TR Question Survey – Question 5: Law of Chastity

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

… 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…

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.

which is why the “kiss” example also applied to an unmarried person…

I personally think that while a married man kissing a woman not his wife is not a violation of the Law of Chastity, it is definitely a betrayal, and needs to be sorted out. And, there’s no easy way to do this. The standard we set for ourselves is between us and God as we understand him/her. If we have harmed someone else, then we need to amend that. An observant catholic would recognize this act as being a sin, and wouldn’t take communion until it was taken care of through confession to the priest and pennance of some form. LDS mischaracterize the catholic approach as being too easy, allowing for repetition of the sin over and over again. I find the catholic approach “merciful”: it would be nice to have ecclesiastical authorities who can work with you on these sins, but as it stands, the predominate posture of the church is visible, public punishment (excluded from sacrament, prayers, and attending the temple — it gets obvious when this was done with friends…), forcing underground sins that do not rise to the level of violation.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

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.

What you are describing is premeditated (at least it would have to be in my case) evasiveness. For someone like myself with passive-aggressive tendencies, I don’t disapprove, but I have to wonder a bit about the sanity of an institution that puts people in the position where this has to be considered as a reasonable option. I am feeling this right now in an other, but related, context within the church. As a friend put it to me recently,

Quote:

impossible conundrums justify suboptimal solutions

I feel like I am being backed into a position where I am forced to make these kind of suboptimal choices, and it leaves a very bitter taste.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

which is why the “kiss” example also applied to an unmarried person…

oops! Sorry about that. I was thinking of the question in terms of temple language which specifically references marriage and got my own thoughts jumbled with your post.

Edit: Regarding a married man kissing another woman, I think most women I know would consider that an act of profound betrayal. Whether it rises to the level of a technical violation, I don’t know, but it certainly violates the spirit of that law especially in conjunction with the temple covenant, at least in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Interesting somewhat related non-scientific survey results:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/polls” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/polls

@wayfarer – since I’ve resigned my answers are purely academic anyway…

However, I’ve concluded that the only viable way for my marriage to be workable is with masturbation. Me being sex starved and my wife being constantly pressured for sex was destroying our marriage and self worth. One us being TBM and one of us apostate is hard enough – but ironically the two years I abstained from masturbation/porn were the most difficult and painful of our entire marriage – much worse than where things are now.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

What you are describing is premeditated (at least it would have to be in my case) evasiveness. For someone like myself with passive-aggressive tendencies, I don’t disapprove, but I have to wonder a bit about the sanity of an institution that puts people in the position where this has to be considered as a reasonable option. I am feeling this right now in an other, but related, context within the church. As a friend put it to me recently,

Quote:

impossible conundrums justify suboptimal solutions

I feel like I am being backed into a position where I am forced to make these kind of suboptimal choices, and it leaves a very bitter taste.

Indeed a very bitter taste. But I look at it differently. There are boundaries that the Bishop should not be entitled to cross. Since the church has taken an unreasonable and indeed unhealthy position on masturbation, then it loses the right to instill an unhealthy practice or guilt on me — that’s my boundary. The position on pornography is also unreasonable in many cases. Politely repeating ray’s recommendation “I comply with the Law of Chastity” or saying “I have no problem with pornography or masturbation” is polite boundary setting, not evasion. It’s far more polite than saying to the Bishop, “It’s none of your ___ ____ business!!!”.

The required question is “Do you live the law of chastity”, where chastity has a specific and limited definition to sexual relations/sexual intercourse. If you have not had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the answer is “Yes, I live the law of chastity.” This answer applies not just to your bishop, but to your conscience as well. You’ve been conditioned to think that masturbation is evil and pornography is like sulfuric acid that will burn your soul. True, there are a number of issues with pornography, but making it so evil it becomes compelling addictive because of the ‘forbidden’ nature of it. Pornography is a ‘bad idea’ that can lead to some significant issues, but it is not ‘sinful’ by itself. Once you draw the boundary at the wrong point, you lose perspective.

Fully embrace the idea in your soul that masturbation and pornography are not by themselves sin. They are not in any way a violation of the law of chastity (unless you’re participating in pornography as an actor or actress, which then gets into the issue why would anyone want to fund these slimeball directors and producers that are making this crap). Once you de-criminalize porn and masturbation, then you can objectively choose your course. De-sin-izing pornography takes a lot of the allure away from it.

I believe the right answer is a confidently true and non-evasive answer: “yes I live the law of chastity”. period.

mercyngrace wrote:

Regarding a married man kissing another woman, I think most women I know would consider that an act of profound betrayal. Whether it rises to the level of a technical violation, I don’t know, but it certainly violates the spirit of that law especially in conjunction with the temple covenant, at least in my mind.

And I would certainly agree with you. The question is how to resolve it. I simply don’t know the answer to this, because if the spouse did not know or would never know, is it a good idea to bring it up? I would think, “Yes”, but this is where the spirit, and perhaps, some professional help might be in order. I am not convinced going to the Judge in Israel is the right choice. These things are profoundly difficult, and simple, pat, punitive answers are often wrong.

bc_pg wrote:

I’ve concluded that the only viable way for my marriage to be workable is with masturbation. Me being sex starved and my wife being constantly pressured for sex was destroying our marriage and self worth. One us being TBM and one of us apostate is hard enough – but ironically the two years I abstained from masturbation/porn were the most difficult and painful of our entire marriage – much worse than where things are now.

amen to that, brother. The idea to use one’s wife as the only way for sexual release when she is not interested borders on rape to me.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

The required question is “Do you live the law of chastity”, where chastity has a specific and limited definition to sexual relations/sexual intercourse. If you have not had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the answer is “Yes, I live the law of chastity.” This answer applies not just to your bishop, but to your conscience as well. You’ve been conditioned to think that masturbation is evil and pornography is like sulfuric acid that will burn your soul. True, there are a number of issues with pornography, but making it so evil it becomes compelling addictive because of the ‘forbidden’ nature of it. Pornography is a ‘bad idea’ that can lead to some significant issues, but it is not ‘sinful’ by itself. Once you draw the boundary at the wrong point, you lose perspective.

Fully embrace the idea in your soul that masturbation and pornography are not by themselves sin. They are not in any way a violation of the law of chastity (unless you’re participating in pornography as an actor or actress, which then gets into the issue why would anyone want to fund these slimeball directors and producers that are making this crap). Once you de-criminalize porn and masturbation, then you can objectively choose your course. De-sin-izing pornography takes a lot of the allure away from it.

Do you have any support for the statement “chastity has a specific and limited definition to sexual relations/sexual intercourse. If you have not had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the answer is “Yes, I live the law of chastity.”? There are many references to what it means to keep the law of chastity and it seems to be a lot more than not having sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Let’s just say that I’ve had issues.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Do you have any support for the statement “chastity has a specific and limited definition to sexual relations/sexual intercourse. If you have not had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the answer is “Yes, I live the law of chastity.”

I believe prior to 1990 the definition of chastity in the temple was specifically not have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. It has now been changed to the much less clear phrase “sexual relations” whatever that means.

IMO, this is wayfarers personal belief and interpretation – it is clearly much broader than the standard LDS definition. My definition is I don’t fool around with other women because I love my wife and value our marriage. By my definition outside of marriage there is no sin for sexual intercourse (unless doing so is hurtful to someone.)

[Anonymous]

I get confused by wayfarer. I sometimes cannot tell whether he is stating facts or his opinion.

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

Do you have any support for the statement “chastity has a specific and limited definition to sexual relations/sexual intercourse. If you have not had sexual intercourse outside of marriage, the answer is “Yes, I live the law of chastity.”? There are many references to what it means to keep the law of chastity and it seems to be a lot more than not having sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Let’s just say that I’ve had issues.

The Law of Chastity is explicitly defined in the endowment. Pre-1990, it was specifically defined as having no sexual intercourse outside of marriage. in 1990 the terminology changed to “sexual relations”.

Although I won’t quote the actual statement, it’s easy enough to find online. it is very clearly defined and not ambiguous.

[Anonymous]

What I wonder is why the wives are holding back. If there’s a physical problem, work through it. If there is a relationship problem, work through it. If there is emotional, psychological, baggage work through it! It is unhealthy for a marriage to be without sexual intimacy. Is this a common issue? That women are withholding or disinterested?

We’ve had a lot of family separation in our marriage (code for “tours of duty”) and going without is no picnic for a woman either. The arrangement a couple works out for managing dry spells is between them, imo, and not up for ecclesiastical examination.

I think a bigger issue is when a couple is not separated by distance but still isn’t having I have some close friends who have each confided that their marriage is sexless. Both have vented to me separately about the issues which stem from low self-esteem, poor communication, inability to forgive perceived and real offenses, and feelings (invalid – rooted in the communication issue) of being rejected. The longer they go without connecting physically, the more they fuel their own flawed ideas about their partner and the way their partner feels or views them.

Now they both know that they both talk to me. I’ve pushed them toward each other but they’ve created such an unsafe minefield of a relationship that neither is willing to be vulnerable. I see how unhappy they are and how they try to console themselves with other aspects of their lives all while holding back in the most profound relationship either of them has. And there’s not a darn thing I can do besides encouraging them to clear their own hurdles.

This is all tangential to the thread, I know, but it just hit so close to home because we were on vacation with these friends last month and I could just feel the pain and disconnection they were each feeling.

[Anonymous]

Nephite, there is the Law of Chastity as defined for teenagers and the unmarried (a completely cultural definition) and the Law of Chastity as defined in the temple for married couples (still cultural, to some degree, given the use of the word “relations”).

bc_pg, I’m going to say this comprehensively, with no indication of what I personally do or don’t do. That’s nobody’s business – but I will say I’m not describing myself in the fullest picture I am about to paint of what technically is allowable within the Law of Chastity.

Anyone who defines the Law of Chastity for married couples as forbidding masturbation (individually or mutually) is not using the official definition of the LDS Church in the temple. I can say the exact same thing about the use of cameras, videos, etc. within marriage – and sexual positions – and erotic games (even rather extreme ones) – and lots of other things I could list.

Even with the most conservative definitions, the temple definition of the Law of Chastity for married couples includes those things as “sexual relations” (since there are no specific prohibitions in that wording) – and the official stance of the Church now is that it’s not their business to deal with specifics.

[Anonymous]

thanks ray, i completely agree with you.

bc_pg wrote:

IMO, this is wayfarers personal belief and interpretation – it is clearly much broader than the standard LDS definition.

Nephite wrote:

I get confused by wayfarer. I sometimes cannot tell whether he is stating facts or his opinion.

bc_pg & Nephite, thank you for pointing out where i have not been clear. Please understand that I strive to be as honest as possible, and I do not make stuff up. If you look at my original post on this thread, I discussed the origin of both the “sexual intercourse” and “sexual relations” phrases, and the dictionary definitions of these phrases.

in the future, if you are unclear about whether what i am saying has a fact basis, i would be glad to clarify, provide references, or correct my post if wrong or misleading. everything i have stated in subsequent messages in this thread, i introduced in the first post. i stated the definitive definition as found in the temple, but for obvious reasons did not cite the source. later, i referred to the OED, the definitive source of the english language, as well as other definitions. going further in the message, i used “I think” and “in my opinion”, so as to clearly show what i presented as facts versus my opinion. I don’t know how I could have been more clear, but if you have advice, i would be glad to listen.

Doctrine, or an eternal principle, does not change. if the original definition was sexual intercourse, then it changed to sexual relations, which in most definitions is symonymous with sexual intercourse but may include other sexual contact, the eternal law is the persistent subset of the two — which is only sexual intercourse. sexual intercourse in violation of the marriage covenant has ALWAYS been a sin. if you would like, i would be happy to provide documentation as to the historical application if the Law of Chastity throughout judeo-christian history. But I think i am on pretty good ground as to the letter of the law.

We then can discuss the origins of mormon sexuality from its new england puritan origins, through the reactions by the church to the 1960s and 1970s sexual revolution, the invention of the pill, etc., and the abortive attempt to restrict birth control in 1972 and its disasterous consequences on child abuse in Utah County in the late 1970s. You really can’t make this stuff up. But what does it matter?

the letter of the law is sexual intercourse/sexual relations. given this is verbatim from arguably the most authoritative source we have in the church, i think you can bank on it.

as to the spirit of the law, my personal feeling is that there are number of activities that should be proscribed. everything you have mentioned is indeed what i feel as well — don’t fool around at all with someone who isn’t your spouse. Be totally devoted and exclusive in your devotions to your spouse. Cleave unto her and none else. In 33 years of marriage, i have never strayed. i feel fortunate, and yet there have been very rough times. my personal standard is far greater than the LoC, and that is what works for me. Were I to be a Bishop, I do not have the right to require of you more than the letter of the law, and I as an interviewee do not have the obligation to answer for more than the question requires.

[Anonymous]

I think you’ll find in Wards that are hurting for TR holders to hold certain positions, the Bishops are a lot more lenient wherever possible.

And I agree with Ray that what goes on in a marriage is none of their business. There was a question some time ago about oral sex. I heard it more than once from multiple people. I think the church may have well learned that they don’t belong in the bedrooms of the married members.

[Anonymous]

I still question if the LoC is necessarily limited to what is said in the temple. Why can’t the brethren explain and expound what is meant by it?

[Anonymous]

Nephite wrote:

I still question if the LoC is necessarily limited to what is said in the temple. Why can’t the brethren explain and expound what is meant by it?

Ok, I can’t help your question. I take the temple text as authoritative. If you can find another source, please have at it. The term “Law of Chastity” does not appear in scripture. anywhere.

Even a talk in 1986 by ETB called the Law of Chastity doesn’t define it — it only tells how bad it is to violate it.

For the strength of the youth introduces a section on ‘sexual purity’ as follows:

For the strength of youth pamphlet, 2012 wrote:

The Lord’s standard regarding sexual purity is clear and unchanging. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage.

It does not define explicitly the “Law of Chastity”, but the above is close. Then it has an interesting paragraph of counsel:

For the strength of youth pamphlet wrote:

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous.

Notice that this covers all the acts people generally conflate as part of the Law of Chastity. But they are not it. They are things that could lead to sexual transgression. Likewise in ETB’s 1986 talk, he mentions these acts, plus pornography, as dangerous ‘first steps’ toward transgression, implying pretty explicitly that the act of looking at pornography is not the act of sexual transgression.

I just have to ask you, nephite. What isn’t clear here? the temple explicitly defines the LoC. It’s not defined elsewhere in scriptures, although the sins of adultery and fornication are pretty clear. Nothing in scripture or doctrine defines the Law of Chastity as other than the explicit statement in the temple. Please search for yourself — I have: it’s just not there. Do you wish that it were there? I’m just confused here.

[Author]

Posts