children created by God in the pre-mortal existence ], according to his creation before the world was made." Sex is obviously the action taken by a mother and father in order to produce children. However, it is also the act of a husband and wife. Sex acts as a means of strengthening the emotional and spiritual bonds between husbands and wives so that they can stabilize/fortify their relationship as fathers and mothers and thus attend better to the needs of their children. Sex is the most complete union that any human can achieve with another human. It involves uniting the hearts, spirits, minds, and bodies (the sum total of a person) of a man and a woman into their complementary, reproductive roles so that they can achieve the goals of motherhood and fatherhood as well as the goals of being a husband or wife. Isolated sexual activity, like masturbation and pornography, accomplishes the goal of bonding a person to themselves and hyper-sexualized, dehumanizing, fictive fragments of other people. Relational sexual activity, and especially that between a husband and a wife, accomplishes the goal of uniting a person to another person; another human being.

Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her. There are two verses that have been used most frequently to justify abstaining from masturbation and they are the 27th and 28th of Matthew 5:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

These verses are echoed in 3 Nephi 12:28, Doctrine & Covenants 42:23, and Doctrine & Covenants 63:16.

Jason Staples, an assistant teaching professor in philosophy and religious studies at North Carolina State University, has argued persuasively that Jesus is not condemning sexual desire in and of itself here. Rather, he is condemning planning to exercise that desire in unrighteous ways and "fixing one’s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one’s own." Furthermore, according to Staples, "lust" is better translated as “covet”. So, if you are making plans to engage in unlawful sexual activity (without actually engaging in that activity) with someone while either you or they are still married (or both are married to other people), you are, according to Jesus, committing adultery in your heart.^[147] It's the difference between feeling a sexual desire towards another, on the one hand, and saying in one's mind "I should go talk to her/him and flirt with her/him to see if she'll/he’ll be turned on by it enough and come home with me" on the other. This passage, though, doesn't seem to clearly address the question of whether or not masturbation is an appropriate outlet for desire. Is someone who is married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone besides their spouse? Is someone who is not married making plans to commit adultery by masturbating to the image of someone who is married? Dr. Staples says this:

While I don’t think the Bible condemns masturbation (the usual interpretation of the Onan story doesn’t get it right), it also doesn’t seem that masturbation is “one of the proper outlets,” either. Actually, Matthew putting “and if your right hand causes you to stumble” [Matthew 5:30] immediately after this statement about coveting a woman may be seen as an indirect reference to masturbation. It’s not entirely clear, but it’s the closest thing in [the Bible] you’ll find to a statement about masturbation. Given the general outlook on sex in [the Bible], though, I’d say masturbation would not be included among the “proper outlets,” which are limited to heterosexual marital relations whenever discussed.^[148]

A few notes regarding this comment by Dr. Staples:

1. Regarding Jesus' words about the right hand causing us to stumble, Dr. Will Deming, a professor in theology at the University of Portland, makes a lengthy and compelling case for interpreting this passage as referring to ancient rabbinic commentaries on the Old Testament (specifically the Mishnah) that discuss how one could commit adultery by masturbating.^[149]
2. In their critique of homosexual sexual behavior, several biblical (Genesis 1:27-28; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13), Greco-Roman, and Jewish authors say that it is wrong because it does not lead to procreation and was a manifestation of an excess of passion.^[150] This rationale applies equally well to masturbation and is very likely a logical outgrowth of the Old Testament scriptures just cited that were already accepted as divine anciently. The Greco-Roman passages may have reinforced or merely revealed the rationale used in the New Testament to critique homosexual sexual behavior (e.g. Romans 1:27–28; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
3. If masturbation is a form of adultery, then it follows naturally that it can be an example of fornication as well.
4. Biblical scholar Lyn M. Bechtel confirms Dr. Staples’ understanding of biblical (more specifically on the Old Testament; but the Old Testament's outlook is reflected in the New Testament as well as modern Restoration scripture) sexuality in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. In her words:

In Hebrew Scripture sex has two primary functions: the production of progeny which lead to salvation, and the creation of the strong ties or oneness which are essential for holding the household and community together. Sex is the physical bonding together of what appears physically different in order to produce life, suggesting that the uniting of opposites is both creative and essential to the divine life process. In Gen.1 God creates by separating what is different into a physical (a child) and psychological unity...There is also casual sex or sex that does not create marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., Deut. 22:28-29) or that violates existing marital or family bonding and obligation (e.g., vv. 23-24). This kind of sex is considered foolish and shameful, an "inadequacy" or "failure" to live up to internalized, societal goals and ideals because it violates the purpose of sex and therefore does not participate in the divine life process...Sexual intercourse in ancient Israel is intended to be an activity that builds the community first and therein fills the needs of the individual.^[151]

Masturbation, since it doesn't build the community and does not create marital or family bonding (and more especially for those that do it while single) is outside the biblical outlook on proper sexuality. Properly extended, it is outside of Restoration scripture’s outlook on sex.

A case study from Corinthians. Here's another example that we can point to that gives good evidence that masturbation is not seen as proper. 1 Corinthians 7 opens with Paul talking about the sexual immorality of the Corinthians. He recognizes that cases of sexual immorality had taken place among them. In order to ameliorate this problem of sexual immorality, what does he do? He tells the Corinthians that they should marry and have sexual relations with their spouse. Paul does not encourage self-stimulation. He encourages monogamy and fidelity within marriage (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5).^[152] It's not absolutely probative for the notion that masturbation is sinful; but it is highly suggestive.

Masturbation and love of others. Masturbation most often affects the way that you look at others similar to how pornography does—even if only temporarily. When masturbating, one makes use of others or the image of them as the object of their own self-gratification. With repeated masturbation and over time, this can condition you to regularly see others as potential objects of your own pleasure. Especially with porn, pornographic actors and actresses allow others to objectify them. Some may believe that there exists such a thing as “ethical porn”, but such views are mistaken. There will never be a time in which you are viewing pornography and/or masturbating to pornography when you are paying the full currency of emotional commitment in the form of marriage to another human being before getting your sexual release. Full emotional commitment like that given in marriage is the only currency by which you can pay for sexual fulfillment in order to not be objectifying someone. The actors/actresses are facilitating this exploitation. Using others as merely a means to an end and treating them as an object—as well as viewing them as mere objects (even when they facilitate that objectification)—is contrary to the Lord's command to love our neighbor as ourselves.^[153] While you’re only using people in your mind, masturbation still requires that someone be an object of your passion instead of a full subject; a full person. It “requires conjuring a pseudo-relational stimulus, replacing a real human being with a fantasized sexual fragment.”^[154] You must abandon, even temporarily, the attitudinal aspect of love: seeing the beloved individual as of merely instrumental rather than intrinsic and absolute value. As we know, love is both an attitudinal and an active virtue. Abandoning one or both halves of this is engaging in an inherently unloving act. In this way, it isn’t virtuous. God and Christ, through their prophets, have taught us that thought is the birthplace of virtue.^[155] Virtues such as charity must be practiced in our thoughts as well as our actions. Some may wonder why a full bequeathing of emotional commitment in the form of marriage is a necessary condition for ethical intimacy. Elsewhere on our site we have defined love in part as using someone or something according to their/its telos. If our sexual telos is defined as married, man-woman, relational sexuality, then masturbating to pornography or being a pornographic actor that seduces men and women into going against their telos by viewing pornography you create would be definitionally unloving. Sex is, by its nature, the most intimate set of acts we can perform with another. When someone is not committing to your overall well-being and engaging in that activity with you, there's a high likelihood that you'll be convinced that they care about your well-being. But both you and them will recognize, if not married when engaging in that activity, that you are engaging in a mere simulacrum of true intimacy without getting the real thing. Having many of these types of experiences over time of getting simulative intimacy (whether in the form of masturbation, viewing pornography, or other non-marital and casual sexual encounters) is death to your emotional health by a thousand cuts.

Some may believe that you can have masturbation without inner mental fantasy, or masturbation without pornography, or pornography without masturbation; but as Dr. Mark H. Butler—a professor in the school of family life and addiction specialist at Brigham Young University—and Misha D. Crawford—a master’s student in the marriage, family, and human development program at BYU— have observed "[w]e cannot decontextualize or ignore the stimulus–response linkage between sexual soloing and pornographic images, scripting, and fantasizing. Sexual arousal and experience do not exist in some pristine isolation but in an increasingly tightly bound stimulus-response (S–R) equation."^[154]

Masturbation and love of self. We've established above that men and women have a sexually relational telos. Jacob 2:21, for instance, tells us that we were created unto the end of keeping God's commandments and glorifying him forever. Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17 tells us that one of God's commandments, one of his laws, is for us to be married and become "one flesh" as husband and wife. Mosiah 2:41 tells us to consider the happy and prosperous state of those that keep the commandments. Well, Christ also tells us that revealed law is grounded in teaching us how to love God and love one another as ourselves in Matthew 22:34-40. Therefore, any commandment is going to be some instruction in the meaning and proper exercise of love. Learning love helps us take on God’s nature which is the nature of love and also happiness.^[156] We've argued elsewhere on the FAIR site that part of the definition of love is to use something according to the purpose it was designed for. Loving ourself would then, arguably, include not masturbating since masturbation is not adhering to your telos of keeping God's command to be one flesh. It would be, definitionally, an unloving act towards yourself. This may be what Paul had in mind when he said that "[e]very sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body."^[157]

It will be important to adhere to this telos of becoming one flesh and not only for the fact that not masturbating facilitates greater marital unity with a future or current spouse, but also because masturbating can have a debilitating psychological impact on us. We can start to view ourselves as slaves to our passions and out of control. We will recognize that a force that is threatening to neither our life nor health is overcoming our agency. We will feel like our sexuality isn't an integral part of our personhood that we get to choose when to express and exercise. We will recognize that we are getting this cheap thrill of sexual dopamine and oxytocin without anyone paying the price of emotional commitment to us and really caring for us. We'll recognize that we are engaged in a simulation of intimacy without experiencing real intimacy. This can cause deep feelings of embarrassment, loneliness, anxiety, and depression. Being placed over our desires and mastering them can help us embody a fuller self concept and make us feel like the divine beings we are and meant to become. We can start to feel like an object of passion just as much as we make others the objects of our passion while we masturbate. As the Book of Mormon says, the natural man is an enemy to God and has been since the fall of Adam. The only way to overcome this is by listening to the enticings of the Spirit and putting off the natural man. We can’t engage in recreational, indulgent masturbation and consider ourselves as putting off the natural man. We are indeed distancing ourselves from the Spirit and the joy we feel when close to it.^[158]

Masturbation as part of the definition of other words in scripture. The scriptures contain a constellation of words that describe unlawful sexual activity. Among those that are perhaps most relevant to this discussion (including their derivatives) are "adultery",^[159] "carnal", "chastity”, "concupiscence”, "fornication”,^[160] "lasciviousness”, "lewdness”, "lust”,^[161] and "sensual”. An exhaustive scriptural concordance of these words and their derivatives are gathered at this link. Readers are encouraged to read each occurrence in their original scriptural contexts (preferably following this approach articulated in another article on the FAIR wiki). Given that the scriptural outlook on proper sexuality (as discussed above) includes only marital relationships between husband and wife, any sexuality that falls outside of those bounds (including masturbation) is likely being condemned in scripture. Masturbation likely falls under the definition or the penumbras of the definition of all of these words. If it does, then it is condemned in scripture and we are bound to follow those injunctions to abstain from it (seeing as how scripture is the law to govern the behavior and beliefs of the Church established above).

As an example, let’s take "lasciviousness”. Doctrine & Covenants 1:24 states that God gives commandments to his prophets after the manner of their language so that they can come to understanding. The 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary (which records the definitions of words as they would have been understood by Joseph Smith and thus the intended meaning behind many words in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) defines lasciviousness as "[l]ooseness; irregular indulgence of animal desires; wantonness; lustfulness." If masturbation falls under this category of lasciviousness (and it likely does) then masturbation is condemned scripturally.

Other scriptures that may justify refraining. Other scriptural injunctions that may support abstaining from masturbation include being able to bridle your body and passions as taught by Alma and the author of James,^[162] being a peculiar people so as to encourage interest in the Church and thus success in missionary work and member retention,^[163] to keep unspotted from the world,^[164] to abstain from all appearance of evil,^[165] practicing meekness/lowliness of heart/humility/easiness to be entreated before the prophets who have implored us to abstain,^[166] following the commandment to receive all the words and commandments of the prophet as he receives them as if from the mouth of God in all patience and faith,^[167] being anxiously engaged in a good cause without God compelling you to do something by explicit revelation,^[168] and ridding ourselves of "inordinate affection" (πάθος "vile passion") as encouraged by the author of Colossians.^[169]

A note on likelihood. In the foregoing discussion on scripture and masturbation, we have used the word "likely" a lot in order to establish interpretation. Some may be tempted to think that just because we have used this word, that we don't know for certain and can't know for certain whether masturbation is condemned scripturally. This is not true. Academic disciplines like history and scriptural exegesis are most often not in the business of telling us what is absolutely the case but what is most likely the case. What is most likely the case is taken as what is the case and translated to religious practice. We believe that we have established that masturbation is most likely condemned in scripture.

If nothing else, choosing to masturbate when the prophets have repeatedly implored us to abstain and called it a sin is going against the revealed commandment of being meek and easy to be entreated. Particularly when done if single or married and not directing your thoughts to your spouse, it does not qualify as adhering to your telos and makes you fix your desire on what is not yours as taught by Christ and illustrated by Dr. Staples. Since, as Butler and Crawford observed, you cannot decontextualize stimulus from arousal, there will almost never be a time while masturbating (while single or married and not centering thoughts on your spouse) where you will not be fixing your desire on what is not yours.

Personal revelation justifying practice of masturbation. It’s possible that some feel like they’ve received personal revelation telling them that masturbation is okay; but such revelation, given prophetic teaching and revelation on the subject, is almost certainly coming from false spirits. There are some scenarios that may rightly necessitate the use of personal revelation to determine what is right. We discuss those below.

Masturbation not a part of the Church’s explicit definition of the Law of Chastity? Some have argued that masturbation is not unchaste given that it doesn't fall under the Church's definition of the Law of Chastity. In its handbook for leaders, the Church defines the Law of Chastity as merely (1) abstinence from sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman according to God’s law, and (2) fidelity within marriage. Given the scriptural outlook on sexuality as we've outlined in the foregoing sections, those that make this argument may want to reconsider their stance. True chastity is correlating your outward expressions of sexuality and romance towards another with your underlying emotional commitment to that person. This correlation is where true happiness and sexual wholeness are found. Masturbation and porn give you all the excitement of sex without the price of emotional commitment to a real human being. They are definitionally unchaste.

How Masturbation Might Take Away from Marriage

An addiction is a behavior you knowingly and compulsively engage in that both causes harm to you and interferes with other objectives you wish to accomplish in life. So, if you masturbate enough that you lose your job because of it or your grades suffer because you're losing too much time with it, or if you lose a healthy relationship with your spouse because of masturbation, and you know that this harm is being inflicted but you engage in the behavior anyway, it is likely that you have an addiction.

While masturbation does appear by most metrics to be harmless when done sparingly, it does have the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to become addictive or at least compulsive.^[170] When turning addictive (or compulsive), masturbation can quickly become a deterrent from having normal sexual relations with a spouse. It can become more pleasurable to the person engaging in it over other relationships. Taking away sexual relations from a spouse can cause deep dissatisfaction and distrust in the relationship—thus potentially leading to the breakup of marriages and families.

Donald L. Hilton, a Latter-day Saint neurosurgeon based in Texas, relates how, during any stimulation of the genitals and orgasm, chemicals such as dopamine, vasopressin, and oxytocin are released in the brain. Oxytocin and vasopressin in particular have been linked to emotional bonding mechanisms in humans and other animals. When oxytocin was selectively blocked in voles, for example, it was observed that they don't mate for life or bond.^[171] Hilton cites American counselor Patrick Carnes who says that one stage of recovery from addiction is “grief” where the person “says goodbye” to their addiction. Hilton writes that "[i]t may be a combination of craving for dopamine and yearning for oxytocin-bonded pornography, among other things, that pushes a person to act out and view pornography."^[172] Thus, according to Hilton, you can actually develop an emotional attachment to your masturbation/pornography problem. If he's right about this, we'd do well to ask "why don't we do more to keep sexual stimulation within marriage so that we can direct our oxytocin and vasopressin-driven emotional bonding towards our spouse and thus more fully recognize and adhere to our sexually relational ‘telos’?"^[173]

Masturbation and Escalation

The highs that one gets from masturbation and the ensuing addiction that might follow from it can result in escalation of that sexual behavior to include viewing pornography, attending strip clubs, requesting various forms of local prostitution, and even forced sexual advances on the unwilling.

Some will be tempted to immediately apply the slippery slope fallacy to this argument. “Masturbation doesn’t necessarily lead to escalation of sexual behavior.” The author would respond with applying the fallacist’s fallacy. While it is true that masturbation doesn’t necessarily lead to escalation, the argument is that it can lead to escalation; that it has the much-greater-than-merely-possible potential to lead to escalation. To illustrate, let's take a lesson from porn. We're illustrating our point with porn and not masturbation by itself, but porn is almost always connected with masturbation so this example becomes relevant to the author's point.

Over 60 studies have connected porn use with escalation of interests.^[174] That is, porn users who have been viewing porn on multiple occasions over time tend to become interested in certain types of porn scenes that they were initially uninterested in or even repulsed by. It all has to do with what is known by medical researchers and other professionals as the Coolidge Effect.

Independent researcher and activist (and, for what it's worth, an atheist) Gary Wilson explains the relationship between porn use, brain chemistry and structure, escalation, and the Coolidge Effect from 0:41-3:16 in the video below. Many people find it hard to believe that porn and masturbation could be addictive enough to a human brain and lead to escalation since sex is supposed to be healthy. But, as Wilson points out, “internet porn is as different from real sex as today's video games are from checkers.” He addresses this assumption thoroughly from 5:16-9:31 in the video below. We strongly recommend readers view both clips from the video:

The same principles very likely apply to masturbation. You have a form of stimulation that is accessible to you any time you want. Following the Coolidge Effect, you can do it in novel ways over time. You can begin to involve pornography and then harder forms of pornography. Once pornography becomes unhelpful in getting the same dopamine hit, you can try out sex with others and escalate that, as mentioned before, to forced sexual advances on the unwilling. Does that claim sound extreme? Let's go further.

Over 110 studies link pornography to sexual offending, sexual aggression, and sexual coercion.^[175] Your brain becomes conditioned over time to want harder and harder forms of sex in order to get the same dopamine hit. Following the Coolidge Effect, you're very, very likely to seek it out. For men, they are much more likely to see women as objects and sexually subservient first before escalating. Over 40 studies link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” towards women.^[176]

How do you avoid all of this? Go back to 1:12 of the Wilson video and you'll find your answer: find a sexual relationship with a single partner and mate with him/her long term. Your relationship will be naturally more stable. Get married to your partner and avoid porn and other promiscuity outside of the context of relational sex. Over 80 studies link porn use and/or masturbation to less sexual and relationship satisfaction.^[177] Your marriage will be more stable and your kids will be more likely to grow up in the context of a stable, low-conflict home. Hopefully one can begin to see our Heavenly Parents' design for sex and why they wanted us to cleave to one another and become "one flesh".

Deriving the Benefits of Masturbation Elsewhere

But what about the many benefits of masturbation? Shouldn’t one care about the risk of prostate cancer at least? The problem is that all of the claimed benefits of masturbation can be derived elsewhere and there is no net detriment to one's health while abstaining from masturbation (discussed more below under "Is there something that biologically determines us to masturbate?"). Indeed, in almost every case, masturbation is not even among the top things typically recommended by professionals when wanting to derive these benefits. Thus it's more likely than not that anyone claiming that masturbation is essential or indispensable to our well-being are getting their information from biased, ideologically-motivated, or simply non-credible sources (whether those sources be professional or lay).^[178] We can take the potential benefits one by one and see what is recommended to reap them to demonstrate.

1. Improved Sleep: The Mayo Clinic suggests six things to improve one’s sleep. These include sticking to a set sleep schedule, paying attention to what you eat and drink, creating a restful environment, limiting daytime naps, including physical activity in one's daytime routine, and managing one's worries.^[179]
2. Improved Cardiovascular System: Heather Shannon of UC Irvine Health recommends that one exercise, quit smoking, lose weight, eat heart-healthy foods such as guacamole and vegetables, have some chocolate in moderation, not overeat, and manage stress in order to have a healthy heart.^[180]
3. Improved Immune System: Harvard Health recommends that one not smoke, eat a diet high in fruits and vegetables, exercise regularly, maintain a healthy weight, get adequate sleep, wash hands frequently, minimize stress, and keep with current vaccines in order to maintain and improve one’s immune system.^[181]
4. Reduce stress: The Mayo Clinic recommends exercising, meditating, laughing, connecting with others, yoga, sleeping, journaling, getting musical, seeking counseling, eating a healthy diet, and avoiding alcohol, smoking, illegal drugs, and too much caffeine in order to reduce stress.^[182]
5. Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer: The Mayo Clinic recommends that one keep a healthy diet (such as doing a low-fat diet, increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables you eat each day, and reducing the amount of dairy products you eat each day), maintain a healthy weight, and exercise most days of the week to reduce risk of prostate cancer.^[183]
6. Sexual Tension/Differing Libidos: This is a question that is best left between the couple and God through prayer (and maybe the local bishop or stake president). That said, if one is struggling with something like hypersexuality and truly trying to lower their libido, Dr. Janet Brito and Daniel Yetman recommend focusing on your diet, getting medication, focusing on relationships, and stopping illegal drug use.^[184] Likely in a spirit of prayer, partners can and should do all that is possible to be mentally, spiritually, and physically-oriented towards each other even as they might have something that impedes them from normal sex.^[185]
7. Urinary incontinence/Fecal incontinence/Pelvic Floor Strengthening/Erectile Dysfunction/Improving Erections: The Mayo Clinic states that treatment for urinary incontinence depends on the type of incontinence, the severity of it, and its underlying cause. They list a number of exercises as well as behavioral, medicinal, surgical, and technological interventions used to treat it. None include masturbation.^[186] For preventing fecal incontinence they recommend reducing constipation, controlling diarrhea, and avoiding straining.^[187] Kegel exercises don't involve masturbation. The Mayo Clinic has a step-by-step instruction list for performing them. These exercises can prevent incontinence or improve it as well as improve erections.^[188] The Mayo Clinic recommends working with your doctor to manage diabetes, heart disease or other chronic health conditions, seeing your doctor for regular checkups and medical screening tests, stopping smoking, limiting or avoiding alcohol, and not using illegal drugs, exercising regularly, taking steps to reduce stress, and getting help for anxiety, depression or other mental health concerns if wanting to prevent erectile dysfunction.^[189] Over 50 studies link porn use/masturbation to sexual dysfunction.^[190]
8. Males Lasting Longer Before Orgasm: Madeline Kennedy and Dr. Arik V. Marcell recommend at least 19 relational or medicinal solutions to delaying orgasm/ejaculation.^[191]
9. Dyspareunia/Psychological Impediments: Approaching treatment for any case of dyspareunia and/or other psychological impediments to partnered sex are best left between husband, wife, God, qualified, reputable medical professionals, and maybe local leaders. More information on treatment options that fit with your values can be found online or by contacting your local doctor. Likely in a spirit of prayer, partners can and should do all that is possible to be mentally, spiritually, and physically-oriented towards each other even as they might have something that impedes them from normal sex.^[185]
10. Menstrual Cramps: The Mayo Clinic recommends taking pain relievers like ibuprofen, looking into hormonal birth control, getting surgery, exercising regularly, using heating pads, using dietary supplements, reducing stress, acupuncture, acupressure, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and herbal medicine as potential treatments for menstrual cramps.^[192]
11. Headaches: The Mayo Clinic recommends (among many other things) using pain relievers, using hot or cold compresses, resting in dark and quiet rooms, and other stress-reducing therapies for treating headaches.^[193]
12. Nasal Congestion: R. Morgan Griffin and Dr. Carmelita Swiner recommend using a humidifier, taking steamy showers, drinking lots of fluids, using saline nasal spray, using a neti pot, putting warm and wet towels on your face, avoiding chlorinated pools (while symptoms persist), propping yourself up on more pillows while you sleep, and using decongestants, antihistamines, and pain relievers for treating nasal congestion.^[194]
13. Low Motility Sperm: Atli Arnason and Jillian Jubala recommend taking Vitamin C supplements, getting Vitamin D, incorporating maca root and ashwaganda into your diet, and taking D-aspartic acid supplements to improve sperm motility.^[195] Since, in a monogamous marriage, males are not competing for females, you don’t have to have the most agile sperm in order to conceive your own child. It’s impossible to know the procreative and other sexual habits of the earliest humans.^[196] Thus, any claims to an evolutionary basis for practicing masturbation are suspect. The best that a Latter-day Saint can do is trust that we have a sexually relational telos as outlined in scripture above and experience the benefits of not masturbating for themselves to gain conviction of it.
14. Preventing Cervical Infection: Menstrual cycles and orgasms during sleep/dreams have the same evolutionary utility for women. The vagina and cervix are self-cleaning organs. Douches can also be helpful but should be used with caution as these can sometimes increase chances of infection. Brenda Goodman and Dr. Traci C. Johnson recommend using condoms during sex (when not trying to conceive), limiting the number of people you have sex with, not having sex with a partner who has genital sores or penile discharge, making sure both you and your partner have been treated adequately for sexually-transmitted diseases, not using feminine hygiene products, and taking good control of your blood sugar if you have diabetes to lower your risk of getting cervicitis.^[197]
15. Exploring Body: This aspect of sexuality can certainly be discovered by husband and wife during partnered sexual activity with good communication as well as patient trial and error. Dr. Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford have an excellent discussion of this in their article cited above. Click the blue endnote to the right of this sentence to jump to a link to their article.^[154] The discussion of sexual discovery is had under the subtitle "In the Married Years”.
16. Facilitating Conception: These benefits can obviously only be derived in partnered sexual activity with the goal of conception.^[198]
17. Increasing Pain Threshold: Jacquelyn Cafasso and Dr. Elaine K. Luo recommend doing yoga, performing aerobic exercise, vocalization (saying "ow" when you experience pain), using mental imagery to shrink the pain, and biofeedback in order to increase someone's pain threshold.^[199]
18. Treating Sexual Repression or Frustration: Sexual repression refers to negative attitudes about the idea of sex and many to most to all things associated with it. It can be manifested in poor sexual performance, sexual dysfunction, and extreme guilt after sex, normal sexual arousal, sexual fantasy, any masturbation, or any risqué sexual behavior (relative to moral systems such as that promoted by the Church) such as light or heavy petting before marriage. Sexual frustration refers to not being able to have as much sexual contact as you might like. Masturbation has sometimes been recommended as a way of treating sexual repression and frustration. One does not need to masturbate, however. Elizabeth Plumptre and Ivy Kwong recommend recognizing traits potentially characterizing repression, seeing a qualified sex therapist, and communicating about changes regarding repression with your partner if you currently suffer from repression.^[200] To prevent repression, Latter-day Saint parents and the body of Saints must create an environment in which we protect and transmit a proper understanding of the human sexual telos but also do not harm children, youth, and young adults with railing accusation whenever they act out in inappropriate ways. We must celebrate their God-given and divine sexual feelings and impulses. We have to model healthy romantic and sexual relationships for them throughout their lives. Repression and frustration are best prevented by transmitting a proper understanding of God's design for sex, having healthy attitudes about sex and sexual feelings, and expressing sex's beauty whenever asked about. Any other symptoms associated with sexual repression and frustration can be treated using the solutions outlined above or talking with a trusted therapist.

All the potential nuances/exceptions to the general prohibition most likely come when fostering or nourishing the relational, tender, committed, married, and man-woman sexuality outlined in scripture and/or as specifically prescribed by a qualified, reputable professional as the only viable treatment for a particular health reason. We should approximate this ideal as much as possible.

Benefits of Not Masturbating

But are there benefits for not engaging in masturbation? We've expressed many so far, but it may be helpful to restate them clearly and in one place.

1. You are able to have a more unified relationship with your current or future spouse
2. You get to embody a fuller self concept by mastering your desires and making your sexuality an integral part of your agency and personhood
3. You avoid any addiction or get to heal from it
4. You get to learn something crucial and important about love
5. You can avoid any guilt, embarassment, or cognitive dissonance that comes from not living within your values and those of your faith
6. For men, you avoid any risk of erectile dysfunction that might come with excessive masturbation and porn use.

Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford enumerate the following benefits in their article:

1. Avoiding sexual soloing helps impressionable youth and adults alike stay away from pornography use and habituation, steering clear of pornography’s fetishization of anti-relational, toxic sexual imagery, scripts, and fantasizing as the basis of sexual arousal.
2. Avoiding sexual soloing helps hold that “flight” from takeoff until the “copilot” is on board, preventing the sexual arousal template (SAT, conditioned patterns of sexual arousal) from veering off course.
3. Avoiding sexual soloing promotes healthy social development before marriage, laying the groundwork for relationship and sexual well-being in marriage.
4. Avoiding sexual soloing can promote a relational sexual template and lead to strengthening marriage relationships, both sexually and generally.
5. Avoiding sexual soloing helps ensure that the sexual flight is copiloted safely and surely in marriage toward its relational destination.
6. Avoiding sexual soloing makes it easier to stay away from, habituate to, or fetishize toxic sexual fantasizing. Avoiding sexual soloing prevents an inherently relational flight from lurching off course toward sexual fetishization.
7. Avoiding sexual soloing holds open space for a relational sexual template and the development of holistic marriage relationships that are deeply aware and caring, strengthening marriage both sexually and generally.
8. Avoiding sexual soloing and practicing sexual restraint promotes the development of positive coping strategies.
9. Avoiding sexual soloing can promote sexual self-mastery, a competence crucial to couple relationship and sexual well-being.
10. Avoiding sexual soloing prevents mapping sexuality to a distorted hedonistic template, or at worst the anti-relational, anti-attachment pornographic template.
11. Avoiding sexual soloing confirms and strengthens a relational and attachment-oriented sexual arousal template (SAT) anchored in “being for the other.”^[154]

An important thing to note is that any human can derive these benefits from not masturbating. You do not need God to command you to do this. Thus not masturbating does not need to be considered an exclusively religious moral. It can be a secular person’s moral as well as a religious person's. Indeed, one is not and cannot be making a religious argument for a particular kind of moral until they cite scripture, revelation, prophets, etc. One can make an entire case for the law of chastity without citing any of those things. What both the religious and secular person can recognize is that human beings are designed—whether by God, evolution, or maybe God through evolution—in a particular way. Our design is such that we flourish and find our greatest happiness in relational, monogamous sexuality. Our greatest happiness will be found as we all recognize our design and live in accordance with it.

Is there something within us that biologically determines us to masturbate?

Some people construct an identity around the practice of masturbation. People say that “we’re sexual beings” (which is true) and “masturbation is a part of our natural development.” What these people often mean is that “engaging in masturbation is a behavior that is biologically-determined and thus prohibiting it goes against who and what we are. It serves as a net detriment to our well-being.” We often construct these identities to justify bad behavior and protest against certain standards that go against these identities we construct arbitrarily and artificially around those behaviors. Thus, the imposition of a prohibition on masturbation starts to feel like an assault to our personhood. This is one reason that General Authorities of the Church so often stress that our fundamental identity is that of children of God: if we construct identities around sinful behaviors, we will quickly embroil ourselves in habits that are contrary to the will of God and his nature and feel that any call to repentance is a crusade against us. We can thus squeeze ourselves out of faith and find ourselves in rebellion to the Lord's anointed. If we center our thinking about our essential identity in the fact that we are infinitely beloved, spirit sons or daughters of Heavenly Parents, then we will be much more open to changing our behavior so as to foster closer relationships with them and the rest of their creation. Identity construction is one of our most common forms of denial as human beings. We need be careful in how we construct our identity.

The truth is that we are not merely sexual beings. We are marital beings. Marital beings are sexual beings, but they are not merely sexual beings. We are built with the purpose of being joined maritally and, after marriage, sexually as man and woman; husband and wife. We were designed for a relational, psychologically and spiritually-unified, tender, married man-woman sexuality and we should create our norms to funnel us towards that as stipulated by scripture.

There actually is one biologically-determined function that both men and women experience that serves the purpose people might think masturbation serves: nocturnal emission. We don’t need masturbation to pull double duty.

People sometimes believe that releasing our sexual urge is a human need since, like hunger, sexual desires do not go away with differing values (contrast with something like what political party you vote for which desire is entirely contingent on your values and the arguments you're currently persuaded by), they're about as frequent as the desire for food, they arise sometimes without any obvious stimulus, and they arise whether we want them to arise or not. But none of these facts necessarily entail that "releasing" our sexual urge through porn, masturbation, or other promiscuity is a human need. At most it's just a strong human desire. What perhaps is needed is emotional and spiritual connection, and that can be achieved through a variety of non-sexual (but still meaningful) ways. On the author's view, it's more coherently argued that the sex desire functions as it does because we need to procreate to survive as a species. Again, think about it. A person can live an entirely happy, wholesome, healthy life without sex, masturbation, porn, etc. Not releasing our sex urge isn't threatening to neither our life nor health. There does not seem to be any other persuasive explanation for the function of our sexual desires.

But what harm does one really do when engaged in isolated sexual acts?

But do isolated sexual acts really hurt anyone else? The foregoing analysis should be sufficient to demonstrate that masturbation can very likely have adverse effects on others. However, another point to make here is that, as humans, we are remarkably bad at creating and being faithful to norms that are based on the delayed consequences of our actions. We are really good at creating and abiding by norms that are based off of the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions. For example, all of us agree that it is wrong to kill an innocent person. Only some of us agree that masturbation is wrong because society consistently tries to condition us to believe in morals that have to do only with the immediate, obvious consequences of our actions on others and many have bought into that logic and framework. We would do well to ponder more about how we can create and more diligently abide by (still important) norms based on delayed, less-obvious, and even unseen consequences of our actions. Doing so may help us understand why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds many of the moral positions it holds. It may help us to strengthen our testimonies of the Church and Gospel.

What do I do if I'm struggling with masturbation?

If you're struggling with masturbation, there is always help and hope for you. You may be trying to quit for the first time or for the 100th time. It does not matter. There is always hope.

The first thing to do will be to disclose your struggles to those you love and trust most. It may also be a good idea to speak with your local ecclesiastical leaders. You should thoroughly discuss the prospect of whether or not you actually have an addiction. Many people unfortunately are diagnosed as having an addiction wrongly and end up spending a lot of money unnecessarily on professional help. If you have trouble diagnosing the problem on your own, it may be helpful to seek professional counsel. There will very likely be many wonderful, qualified professionals in your area that will be eager to help you. These might include marriage and family therapists, sex therapists, and addiction recovery specialists.

The Church provides addiction recovery programs for individuals interested in overcoming addiction. There are also some resources available from Latter-day Saint individuals online that can help with recovery from masturbation/pornography addiction. They can be found through Google. These individuals and others you seek help from may have different beliefs about whether masturbation and pornography addiction exist and/or whether masturbation is sinful. Some have been vocal proponents of the view that masturbation and pornography addiction do not exist. Discretion is advised if seeking for a professional that affirms your view. Regardless, any number of therapeutic modalities may be helpful in eliminating unwanted masturbation and pornography use. Any good recovery specialist is going to help you on addressing limiting core beliefs that keep you from recovery, understanding the brain science behind compulsion/addiction, and setting daily boundaries that help address your core emotional, physical, and spiritual needs as well as take away about 80% of potential relapses. Any good marriage and family and/or sex therapist is going to help you address your problems according to the objectives that you set. So if you go in with the firm and explicit objective of not engaging in recreational, indulgent masturbation, they are obligated by their professional ethics (of allowing individual self-determination) to provide you the best therapies that help you accomplish those goals and are conducive to your ultimate well-being. If they don't help you move towards those objectives, then they are not acting ethically and you should consider seeking other help.

Important to remember that your sexual desires are not shameful things. Read again the section on sexual desires being fundamentally good. One of the things that keeps many addicts or compulsive users of porn and masturbation in their cycle is feeling ashamed of their desires and use. One of the most important lessons we can learn about porn and masturbation is that they are fueled and given power by that shame. When we slip up, we should feel appropriately sorrowful for a bad decision, but we shouldn’t feel fundamentally broken, irredeemable, or evil because of it because we aren’t.

Conclusion

While masturbation is not an avenue of sexual exploration or expression that will be wholly endorsed by the Church, it is still encouraged that parents have open discussions with their children about the beautiful, sacred nature of human sexuality, that everyone read out of the best of books about how to have more fulfilling sexual relationships with their partner (future or current), and that, generally, we make sexuality a topic of open discussion among those that we love and trust most. We often spend too much time in church talking about illicit sexual behavior that we often neglect defining and discussing what healthy, righteous sexuality is and how we can engage in it. That’s not always a bad thing. Talking about all the minutiae of sexuality is most often not going to be tasteful in Sunday School and other public church meetings. That said, among our families and others that we love and trust most, it can and should be much more comfortable. Sexuality is a topic that everyone should become an expert of at the right time so that we can all better understand how to reach and live in accordance with our divine destiny and identity.^[201]

There may be those that still doubt the conclusions of this article. Your best testimony of this principle will be gained as you experience the benefits of not masturbating for yourself again. The author echoes the words of Jesus: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”^[202]

It is the author's hope that this article will serve as a source of clarity on the Church's stance on masturbation for those that are confused about it, as a source of hope for those that would like to discontinue masturbation and remain in line with the Church, and as a source of great insight to those that are generally looking to understand the utterly sacred and utterly beautiful nature of human sexuality.

See also: Question: What is the difference between agency and freedom?, Question: How do Latter-day Saints understand the concept of love?, and Question: When, if ever, is it okay to disagree with Church leaders?

Additional Sources

• Steve Densley, "FAIR Questions 4: What’s Wrong with Masturbation?" FAIR Blog, January 2, 2013.
• Mark H. Butler and Misha Crawford, "How Could Avoiding 'Sexual Soloing' Be a Good Thing?" Public Square Magazine, September 20, 2021.

Question: Is belief in the Book of Mormon’s historicity essential to Latter-day Saint theology?

Introduction to Question

Beginning in the early 90s, theorists have surmised that the Book of Mormon does not need to literally be a historical account of certain ancient inhabitants of the Americas in order to be "true." The primary architect of this theory was Latter-day Saint Anthony A. Hutchinson in a book chapter on the subject.^[203]

Hutchinson states:

My thesis is simple. I will state it as directly as possible for the sake of understanding and discussion. Members of [The] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should confess in faith that the Book of Mormon is the word of God but also abandon claims that it is a historical record of the ancient peoples of the Americas. We should accept that it is a work of scripture inspired by God in the same way that the Bible is inspired, but one that has as its human author Joseph Smith, Jr.^[204]

According to Hutchinson, the Book of Mormon is the word of God in that God authored the text. Essentially, it is a revelation of God told in story form. Joseph Smith is not translating an ancient text but merely dictating it as he believed it came from the gold plates. Joseph Smith is then a kind of author of the Book of Mormon text. According to Hutchinson, words like "inspiration" and "translation" now need a retooling in the Latter-day Saint vernacular.

In his words:

“I believe that the word of God or the gospel of Jesus Christ is ill-served if not undermined to the degree that current LDS approaches to the Book of Mormon focus on its claims about itself and its value as a sign authenticating LDS religious life rather than on its unique message as a nineteenth century reworking of the biblical tradition.”^[205]

Hutchinson didn't remain alone in his advocacy. Close to 10 years after Hutchinson's book chapter was published, Jesus mythicist Robert M. Price similarly argued that Joseph Smith should be viewed as the “inspired author” of the Book of Mormon.^[206] There have even been those that have so pompously, foolishly, and, ironically, unreflectively proclaimed that believing in historicity is actually a lower form of religiosity!^[207] These types of arguments have thus been offered against belief in the historicity of other scripture that is a part of the canon of the Church. This article can then serve as a response to anyone who makes this type of argument against any book of scripture.

This theory in all its minor variations has come to be called the Inspired Fiction Theory (hereafter IFT) for the origins of the Book of Mormon by Latter-day Saint scholar Stephen O. Smoot.^[208]

Is belief in the IFT a historically and theologically viable position for Latter-day Saints to take?

In this article, we’ll present a short answer to this question.

Response to Question

The Essential Argument Against the IFT

The late BYU professor of political science William J. Hamblin has produced the most succinct dilemma for proponents of any variation of the IFT:

1. Joseph Smith claimed to have had possession of golden plates written by the Nephites, and to have been visited by Moroni, a resurrected Nephite.
2. If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.
3. If there were no Nephites, there were no golden plates written by Nephites; and there was no Nephite named Moroni.
4. If there was no Moroni and no golden plates, then Joseph did not tell the truth when he claimed to possess and translate these nonexistent plates, and to have been visited by a resurrected man.
5. Hence, Joseph was either lying (he knew there were no plates or angelic visitations, but was trying to convince others that there were), or he was insane or deluded (he believed there were golden plates and angelic visitations which in fact did not exist).^[209]

The Book of Mormon Loses Spiritual Potency with the Loss of Historicity

Many people can believe that the Book of Mormon is an inspiring document without being true. We as Latter-day Saints consider the Quran to be a book inspired by God but not the book that will lead you to the true God. One of The Book of Mormon’s central purposes is to convince the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. The historicity of the appearance of the resurrected Christ to the Nephites here in the Americas is thus essential.

Actuality Over Details

More important about the Book of Mormon is that many of its most important events actually happened. It is less important to worry about how they happened. This is similar to Joseph Smith's First Vision: it is more important that God and Jesus Christ actually appeared to Joseph Smith rather than what color the leaves were that day, what temperature it was, whether or not the light around Joseph Smith was fire or just light, etc.

Other Arguments Put Forth By Latter-day Saint Scholars

Below is a Further Reading list that one can use to discover additional reasons that Latter-day Saint scholars have put forth to show the incoherency of the IFT.

• William J. Hamblin, “An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe’s Assumptions and Methodologies,” FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 434–523.
• Kent P. Jackson, “Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 123–40.
• Robert J. Matthews, “Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 141–48.
• Louis Midgley, “The Current Battle over the Book of Mormon: ‘Is Modernity Itself Somehow Canonical?'” FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 200–54.
• Louis Midgley, “‘Inspiring’ but Not True: An Added Glimpse of the RLDS Stance on the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 6, no. 2 (1997): 218–28;
• Louis Midgely, “No Middle Ground: The Debate over the Authenticity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 149–70.
• Louis Midgley, “‘To Remember and Keep’: On the Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew W. Hedges (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2000), 95–137.
• Dallin H. Oaks, “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson. (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 237–48. This is a direct response from an apostle to Hutchinson’s essay.
• Neal Rappleye, “Does the Historicity of the Book of Mormon Matter?” FAIR Blog, May 2, 2015.
• Stephen O. Smoot, “Et Incarnatus Est: the Imperative for Book of Mormon Historicity,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30 (2018): 125–62.

Conclusion

Hopefully, this will encourage Latter-day Saints and other interested readers to look into the scholarship that has been written on the Book of Mormon so that they can more articulately defend the book’s historicity. There is a large amount of literature that is easily accessible to interested parties.

Question: Why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly discourage their members from getting tattoos?

Introduction to Question

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly discourages its members from getting tattoos. Why is this?

Latter-day Saint discomfort with tattoos goes back far. Latter-day Saint missionary William Orme Lee served in Samoa and published several articles in the Improvement Era magazine about his experiences. He wrote in the November 1899 edition of his frustration with the Samoan people for not banishing the practice of tattooing their body with cultural tattoos—calling tattooing a "heathenish custom, contrary to the laws of God, and of good society."^[210]

In this article we will explore this question. We will present teachings from top leaders regarding tattoos. They will clearly explain their position and reasoning for it. Next, we will explore teachings from the official canon of scripture of the Church and the morals taught by it that might support the Church's discouragement of tattoos.

Teachings from Top Church Leaders

What follows represents an exhaustive listing of everything top general leaders of the Church have said regarding their strong discouragement of tattoos. Some references are from official Church settings such as General Conference and others are from unofficial settings such as books authored by the leaders (though this likely reflects official Church position/attitudes towards tattoos).

Bruce R. McConkie - 1958

In Mormon Doctrine, Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

Tattoos are permanent marks or designs made on the skin by puncturing it and filling the punctures with indelible ink. The practice is a desecration of the human body and should not be permitted, unless all that is involved is the placing of a blood type or an identification number in an obscure place. (Deut. 14:1.) Latter-day Saint servicemen in particular are counseled to avoid the pitfalls of tattooing. Persons who are tattooed are not, however, denied the ordinances and blessings of the temples.^[211]

Bruce R. McConkie - 1966

Elder McConkie retained the above entry on tattoos in its entirety in the second edition of Mormon Doctrine.^[212]

Vaughan J. Featherstone – October 1999

Aren’t you proud that the Church teaches us the truth? We don’t have to wonder about earrings for boys and men, tattoos, spiked hair, the four-letter words, and obscene gestures. We have prophets who model the standards.^[213]

Gordon B. Hinckley – November 2000

In a discourse on teaching children true Gospel principles, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following:

Teach your children self-respect. Teach them that their bodies are the creation of the Almighty. What a miraculous, wonderful, and beautiful thing is the human body.

As has been said here tonight, Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, declared: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

Now comes the craze of tattooing one’s body. I cannot understand why any young man—or young woman, for that matter—would wish to undergo the painful process of disfiguring the skin with various multicolored representations of people, animals, and various symbols. With tattoos, the process is permanent, unless there is another painful and costly undertaking to remove it. Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body.

Likewise[,] the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings”—one pair.^[214]

Gordon B. Hinckley – November 2000

The practice is growing among young people of tattooing and piercing their bodies. The time will come when they will regret it, but it will then be too late. The scriptures unequivocally declare:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16–17).

It is sad and regrettable that some young men and women have their bodies tattooed. What do they hope to gain by this painful process? Is there “anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” (A of F 1:13) in having unseemly so-called art impregnated into the skin to be carried throughout life, all the way down to old age and death? They must be counseled to shun it. They must be warned to avoid it. The time will come that they will regret it but will have no escape from the constant reminder of their foolishness except through another costly and painful procedure…We—the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve—have taken the position, and I quote, that “the Church discourages tattoos[.]”^[215]

For the Strength of Youth – 2001

The 2001 edition of the youth pamphlet For the Strength of Youth, written and approved by the First Presidency, states that one should "not disfigure [themselves] with tattoos or body piercings."^[216]

M. Russell Ballard - 2002

Elder M. Russell Ballard wrote the following in his 2002 book When Thou Art Converted:

To you who are still in your youth: please know that we understand how difficult it can be to set a good example among your peers and associates. Many of you find yourselves on the front lines in the battle against those who intend to do things that are morally wrong. I firmly believe that there are certain things we cannot do if we are to stand for truth and right. President Gordon B. Hinckley has urged us to respect our bodies and not inflict permanent damage on them with tattoos and body piercings, reminding us that "the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" (1 Corinthians 3:17).^[217]

Margaret D. Nadauld – April 2002

The kind of young woman who can be a terrific torchbearer has high standards all the time, not just in her prom dress, but every, ordinary day. There are so many of you who are like that, and I salute you tonight. You have made modesty your way of life. It is more than how you dress. It includes at least six things that I can think of: (1) your behavior is decent and modest, and yet you are very fun to be with; (2) your language is never crude but happy and interesting; (3) you are well groomed, and that is appealing; (4) you are focused on developing your talents and achieving your goals, not piercing and tattooing and flaunting your body; (5) you play sports with gusto but never lose control; (6) you don’t seem to care about what the latest pop star wears or does because you have a certain style of your own. In summary, you do not imitate the world’s standards because you know a higher standard. You know who you are, and that puts you at a real advantage. You know that you really are a daughter of Heavenly Father. You know that He knows you and that He loves you; you want to please Him and honor His love for you. You know that even if you make foolish mistakes, He will help you if you turn to Him.^[218]

True to the Faith – January 2004

True to the Faith, a doctrinal reference work written for members of all ages and approved by the First Presidency, states the following;

Latter-day prophets strongly discourage the tattooing of the body. Those who disregard this counsel show a lack of respect for themselves and for God. The Apostle Paul taught of the significance of our bodies and the danger of purpose- fully defiling them: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Corinthians 3:16 –17). If you have a tattoo, you wear a constant reminder of a mistake you have made. You might consider having it removed.”^[219]

Henry B. Eyring – April 2004

So many these days disfigure their bodies with tattoos. How shortsighted. These markings last for life. Once in place, they can not be removed except through a difficult and costly process. I can not understand why any girl would subject herself to such a thing. I plead with you to avoid disfigurement of this kind.^[220]

Earl C. Tingey – April 2004

In the For the Strength of Youth booklet, the following standards, among others, are like a North Star to you: choose friends with high standards, do not disfigure your body with tattoos or body piercings, avoid pornography, do not listen to music that contains offensive language, do not use profanity, date only those who have high standards, remain sexually pure, repent as necessary, be honest, keep the Sabbath day holy, pay tithing, keep the Word of Wisdom.^[221]

Julie B. Beck – April 2006

When you know who you are and what you should be doing with your life, you don’t want to hide your light. For instance, you would not want to “hide your light” by wearing clothing that diminishes your royal potential. You would not use improper language or stories or mar your body with tattoos or other procedures debasing for a daughter of royal birth.^[222]

Gordon B. Hinckley – April 2007

At the April 2007 General Conference of the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley said to “[b]e clean in body and dress and manner. Do not permit yourself to be tattooed. If you do, someday you will regret it. Only a painful and costly procedure can remove the tattoo.”^[223]

Elaine S. Dalton – April 2008

The precious gift of your body enables you to exercise your agency and put your faith and obedience into action. Have you ever noticed that nearly all of Satan’s attacks are directed at your body? Pornography, immodesty, tattoos, immorality, drug abuse, and addictions are all efforts to take possession of this precious gift. This was a gift that was denied Satan. Obedience to the commandments and standards enables each of you to be steadfast and immovable in protecting the precious gifts of your agency and your body.^[224]

James J. Hamula – October 2008

So, as we enter the final climactic stages of the war against Satan, be sober, my young friends. Understand that you cannot partake of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco. You cannot participate in pornography or other immoral activity. You cannot lie, cheat, or steal. You cannot use false, demeaning, or dirty language. You cannot deface your body with tattoos and other piercings. You cannot do these things and be victorious in the battle for your own soul, let alone be a valiant warrior in the great struggle for the souls of all the rest of our Father’s children.^[225]

Boyd K. Packer – April 2009

Do not decorate your body with tattoos or by piercing it to add jewels. Stay away from that.^[226]

Thomas S. Monsen – April 2010

Servants of the Lord have always counseled us to dress appropriately to show respect for our Heavenly Father and for ourselves. The way you dress sends messages about yourself to others and often influences the way you and others act. Dress in such a way as to bring out the best in yourself and those around you. Avoid extremes in clothing and appearance, including tattoos and piercings.^[227]

D. Todd Christofferson – October 2010

Acknowledging these truths and the direction of President Thomas S. Monson in last April’s general conference, we would certainly not deface our body, as with tattoos; or debilitate it, as with drugs; or defile it, as with fornication, adultery, or immodesty. As our body is the instrument of our spirit, it is vital that we care for it as best we can. We should consecrate its powers to serve and further the work of Christ. Said Paul, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God” (Romans 12:1).^[228]

Elaine S. Dalton - 2011

Then-Young Women General President Elaine S. Dalton in her 2011 book A Return to Virtue:

I know that you want to be happy. Maybe you worry about your circumstances. Don’t worry. We have the plan of happiness, and keeping the commandments will make you happy! As part of that plan, you were given a body. It is a precious gift whereby you can exercise your agency and put your faith and obedience into action. Your body houses your eternal spirit. Have you ever noticed that nearly all of Satan’s attacks are directed at your body? Pornography, immodesty, tattoos, immorality, drug abuse, and addiction are all efforts to take possession of this precious gift. This was a gift he was denied. Care for yourself; be modest and be clean. Do everything you can to be free from anything that would harm your body. Be strictly obedient to the standards in For the Strength of Youth. Virtue yields strength, and the blessings of being virtuous are freedom and happiness.^[229]

For the Strength of Youth – 2011

The 2011 edition of For the Strength of Youth, echoing the 2001 edition, clearly states that one one should "not disfigure [themselves] with tattoos or body piercings."^[230]

Elaine S. Dalton – April 2013

When you came to the earth, you were given the precious gift of a body. Your body is the instrument of your mind and a divine gift with which you exercise your agency. This is a gift that Satan was denied, and thus he directs nearly all of his attacks on your body. He wants you to disdain, misuse, and abuse your body. Immodesty, pornography, immorality, tattoos and piercings, drug abuse, and addictions of all kinds are all efforts to take possession of this precious gift—your body—and to make it difficult for you to exercise your agency.^[231]

Dallin H. Oaks – February 2019

The Deseret News reported on February 10, 2019 that President Dallin H. Oaks told 65,000 at a devotional to avoid "tattoos, piercings, immodesty and pornography, calling such things 'grafitti on your personal temple.'"^[232]

For the Strength of Youth: A Guide for Making Choices (2022)

The newest edition of the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet asks and answers its own question:

What is the Lord’s standard on dress, grooming, tattoos, and piercings? The Lord’s standard is for you to honor the sacredness of your body, even when that means being different from the world. Let this truth and the Spirit be your guide as you make decisions—especially decisions that have lasting effects on your body. Be wise and faithful, and seek counsel from your parents and leaders.^[233]

The Scriptural Case Against Tattoos

The scriptural record does not have much to say explicitly about tattoos. That said, we can still defend the Church’s standard from them.

Leviticus 19:28

The only explicit reference to tattoos is in Leviticus 19:28 which tells us “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” The New Revised Standard Version translated this verse as “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” A similar injunction against cutting oneself is presented in Deuteronomy 14:1. While this prohibition is associated with the Mosaic Law which was done away with Christ's atonement, this scripture can still be instructive for why Church leaders have felt spiritually moved to strongly discourage modern Saints from participating in this practice.

The Catholic Study Bible notes that “[t]his prohibition probably refers only to the common ancient Near Eastern practice of branding a slave with its owner’s name as well as branding the devotees of a god with its name.”^[234] The question would then become “Why would God not want the Israelites to tattoo themselves in devotion to Him?” It must have something to do with their collective identity as a people. This was a common practice in the ancient Near East and God asked the Israelites to stand apart from their contemporaries. This will be important moving forward in our examination. That God at one instance has cared about tattoos is telling.

This standard also likely had to do with merely disfiguring the body and corrupting the beautiful gift of God given to them. Regarding this scripture, the NKJV Study Bible notes that “[t]he human body was designed by God, who intended it to be whole and beautiful. Disfiguring the body dishonored God, in whose image the person was created. Cutting one’s flesh for the dead and tattooing (or perhaps painting) one’s body had religious significance among Israel’s pagan neighbors. In Israel, such practices were a sign of rebellion against God.”^[235]

1 Corinthians 3:16–17; 6:19–20

Top general Church leaders (as can be seen above) have most often cited a pair of scriptures from 1 Corinthians about our bodies being temples of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16–17 reads:

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

This scripture isn’t the best to use when justifying a prohibition on tattoos since Paul is here speaking to the local Church in Corinth. The scripture is making a warning to those from outside the Church that bring violence or other harm against those in the Church. It’s only in 6:19-20 that the word “temple” actually refers to the individual believer.^[236]

1 Corinthians 6:19–20 reads:

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

This is a much better scripture to use when justifying a discouragement from getting tattoos. It testifies that our individual bodies are temples of God where the Holy Spirit can reside. By disfiguring them with tattoos we are disfiguring the creation of God. We should do what we can to take care of our bodies.

Becoming a Peculiar People

The scriptures repeatedly testify that God’s covenant people should be a peculiar people (Deuteronomy 14:2; 26:18; Psalms 135:4; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9) and that we should be unspotted from the world (James 1:27; Doctrine and Covenants 59:9). By being given and following a strong discouragement on tattoos, we can achieve the goal of being peculiar. Not having tattoos becomes a social identifier—signifying that we are the Lord’s people and wish to be separate from the world.

This separateness can be essential in moving missionary work forward. People are interested in the Church because of the Church’s prohibition on tattoos (and other things obviously). Thus, we can achieve more convert baptisms by doing things that go against cultural grain. We can also achieve greater member retention. Indeed, one of the concerns of those that leave the Church is that they perceive that the Church isn’t unique enough among the world’s organizations, and they go elsewhere seeking to be unique and to be seen. Not getting tattoos, while annoying for some at times, can have delayed and even unseen consequences that can be beneficial for us as a people. It can help all of us be psychologically and spiritually primed to be led to higher levels of spiritual devotion and greater shows of faith.

Jesus said that we should be a light on a hill and show forth our good works among men and women (Matthew 5:16). This is one way we can do that. The success of being peculiar is demonstrated in how many people give us attention for this standard we hold to.

Becoming Meek, Humble, Lowly of Heart, Easy to be Entreated

Obeying this standard gives us a chance to practice being meek/humble/lowly of heart/easy to be entreated—a virtue we are bound by scripture to practice.

Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5

Doctrine and Covenants 21:4–5 reads:

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

This scripture binds us to giving heed unto all of the prophets words and commandments. Not getting tattoos when the prophet asks us to is one way we can apply this scripture.

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27–29 reads:

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

Lovingly accepting the prophet's challenges to not get tattoos without having to have an explicit scripture given by modern revelation bind us to keeping this particular counsel is an excellent way we can apply this scripture in Doctrine and Covenants 58.

Responding to Objections

Cultural Tattoos

Some have said that the Church does not have a like discouragement for members of, for instance, Polynesian cultures that get tattoos as a symbol of rank and status among one’s tribe. As evidence of this, they point to the costumes and tattoos of performers at the Polynesian Cultural Center.

The director of the Polynesian Cultural Center, P. Alfred Grace, was asked about this topic in 2016. His reply was insightful:

The cultural tattoos are actually something that we discourage our employees to use, because while there’s a good cause for it, a good reason, we also feel that there is a higher law, which is to recognize our bodies as temples. And so we’re comfortable with that. For some cultures, it’s still a very significant part of their identification from a rank and status point. For example, in Samoa, the full body tattoo from the chest down to the top of the thigh is still a significant recognition of chiefly rank, so we’re sensitive to that. And while we don’t encourage employees to go away and get it and then return to the PCC, if they come with those kind of markings, we accept it as part of their culture.^[237]

Thus, there’s no real allowance or exception of members to get these tattoos. There’s a strong discouragement as there is in other nations where the Church is founded. There is merely a question of not ostracizing those that do get tattoos and come into the Church with them.

Plastic Surgery

Some have protested that those that get plastic surgery on any part of their body are also “disfiguring” their bodies. It may be said that there is a difference between the graffiti placed on the body and disfiguring of it that comes with tattoos and the refiguring of it that comes with corrective surgeries. On the other hand, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland has warned Latter-day Saint women to not get caught up in beauty fashions of the day that they feel that they have to change every part of themselves to fit in.^[238]

Cosmetic Tattoos

Some have pointed to the existence of women who tattoo eyebrows for beauty and balding men that tattoo their heads to give the appearance of a hairline. The Church hasn’t mentioned this specifically in its literature; but a response similar to the one about plastic surgery might be given here.

Medical Tattoos

Some also point to the existence of medical tattoos and suggest that these might be acceptable should the person need it. However, bracelets are a good replacement and are the official recommendation, for instance, for the Church’s missionary force.

1 Samuel 16:6–7

Some have said that the Church's standard is against biblical teaching. These critics cite 1 Samuel 16:6–7. Samuel is being directed by the Lord to anoint a new king over Israel among the sons of Jesse: David. Samuel finds Jesse and sees one of his sons Eliab. Samuel then states while looking at Eliab "Surely the Lord’s anointed is before him." To this the Lord responds "Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."

Those who criticize the Church on these scriptural grounds assume that the scripture is justifying getting tattoos because what is most important is that you don't judge other people for expressing themselves.

The scripture here does not justify making love only attitudinal. The Lord has sized up the heart of Eliab to see if Eliab will do whatever the Lord asks him to in the position of king. This stance taken by critics deemphasizes the need to show love to the Lord and the prophets by being meek and lowly of heart and respecting the gift of our bodies that God gave us. It deemphasizes love for the prophets by encouraging us to not receive all of their words and commandments in all patience and faith and, as we learn often in Church, faith is a principle of action. As Christ said in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Love, to Jesus, is about action. I can say I love God and the prophets until I'm blue in the face but it won't actually mean anything until I do something to show my love for them.

While we should never withhold friendship or love from those that convert to the Church with tattoos already placed nor from those that are already members and still get tattoos, we also shouldn't be permissive of breaking prophetic counsel.

Doesn't Hurt Others

A final objection to the standard is "It doesn't hurt others, so why should it be so strongly discouraged?" This objection seems to assume that the only things that can be considered right or wrong must have immediate, obvious consequences. But there are many norms that we hold that have delayed, unobvious, and/or sometimes unseen consequences. We're pretty bad as humans at holding to the latter and being patient. Those who have this concern should seek to identify the delayed yet beneficial consequences not getting tattoos provides for us. The moral goods described by the scriptures above are a good place to start.

Changing Policies of the Past

Some have argued that the Church has changed policies/doctrines of the past such as its historical practice of polygamy or it’s restriction on members of African descent from holding the Church’s priesthood and entering its temples. Particularly in regards to the latter, it’s common to hear people say that the leaders of the Church were simply wrong there so why can’t they be wrong about tattoos?

However, it’s not justified to reject a current prophet’s counsel just because it might change in the future or the prophet might be wrong. But we have good reason to believe that the prophet is correct about this. It’s not how we should operate as members of the Church. While the counsel might change in the future, it is the prophet’s prerogative and not ours to decide when we as a Church will change this practice.

Other Reasons to Not Get Tattoos

There are some other reasons to not get tattoos.

Donating Blood and/or Blood Plasma

One is that you can't donate blood plasma for at least a year after you get your tattoo. That is if you get your tattoo at a parlor that is not state regulated. When getting them at a state regulated parlor, you may be able to donate blood and/or plasma immediately after.

Job Employer Trust

While stigma surrounding tattoos has decreased dramatically in recent years, it is still a common preference among employers for their employees to not have tattoos. Not having tattoos will enhance your likelihood of obtaining jobs among employers who do not prefer tattoos and those who are indifferent to them.

Conclusion

While we may occasionally get annoyed at certain standards that come from the Church, when we humbly follow what the Lord’s prophets have asked us to do, it can bring feelings of peace and comfort as well as success in building Zion.

Further Reading

• ”Q&A: Questions and Answers,” New Era 25, no. 6 (June 1996).
• David A. Burton, "Is there anything wrong with getting a tattoo or body piercing?" Ensign 29, no. 2 (February 1999).
• Janet Thomas, "More Than Skin Deep," New Era 30, no. 2 (February 2001).
• Shanna Butler, "Tattoos and Your Mission," Liahona 29, no. 3 (March 2006).
• James Decker, “No Need for Tattoos,” New Era 37, no. 1 (January 2008).
• David A. Edwards, "Think Before You Ink," New Era 41, no. 2 (February 2014).
• Gospel Topics, "Tattooing and Body Piercing"
• True to the Faith, "Tattooing"