TR Question Survey – Question 5: Law of Chastity

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I still question if the LoC is necessarily limited to what is said in the temple.

wayfarer is right in his comment, but I’ll add a little different slant:

How members of the Church view the Law of Chastity isn’t limited to what is said in the temple – depending on the audience and who is defining it. That’s what I said in a previous comment. There are totally cultural definitions that change all the time, even inside the Church.

Let me give you four examples of definitions that are used currently in the Church:

1) What is preached to teenagers and young single adults – which, when presented by many local leaders, includes not doing things like “passionate kissing”, “necking”, “petting”, masturbation, “unchaste thoughts” and just about anything else that leader wants to throw into the stew;

2) What is preached to homosexual members – which unfortunately often includes not even holding hands, kissing, back rubs and other totally non-sexual things when done by heterosexual members;

3) What is preached to married couples by some local leaders – which is no sexual intercourse or sexual relations outside of marriage – or any combination of some of the things mentioned in definition #1 and my previous comment;

4) What is preached to married couples in the temple – which is no sexual intercourse or sexual relations outside of marriage but no explicit prohibitions inside marriage.

Quote:

Why can’t the brethren explain and expound what is meant by it?

Please, please, please, please, NO!! The temple statement is quite clear and unambiguous. Why expound on something that doesn’t need expounding? The ONLY result possible is restriction and mandate where restriction and mandate aren’t necessary. The ONLY result possible is a loss of agency in matters that should be left totally up to individual agency.

I don’t want anyone telling me what I can do in the privacy of my bedroom with my wife to whom I was sealed in the temple and to whom I’m legally and lawfully wedded. Plus, they tried it years ago – and it was ignored by most and nearly caused riots from many.

Also, fwiw, they probably don’t agree among themselves.

I want it like it is now. It’s perfect as it is right now, imo. I like the definition in the temple right now.

If it ain’t broke, let’s not try to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

1) What is preached to teenagers and young single adults – which, when presented by many local leaders, includes not doing things like “passionate kissing”, “necking”, “petting”, masturbation, “unchaste thoughts” and just about anything else that leader wants to throw into the stew;

Yes they do imply that passionate kissing, necking, masturbation and pornography are part of the stew, but it’s not doctrinal, and even the FTSOY pamphlet is pretty clear about this (repeating what I wrote above):

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. That’s the entire “law”, and a pretty good statement of it to boot. 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.

Let’s “parse” the paragraph, shall we? The first sentence of the paragraph sets the context or thesis of the paragraph. In this case, it’s talking about “anything that could lead to sexual transgression”. Then it includes a bunch of acts which could lead to sexual transgression. But they aren’t it. I’m not saying that youth should go out and test these limits, or that married people should think this is ok to do with someone not their spouse — far from it. Youth that play with this stuff are playing with fire, and married people who do this stuff are scumbags to their spouses. The point is, though, they are NOT violations of the LoC, and confession is NOT required for these things. Of course, that doesn’t stop the majority of bishops to ask probing questions and then take informal action on someone who does any of these.

Old-Timer wrote:

2) What is preached to homosexual members – which unfortunately often includes not even holding hands, kissing, back rubs and other totally non-sexual things when done by heterosexual members

And this is really sad. I know of a case where a homosexual couple was active in the church, living together, but “kept their love within the bounds the lord has set”, and thus continued to have callings. This was years ago, and one of the partners was dying of AIDS. How can we possibly say to such a couple, willing to support one another, that non-sexual physical touch is forbidden?

Old-Timer wrote:

Also, fwiw, they probably don’t agree among themselves.

I want it like it is now. It’s perfect as it is right now, imo. I like the definition in the temple right now.

If it ain’t broke, let’s not try to fix it.

Amen and Amen! Hallelujah brother!

[Anonymous]

This is a great thread.

I don’t have much wisdom to add. Way is using all my good comments in the OP, so all I can do is answer the question.

YES.

PS…I have no problem with porn or masturbation…meaning, that much like beer saved my marriage,I am sure for many couples, so does masturbation/porn.

When done responsibly, much like alcohol consumption, it is a great tool to help married couple cope with life.

Thank you God.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Also for what it is worth…I have never in my 19 years of marriage ever been asked by a church authority if I engaged in porn, mastubation, or oral sex.

NEVER.

It has never been an issue, and I give the church credit for evolving from the anti-sexual haydays of the 80s where oral sex between married adults was condemned over the pulpit.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Also for what it is worth…I have never in my 19 years of marriage ever been asked by a church authority if I engaged in porn, mastubation, or oral sex.

make that 33 years for me — same deal – NEVER been asked, never volunteered it either. It’s always been:

Bishop or SP: Do you live the Law of Chastity?

Me: Yes.

next question.

[Anonymous]

Hey way…my tapatalk isn’t letting me redponse to your PM. Ill answer your PM tomorrow at work.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I suspect women are not typically asked additional specific questions often, if ever.

I’ve been attending the temple since I was 20 just prior to my mission and that’s been 21 years. Never even heard of these questions coming up in TR interviews other than in online discussions.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

I suspect women are not typically asked additional specific questions often, if ever.

I’ve been attending the temple since I was 20 just prior to my mission and that’s been 21 years. Never even heard of these questions coming up in TR interviews other than in online discussions.

To me, it’s about the idea that we have in our minds an image of what the other person is asking. So rather than answering the question as asked, some people spill their guts about things bothering them related to the question. And that’s where a lot of problems begin.

The church doesn’t handle nuance well. It’s either Yes or No for an answer.

where I see some profound problems is that both the interviewee and the interviewer may think that acts leading up to the LoC are part of it. So if an interviewee comes in with a feeling of guilt about masturbation or porn, then that feeling of guilt indicts him or her. this could apply to both men and women, to single and married. So, feeling ‘guilty’, the interviewee expresses reservation or doubt, opening up the door for the interviewer to ask further questions. And herein is where the interview gets unpredictable. I don’t like porn, I think it’s wrong to participate in it, but I recognize that it’s not a ‘sin’ by itself, unless the participant feels ‘guilty’ about it. Then, something needs to be done. The bishop could put porn into perspective, or he could react to it as if it were grave sin. Since there really aren’t hard and fast guidelines on this even in CHI volume 1, then the bishop can take informal action. This pushes the guilt over the edge, in my impression, and for many, they can never be free of porn as long as there is guilt associated with it. The guilt drives the negative behavior, unfortunately, so the person gets progressively further away from feeling good about him or herself, and to feel better….

It’s just a vicious cycle. It’s real, it harms a lot of people. That’s why we discuss it.

I guess.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

I suspect women are not typically asked additional specific questions often, if ever.

I’ve been attending the temple since I was 20 just prior to my mission and that’s been 21 years. Never even heard of these questions coming up in TR interviews other than in online discussions.

A number of years ago a Sunstone my wife and I were having lunch with a woman who had left the church. She mentioned that in a recommend interview the bishop’s counselor had asked her if she masturbated. Her answer was “yes, don’t you?” to which he replied “yes” and moved on to the next question.

I’d always assumed the switch from sexual intercourse to sexual relations was to catch those that were defining things a little too fine and justifying getting away with everything else, something the SWK wasn’t about to put up with.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Let’s “parse” the paragraph, shall we? The first sentence of the paragraph sets the context or thesis of the paragraph. In this case, it’s talking about “anything that could lead to sexual transgression”. Then it includes a bunch of acts which could lead to sexual transgression. But they aren’t it. I’m not saying that youth should go out and test these limits, or that married people should think this is ok to do with someone not their spouse — far from it. Youth that play with this stuff are playing with fire, and married people who do this stuff are scumbags to their spouses. The point is, though, they are NOT violations of the LoC, and confession is NOT required for these things.

Wow, I see what you mean now.

EDIT: Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me, wayfarer and Ray.

[Anonymous]

I believe the switch from intercourse to relations was to cast a wider net for unmarried singles like actual people I knew who justified oral sex while dating on grounds that it was not intercourse. When it switched, there were some oops moments.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

I suspect women are not typically asked additional specific questions often, if ever.

I’ve been attending the temple since I was 20 just prior to my mission and that’s been 21 years. Never even heard of these questions coming up in TR interviews other than in online discussions.

That’s the power of the internet. I have definitely heard them. When I was newly baptized several people told me that one shouldn’t do anything with their spouse that was “immodest”. I laugh at that one now because even the most dignified couple is going to have trouble making sex modest!

My father-in-law told me that the purpose of sex was for the creation of children only. My guess was that a High Priest who was 80 years old and had only reached and preached that conclusion in the past few months — after a lifetime of healthy sex.

[Anonymous]

This is a great discussion. But I’m noticed that the book True To The Faith written by the church states pornography and masturbation (they just hint at masturbation, they don’t say the word specifically) are sexual sins just like fornication and adultery, and yet The Strength of Youth pamphlet states that those two former things aren’t sexual transgressions like fornication and adultery. I’m confused. The church needs to be more clear on this. No wonder some stake presidents and bishops are over-zealous with enforcing the law of chastity.

[Anonymous]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

This is a great discussion. But I’m noticed that the book True To The Faith written by the church states pornography and masturbation (they just hint at masturbation, they don’t say the word specifically) are sexual sins just like fornication and adultery, and yet The Strength of Youth pamphlet states that those two former things aren’t sexual transgressions like fornication and adultery. I’m confused. The church needs to be more clear on this. No wonder some stake presidents and bishops are over-zealous with enforcing the law of chastity.

indeed they need better clarity, but no one is providing it.

There is a value to them in leaving things open. I remember a number of BYU folk when I went there that ”knew the limits” as being “sexual intercourse”, and yet, they would do everything but, skirting around the law as it were. While someone is technically not in violation of a law but does everything but is probably in violation of at least the spirit of the law.

So I believe that it will remain confusing.

[Anonymous]

I’m OK with the Church being more clear, IF being more clear means reiterating that they aren’t going to try to define the Law of Chastity for married couples beyond what the temple states.

Frankly, I also have no problem with that standard being the only standard – but parents and kids too often want more guidance, because they don’t want to have to take ownership of making those types of choices. It’s much easier for many parents and kids to say, “This is what the Church teaches,” than to say, “This is how I define ‘sexual relations’.”

I wish we could shed our Victorian heritage, even as I don’t want to adopt the hedonism of the counter-cultures that sprang to life in opposition to it. I believe that heritage actually is a large part of the Great Christian apostasy. We have SO many unnecessary hang-ups when it comes to sex, imo.

Moderation is a good standard, imo – but I like being free to make that my standard by exercising my own will.

[Author]

Posts