TR Question Survey – Question 5: Law of Chastity

5. Do you live the law of chastity?

My personal opinion is that a gray line is no line at all, thus creating a boundary problem for the interviewee. Let’s say that I’m unmarried, and I meet a woman to whom I am attracted. We share a very passionate kiss, but that is it. Is that “sexual relations”? I seriously doubt that any reasonable bishop would define it as such, although I should never underestimate some of those considered to be “Judges in Israel”. Between this extreme and the unambiguous meaning of ‘sexual intercourse’ is a huge swath of potential activities.

I think what’s important here is not how the bishop defines the act but how your wife defines it. The law of chastity isn’t about ourselves, it’s about others. IMO, “sexual relations” is a very low bar and doesn’t even come close to the standard Christ set. To me, this question is a gimme.

In the temple, chastity is a higher law (i.e. not telestial). This law is about how we view and interact with others. Do we view others as objects of our own lusts and tools for our own self-gratification or do we see them as bearers of the image of God, individuals worthy of veneration, respect, compassion, and virtuous looks (rather than lustful gazes), even if they fail to see that in themselves.

Alma taught his son that bridling his passions would allow him to be filled with love. Unbridling them has the opposite effect. Giving our lusts free reign encourages us to objectify others and inhibits those feelings of pure love and charity.

So no sexual relations outside of marriage, again IMO, is a pretty low bar.

edit: I do want to add that I completely understand the difference between the examples Wayfarer gave of a man committing a small act of betrayal (the kiss), and a young unmarried couple who gets too close to the line but doesn’t cross it. I think the “low bar” aspect of this recommend question allows the latter to enter but shouldn’t be confused as an acceptable standard for the former.

Of note is that my current bishop qualifies the chastity question by specifically stating that it includes porn & masturbation. He says he got permission from the Stake President to do so. He does that some thing with word of wisdom which I’ll talk about on that question.

This is definitely one where a TBM could feel guilty for having “evil thoughts” and wonder if they can answer yes to this.

Also my bishop has made it very clear that he will disfellowship someone for very occasional porn. At one point I had a minor slip up once in 18 months for a couple of minutes of soft porn and he made it very clear that if it ever happened again that it I would be subject to a bishop’s court.

So if you can be dis-fellowshipped for something you certainly can be disqualified from entering the temple for it.

I really think this underscores how wrong two things are:

1) It all depends on the bishop. Or yourself if you are smart enough to not say anything to the bishop – but then you have to deal with the guilt of lying when you know he would discipline you.

2) The whole concept of worthiness to enter the temple is a really bad thing. A punitive church is a bad thing. So much for “neither do I condemn thee, go they way and sin no more” and “the whole have no need for a physician”. The temple should be open to all who want the spiritual experience. It’s one of the things that makes me the most angry about the LDS church.

Does anyone know any other religions that deny entry based on worthiness?

How about any other Christian religions?

I’m having a bit of trouble with the idea that sexual relations is for others and a complete expression of love as M&G says, however. Ideally, this would be phenomenal, and I fully expect to get beaten up for this, of course, but I see it a little bit like hunger and eating on one level, and an expression of love on yet another, different level. Both co-exist and are valid.

Definitely, one can’t be totally selfish and simply use others, but we WERE created with these extremely powerful drives and they can drive a person into misery and torment when they go unexpressed/unsatisifed for long periods of time. They can break up marriages when one person neglects the sexual needs of the other partner for long periods of time.

Also recognize that I’m being a bit autobiographical here. I won’t repeat the details of my own marriage and its intimacy problems, but after years of really toughing it out, I think relationships are a two-way street. Sexual needs are just like other needs, but simply take a different form. My wife gets angry and threatens to leave if I don’t give her a lot of good conversation or non-sexual affection – her important needs in our marriage. She rejected many men who she felt could not provide her with the income she needs to feel comfortable and stays in our relationship partly because of my ability to earn a decent income.

And I realize now that meeting those needs is what service represents in marriage. It means sitting down and making time and clearing my mind of other concerns when she has to get out the details of what happened to her throughout the day, even when I am not predisposed to doing so. And even though I find it hard to listen to a torrent of details with huge gaps left out in the logic that are hard to understand. I do it because it’s important to her, even though it’s a chore for me sometimes. It means making sure the family has sufficient income to give her the flexibility she needs to live the lifestyle she wants within reason. I HAVE to do those things to keep my marriage strong.

I also think she has an obligation to help with what I’ll call drive reduction when it gets intolerable for me — for the sake of our marriage.

Women in particular, i have found to be incredibly indifferent to men’s sexual needs. In the limited times I shared our intimacy problems with female therapists or close friends, they would brush it off saying “you can do other things”. Men, on the other hand say “I would have been out of the relationship long ago”.

There are different kinds of intimacy — some that is more utilitarian and serves a biological purpose, and the most fulfilling kind which is an expression of love. It’s too idealistic to believe that all men will be completely satisfied with the “pure expression of love” variety, particularly if it only happens once or twice every 20 years due to the preferences of their partner. It’s why the law acknowledges lack of sexual activity as a cause for anulment — making the partner who refused to have sex at all “unfit” for the legal institution of marriage.

Also, I think we mistakenly tend to view chastity in terms of restraint. It also means actually engaging in sexual activity that is healthy within marriage. Personally, I think my wife violated the Law of Chastity for a decade when she refused to do what was necessary to fix the sexual problems she brought to our relationship from day one. Yet she felt she could answer “yes” to the chastity question because she simply was not engaging in extramarital affairs.

I have managed to survive in a largely sexless marriage, but if simply abstinence from extra-marital sex this is considered the Law of Chastity, then I think it needs a serious redefinition. And someone who never engages in sexual activity in their marriage is violating that law.

SD,

I don’t mean to suggest that sexual relations are innately objectifying, only that objectifying others is at the heart of violating the law of chastity. If your wife is putting out because she loves you and recognizes that you have physical needs, isn’t that an act of pure love? And if you choose to maintain fidelity to her rather than fulfilling those physical needs elsewhere, isn’t that the same respectful love that values her unique role as your wife?

Obviously this is how I see the ideal and YMMV depending on the baggage each of you bring into the relationship, which for most of us, results in quit a bit of necessary unpacking. The best marriages I’ve seen, and the best of my marriage, is manifest in our willingness to abandon judgment in favor of willingly helping each other “unpack”.

PS I agree that withholding sex, especially if it’s a way of controlling one’s partner is a violation of the law of chastity. Absolutely! I’ll even go further than that. There have been times in my marriage where my husband has hurt me through some act of thoughtlessness and has needed to feel that I had forgiven him. When he has reached out to me physically in those moments, I complied, even if I still struggled to “feel” love in that moment. The very act of allowing intimacy, softened my heart toward him. I think that the relationship building and healing aspects of sexual fidelity in a marriage are hard to overestimate.

Of note is that my current bishop qualifies the chastity question by specifically stating that it includes porn & masturbation. He says he got permission from the Stake President to do so. He does that some thing with word of wisdom which I’ll talk about on that question.

This is definitely one where a TBM could feel guilty for having “evil thoughts” and wonder if they can answer yes to this.

Also my bishop has made it very clear that he will disfellowship someone for very occasional porn. At one point I had a minor slip up once in 18 months for a couple of minutes of soft porn and he made it very clear that if it ever happened again that it I would be subject to a bishop’s court.

I’ve given this some more thought. This bishop is completely out of line, but be that as it may. Suppose the conversation goes something like this:

Bishop: Now we come to the law of Chastity. The SP and I counsel that this includes pornography and masturbation.

Me: I understand.

Bishop: Do you live the Law of Chastity?

Me: Yes.

Now, when I say “I understand”, it means I understand what he just said. When say “Yes” to the Law of Chastity question, I’m answering the question accurately and honestly to what the Church as a whole by policy teaches the LoC to be. That he has another opinion simply is interesting information, “I understand” his point of view. My answer is still “Yes” as long as I am not in violatin of the actual laws

So, say he’s completely off the books now, and decides to probe further:

Bishop: Do you masturbate or look at pornography?

Me: I have no problem with masturbation or pornography.

And that’s a completely honest answer. Given the fact that he already knows you looked at soft porn once in an 18-month period, he may come back at you:

Bishop: When is the last time you looked at Pornography?

Me: Bishop, since our little talk a year ago, I’ve had no problem at all with pornography. None.

Another completely honest answer.

Our leadership has said that what I do within my marriage is between me and my wife. I’m not about to discuss the details of my sex life within my marriage. There is nothing in my marriage that is against the Law of Chastity, and there is nothing outside my marriage that is against the Law of Chastity. I obey the Law of Chastity.

Ray, I completely agree.

The challenge is a direct question: “Do you look at pornography?”, or “when is the last time you looked at pornography?” or “When is the last time you masturbated?” Would you answer this the same way?

Yes, I would answer the exact same way – with a smile on my face and quietly.