TR Question Survey – Question 5: 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.

I see what wayfarer and Ray mean about defining the “Law of Chastity,” but the rules of sexual purity have also been taught very clearly and consistently my whole life.

True to the Faith states:

Quote:

Determine 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….Stay away from pornography. Do not view, read, or listen to anything that depicts or describes the human body or sexual conduct in a way that can arouse sexual feelings….Do not participate in conversations or activities that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in passionate kissing, lie with or on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not allow anyone to do such things with you. source

For the Strength of Youth states:

Quote:

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….Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. source

There are many other references to things things. I think this falls under the category where “the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.” source

Old-Timer wrote:

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.

I have not found anything beyond “be faithful to your spouse in your thoughts, words, and actions” and general stuff about being respectful and not coercive. I don’t see anything to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Moderation in all things.

One of the great principles to come out of the restoration.

Unfortunately, it may need to be restored again in the restored church.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Yes, Nephite, both sources say the same thing there. What I’m talking about is that True To The Faith says pornography, masturbating, necking, petting, fornication, and adultery are all sexual sins, when The Strength of Youth says fornication and adultery are sexual transgressions. There’s where my confusion is at.

[Anonymous]

Ilovechrist77 wrote:

Yes, Nephite, both sources say the same thing there. What I’m talking about is that True To The Faith says pornography, masturbating, necking, petting, fornication, and adultery are all sexual sins, when The Strength of Youth says fornication and adultery are sexual transgressions. There’s where my confusion is at.

when it says “do not” x, does that make x a sin? mind you i agree and support the advice, but in the quotes listed above, i fail to see where non-intercourse acts are defined as sexual sins.

when we make a natural, healthy act a sin, we damage self image, making a person feel unworthy of gods love and blessings. words like “Purity” are unhelpful to describe humans, sound a lot like ritual cleanness of the orthodox jews, and connote an unnatural human state where sexual feelings don’t exist. when you group masturbation and necking with adultery and fornication in a single phrase, you are creating an equivalence that should not exist. yes, SWK did this in the notorious MoF, but it is harmful and not factual.

there is a world of difference between counsel and commandment, between doing unwise acts versus reaping gods condemnation. when single people are attracted to each other, sexual arousal happens naturally. it’s supposed to happen, but if we say that you can’t do anything that gets you aroused, and that’s in the same paragraph as masturbation and petting, then I guess looking at someone when i am single and getting aroused because s/he is attractive is a sin and i can’t go to the temple because i got aroused. Lets put women in burkas so that boys cant be attracted, right?

i n the same paragraph where it says “do not look at porn” and “do not arouse those feelings in yourself”, it says “do not have a conversation that arouses sexual feelings.” so, please tell me, if i get aroused in a conversation — not necessarily about sex, but because i am phenominally attracted to someone — have i committed a sexual transgression?

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

there is a world of difference between counsel and commandment, between doing unwise acts versus reaping gods condemnation. when single people are attracted to each other, sexual arousal happens naturally. it’s supposed to happen, but if we say that you can’t do anything that gets you aroused, and that’s in the same paragraph as masturbation and petting, then I guess looking at someone when i am single and getting aroused because s/he is attractive is a sin and i can’t go to the temple because i got aroused. Lets put women in burkas so that boys cant be attracted, right?

i n the same paragraph where it says “do not look at porn” and “do not arouse those feelings in yourself”, it says “do not have a conversation that arouses sexual feelings.” so, please tell me, if i get aroused in a conversation — not necessarily about sex, but because i am phenominally attracted to someone — have i committed a sexual transgression?

Very interesting. There appears to be different levels. There is the Law of Chastity that is pretty clearly defined. Then there are sexual sins/transgressions that may or may not require talking to the bishop (depending on your personal interpretation and understanding) but are kinda “gateway sins” to breaking the Law of Chastity. And finally there is just good advice and counsel.

While there appears to be a fairly good distinction on the Law of Chastity, the differences between sexual sins/transgressions and unwise acts or “not following counsel” get pretty blurry. For example take the following paragraph:

Quote:

In addition, members are taught to dress modestly, to control their thoughts, and to avoid pornography. Dressing immodestly is not a violation of the law of chastity, but “modesty promotes chastity”. Members who are married are instructed to “be faithful to your spouse in thought, word, and action. Flirting with others is not appropriate. Stay away from situations where temptation may develop.”

Here modest dress, pure thoughts, and avoiding pornography are all listed in the same sentence. The very next sentence states explicitly that immodest dress is not a breach of the Law of Chastity but remains silent on pure thoughts and pornography indulgence. Married members are to be faithful in thought, word, and action. Might this include complaining about a spouse’s actions to a third party? Yet clearly that is not a breach (though it could be considered a sin as gossip/backbiting). Flirting is specifically singled out as “not appropriate” – no word yet on if it qualifies as a sin.

Luckily the question doesn’t ask if you follow counsel on sexual matters nor if you have any sexual sins. The question asks if you obey the Law of Chastity.

Somewhat as an aside – when looking into this topic I found the following quote:

Quote:

When two people of the same sex join in using their bodies for erotic purposes, this conduct is considered homosexual and sinful by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comparable to sexual relations between any unmarried persons. Masturbation is not condoned but is not considered homosexual.

Homosexuality”. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. BYU Studies, Harold B. Lee Library. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Homosexuality. Retrieved 2009-06-28.

I was particularly intrigued by the last sentence… 🙄

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Somewhat as an aside – when looking into this topic I found the following quote:

Quote:

When two people of the same sex join in using their bodies for erotic purposes, this conduct is considered homosexual and sinful by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, comparable to sexual relations between any unmarried persons. Masturbation is not condoned but is not considered homosexual.

Homosexuality”. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. BYU Studies, Harold B. Lee Library. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Homosexuality. Retrieved 2009-06-28.

I was particularly intrigued by the last sentence… 🙄

That’s not what Franklin D. Richards told me back in 1965

[Anonymous]

I’m going to sound like a broken record here.

Sexual sin = violation of Law of Chastity.

Since the Law of Chastity is explicity defined, then Sexual Sin is the congruent item.

Unfortunately, some people define sexual intercourse as coitus only. So the term Sexual Relations expands the definition, at least a little. Where is the line? It’s more than coitus. Ask Bill Clinton or Monica Lewinski, for example.

Also, for the sake of our discussions here, we try to get to a definition of ‘Official Doctrine’. “Encyclopedia of Mormonism” is NOT OFFICIAL DOCTRINE. Although in this case it’s reflective of counsel.

I would like to challenge someone to come up with a source within ‘official doctrine’ citing masturbation as sin. I don’t know if it’s there, so it’s just a challenge.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

[snip]

Women in particular, i have found to be incredibly indifferent to men’s sexual needs.

Boy did you ever get that right.

Quote:

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.

One more reason why I think it’s tragically misguided to teach anyone to expect or feel entitled to sexual satisfaction. But since we want to keep youth from sinning, we “tell with such high zest to children ardent for some desperate glory the old lie: Dulcis et decorum est” . . .

Quote:

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.

Attractive sentiment. Thing is, “chastity” is etymologically related to “chasten” and they hark back to a Proto-Indo-European word meaning “to cut” (cognate with “caste” also). The word itself is rooted in concepts of restraint. So I would suggest if you want to posit a divine mandate for married couples to get it on regularly, try to build another frame: the Law of Marriage, maybe.

I would like to track down the quote from a GA back in the 80s maybe that says in effect: we don’t find any scriptural justification for sex even in marriage used purely for gratification. Very unpopular now, but as far as I know, factual. Of course there’s Abraham sporting with his wife and the whole Song of Songs, but of course the Song of Songs has been singled out as “not inspired.”

Your points on mutual meeting of needs ring true. Sex is a problem, a complex of needs and motives ranging from charitable to utterly base, and it needs work by both spouses to reach a tolerable equilibrium. Not some beautiful gift to make our joy full: I think that’s evolutionary physiology talking.

When my wife and I were first married we took instruction on a natural family planning method which is quite popular with Catholics, as a result of their belief that sex is primarily for procreation. Part of the program was to explore alternate forms of physical intimacy during the fertile times if we didn’t want to conceive. We gave it up after a while for various reasons, but I have to admire those Catholics who so value continence and self-control and stick to an unpopular doctrine even when technology has made it seemingly irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Well, forgive me, I’m not trying to argue with wayfarer or anyone of you. I just wanted to point out the differences between the two church sources on the law of chastity. That’s all.

[Anonymous]

As a single guy who is deciding whether to stay or go, the chastity issue is big for me.

I’ve been through about 20,000 chastity talks in Sunday School and seminary, and they’re always incredibly awkward, because the speaker is very firm about how bad breaking the law of chastity is and how important it is to avoid breaking the law of chastity, but is hopelessly ambiguous about what specific acts are sins.

It’s interesting (and refreshing) to see people on this site talking about how some specific acts outlined in the FTSOY pamphlet- passionate kissing, “petting,” and masturbation- are not sins in themselves, but precursors to potential sins. This is quite different from the chastity videos that used to be shown to me, where Spencer W. Kimball would talk about the grievous sins of necking and petting and how evil they were. I always thought that if I took some girl on a date and I “felt her up” I’d have to go confess to my bishop and I wouldn’t be able to take the sacrament. But the fact that they’re not violations of the law of chastity makes sense to my innate moral compass: I just can’t find a reason why these things are innately wrong, and I guess that SWK couldn’t either, which is why he had to dogmatically say, “They’re wrong because God said so.”

[Anonymous]

I believe sex outside of marriage is the standard. Fornication is pre-marital, adultery is extra-marital. Both are sins.

[Anonymous]

I’ve had “sexual relations” with several of my girlfriends before marriage and even my wife before we were married. It didn’t feel wrong, it felt like we were sharing a loving act that brought us closer together. I never felt like those broke the law of chastity. Maybe I am trying to justify my actions, maybe not, but all I know is that I didn’t feel compelled to repent of something that didn’t leave me with feelings of guilt.

Now a couple of times I went to a strip club with a friend. I felt sleazy and awful for the most part. I was there just basically using a real live woman for my own enjoyment and nothing at all was reciprocated (except a few dollar bills) and it seemed morally reprehensible. That seemed like a violation of the law of chastity. I think it has to do more with the intent. Using someone else is a sin. Mutual loving acts are not sins in any other aspect of life, so I refuse to believe they are in this situation. (Now of course if one of the partners are married or committed to someone else than it is not just about two people.) So you can commit terrible harm. Again, it’s all about the intents and the effects.

Personally, as with all the TR questions, I choose to go more with the spirit of the law rather than the actual words. I also don’t allow the bishop to re-interpret the questions himself. if he does, I ignore his extra qualifications. It’s not his Temple, it’s mine and it’s God’s.

[Anonymous]

Hi wayfarer. I had spoken with a few Orthdox Jews and roman Catholics about the source of the law of masterbation before and both refered me to–genesis 38: 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

While not a church doctrinal source it contains the only reference in the bible to what many mistake as a law against it.

It is believed by them that the “spilling of seed” was the law broken and punishable by death. If you take it out of context it would look that way. However I included the verse the verse before and after to give context.

The population was very small and the commandment to multiply earth was far more serious with just a handful of people on it least the human population die out. It is pretty clear on context that he was killed not for “spilling his seed” but for not obeying the commandment to multiply. Never the less there is a large section of Judeo-Christian population that interpret it as the spilling of seed that was the sin”wasting of seed” as seen as the reason the lord slew him. Thus masterbation “wasting seed” interpretation was born.

[Anonymous]

Forgotten_Charity, you are correct: that verse gets butchered when used as a prohibition against masturbation. He just as well could have gone through with everything and simply pulled out early in order to avoid the possibility of pregnancy – which fits the actual description in the verse. Iow, he used his position to take advantage of his sister-in-law but wasn’t willing to take the responsibility that should have come with it.

He wasn’t killed for masturbation; he was killed for breaking a core law of the community by using a woman strictly for his own pleasure and, literally, killing off his brother’s descendants. In a very real way, he raped her, and, in a figurative way, he killed her posterity. That absolutely was cause to be killed at the time.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Forgotten_Charity, you are correct: that verse gets butchered when used as a prohibition against masturbation. He just as well could have gone through with everything and simply pulled out early in order to avoid the possibility of pregnancy – which fits the actual description in the verse. Iow, he used his position to take advantage of his sister-in-law but wasn’t willing to take the responsibility that should have come with it.

He wasn’t killed for masturbation; he was killed for breaking a core law of the community by using a woman strictly for his own pleasure and, literally, killing off his brother’s descendants. In a very real way, he raped her, and, in a figurative way, he killed her posterity. That absolutely was cause to be killed at the time.

yes, well, this is the same god that commanded the genocide of the amalekites.

i love the broader tableau from which the story of Onan comes. the more important part of the story is what happens next. after losing two sons in this whole thing around Tamar, he decides that Shelah is too youg to be slain. after Shelah comes of age, Tamar notices taht she still hasn’t been given a husband, so she takes matters in her own hand and goes to a fertility temple and dresses as one of the temple prostitutes, knowing that Judah, having recently lost his wife, would be frequenting the temple for “worship”. problem was, he didn’t have enough for her “fee”, so she requires certain him to pawn his signet and other personally identifiable items, and they conclude their “affair.” Being a righteous, honorable man, he returns the next day to pay the fee. Tamar is gone, of course, at this point. a few months later when tamar is clearly pregnant, Judah wants to invoke the “Law” that says that adulteresses are put to death. in investigating the matter, he asked who the father was, and she revealed his personal items. then he realized that he was wrong for withholding Shelah, and Tamar was righteous. and from this illicit union involving every possible permutation of violating the Law of Chastity, including incest, adultery, prostitution, and deception, comes the royal line including David and Christ.

when i taught this lesson in gospel doctrine, i entitled it “sex, lies, and genesis”…written in magic marker on the washington post. i had more complaints to the bishop or hat lesson than any other i taught…but i also had a lot of complements to me personally…it was fun.

go figure.

what, specifically, is the point of this story? it certainly isn’t about masturbation… not even about rape.

if it is all about obeying the lord…in this case about the fact that Tamar was to be the mother of a speciic royal line… hiw does this work, again? What lessons should we take from the story of Tamar?

1. patronizing prostitutes is ok for widowers

2. playing the role of a prostitute is ok.

3. seducing your father in law is justified if your husband isn’t having sex with you.

4. birth control is punishable by death.

5. coitus interruptus is punishable by death.

6. Actual marriage is not necessary to have sex (sons 2, 3, and Judah) are not married to Tamar.

Word of god, indeed.

[Author]

Posts