- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reflexzero, I think you interpreted my comment VERY differently than what I meant. I have said in multiple threads in more than one forum that I don’t like many of the cultural rules we have created with regard to the Law of Chastity – the “hedges about the law” with regard to sex. I also have said we, as a collective people, are WAY too hesitant to talk about all things sexual.
However, I have absolutely no problem, whatsoever, with the principle and concept of a Law of Chastity – and the LDS Church does not teach that sex or sexuality is evil. It teaches that the improper use of sex and sexuality is evil – and those are two very, very different things. I don’t agree with all of my fellow worshipers about what constitutes “improper use of sex and sexuality” (again, the area of hedges), but I agree totally that sexual chastity is important. I might define that term differently than many members, but I don’t argue against its value.
Again, a short response:
Sexual urges are powerful, and the effects of sexual activity are far-reaching and profound. Those urges and activities ought to be controlled or directed – intentionally, even if I don’t agree with many members about how strictly / tightly the directing control should be restrained.
Roy wrote:Many of StayLDS topics are about things that are somewhat unique and recent inventions of the LDS church (WoW, temple worship, etc.)…Chastity is somewhat different because I feel that
it has been around in the Judeo-Christian sphere for as far back as we have records…tradition is part of it…I think another part of it is that marriage and family has been the dominant building block of society for a long time and remains so today. Promiscuity has the capacity to cause long lasting collateral damage to these building blocks…Finally I believe that there is a personal cost to infidelity.The BOM talks about the tender hearts of the wives being broken by the actions of their husbands. I believe that there is much potential for misunderstandings and hurt feelings with non-commital sexual relations. Perhaps the worst manifestation of this would be feelings of being used – worthless and undervalued…I would like to see some changes in the emphasis and the way that Chastity is sometimes taught, but I’m fairly certain that Chastity as a concept isn’t going anywhere.I agree that some of the emotions about things like infidelity and wanting long-term commitment, stable family relationships, etc. are just as relevant now as they were thousands of years ago so they are probably not going away on a large scale anytime soon. However, the problem is that people can already have a perfectly happy family with no infidelities or unnecessary drama going on and still be a dismal failure according to the Church in terms of strictly obeying the Law of Chastity from cradle-to-grave exactly the way the Church teaches it right now. That’s because it isn’t really about results at this point as much as pure dogma where Church leaders basically start with the answer that that any sexual feelings and experiences are supposedly only acceptable between marriage partners and they mostly dismiss or ignore all the cases where this doesn’t appear to be nearly as important or practical to apply as they continue to act like it should be.
The idea that pre-marital sex is so serious and never acceptable is already on life-support and things will never go back to the way they were in the 1950s or before. It would be one thing to say that would be nice if everything happens to work out that way but to hear you are already guilty of the sin next to murder and need to confess to priesthood leaders to be forgiven really starts to sound like overkill after a while. Other supposed sins like masturbation, “petting”, porn, etc. will be even more of an uphill battle to try to completely eliminate and repeatedly telling Church members they are unworthy over things like this is more likely to alienate an increasing number of them than actually succeed in getting them to repent permanently nowadays.
One additional comment for this one. There was an instance where a brother would not drive an older single sister home after a stake activity because he was worried about either somehow violating the law of chastity, or being thought to have done so in the four block car ride. This is not anecdotal, as it was a family member of mine who was the sister left behind. Obviously I found the story ridiculous in application of the spirit of the law, but you hear stories of a man refusing to ride elevators with a woman in the COB. Are we that scared of each other? I understand the need to protect people from being taken advantage of, but do we really feel that if we are alone for a minute it is going to result in some sexual escapade?
I agree completely that things like that are screwed up. Great thoughts from all of you. I live in Europe and I have never felt anything taught from the pulpit that sex is evil etc. I have though, seen some members that put it that way. Overly emphasizing the topic and potentially messing up the sexuality of their children. My thoughts are much more about Pre marital sex. Not fidelity in marriage. The marriage part makes perfect sense to me – but Pre marital sex is a harder topic for me to completely grasp. I completely agree with “Contraception isn’t foolproof. The possibility of bringing an eternal being into the world should give people pause, and I don’t think the freedom and pleasure of the 99 is worth the distress of the 1”
But just to take it further= if we invented a 100% foolproof contraception, would that make the law of chastity meaningless? I personally don’t think so. The line I quoted seems to me to be the physical aspect of the law of chastity, which makes sense. But there must be a spiritual/emotional benefit from living the law.
What is that?
One thing I have been pondering is that I believe not having premarital sex, has the potential to “bind” you much closer to your spouse in the future.
I have personally always lived by tloc (the law of chastity) and feel that my wife and I are close because we never were with anyone else.
Any more inputs and thoughts?
I think sex at a young age is harmful. Emotions are not developed and the human body is not really ready. I would think that fully developed adult could have intimate relations and it could be a good thing but not young kids. Sex should be about love and building a relationship and not just about satisfying a need. There are other ways to HANDle that. đ Clearly sex isn’t evil. We’re the only church teaching that sex is eternal and part of exaltation). A few members and leaders seem unclear on this point. There is a problem with teaching that everything sexual is out of bounds until you are married, but the moment you are married, anything goes! For women in particular, it’s a bit tough to go from zero to sixty overnight. It took me a few years to unclench since avoiding the chastity line is a mental control game, and for women, arousal is very mental. I like the Buddhist idea that we should do no harm to others, either physically or emotionally. Being emotionally ready for sex takes maturity. People also are often not ready for the consequences, not just pregnancy and disease which can often be avoided, but also the impact to our emotions and how we can become vulnerable to a relationship that might not be right for us. But let me just add that there are also consequences to avoiding sexual intimacy until marriage. We can become vulnerable to committing too quickly just to be able to have sex.
I’m pro the law of chastity, but I’m against marrying too young (before self-awareness and ability to discern are established), and I’m against shaming people for natural feelings, and I’m against someone’s first kiss being across the altar. A little experience with sexual desire is healthy.
Bear wrote:My thoughts are much more about Pre marital sex. Not fidelity in marriage. The marriage part makes perfect sense to me – but Pre marital sex is a harder topic for me to completely grasp. I completely agree with “Contraception isn’t foolproof. The possibility of bringing an eternal being into the world should give people pause, and I don’t think the freedom and pleasure of the 99 is worth the distress of the 1”
Bear wrote:One thing I have been pondering is that I believe not having premarital sex, has the potential to “bind” you much closer to your spouse in the future.
I have personally always lived by tloc (the law of chastity) and feel that my wife and I are close because we never were with anyone else.
I again refer you to the following study:
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol23/31/23-31.pdf Quote:The significant positive correlation between the residuals from the cohabitation and dissolution equations (0.225) indicates that women who cohabited had unobserved characteristics that increased the risk of union dissolution, whereas the negative correlation (although not significant) between marriage and dissolution (-0.132) suggests that women who married directly had unobserved characteristics that decreased the risk of union dissolution.
Once unobserved selection effects were accounted for women who cohabited prior to marriage had a significantly lower risk of union dissolution than women who married directly.Essentially once the study accounted for “selection effects” (like fear of commitment) the women who cohabitated with their future spouse prior to marriage had a 31% lower divorce rate than women who married without living together. This does not completely answer your question because I still believe that promiscuity prior to marriage would have a negative effect on later marriage. But it does seem that intimate relations in the context of a “trail-marriage” with someone that you love and are committed to – seen as a stepping stone to full marriage – may actually help “bind” together that subsequent marriage.
I acknowledge that this blurring of the line does get confusing. How do you measure whether your cohabitation is a “trial-marriage” or just serial shacking up. Even if you view it as the former, how can you be sure that your partner sees it the same way. But I agree with Hawkgrrrl, it would be at least as equally distressing to find yourself married to a person that is not great marriage material (they may even feel trapped and smothered by marriage despite anything you may do). Would it not be preferable to test the waters first?
It makes me wonder if anyone has studied the desire for sex being a factor with the rapid rate of LDS courtship and marriage. My LDS friends probably never lasted much more than 6 months from the first date to the wedding, while my non member friends ranged from 3 to 10 years. Here in Nevada there is a radio public service announcement about abstinence that, as a conclusion, says, “80% of sexually active 12-14 year olds report that they wish they had waited to have sex until they were older.” This tells me two things that are relevant to this discussion:
1)
There are LOTS of 12-14 year olds (and even younger children) who are having sex– enough that the state health agency felt it needed to make a public commercial to convince them to stop. 2) The implied message is that once you turn 15 or 16, you’re old enough to have sex without regret.
Both of these things are sad to me, since I think the vast majority of 15-18 year olds are not emotionally ready for sex (some 20-year-olds aren’t ready) – especially the girls who tend to be hurt the most when sex does not lead to a committed relationship.
Also, I agree completely that, in the Church, we must frame abstinence and chastity in terms that are not exclusively physical – not focusing solely or even primarily on birth and sexual infections / diseases, as important as it is for our children to understand those issues clinically. Contraception has made that exclusive argument much, much weaker than it used to be, even though, again, it remains an important aspect.
Ann wrote:…I guess I don’t think God “intended” or invented sex for X,Y or Z purpose. I think it’s more like God taking the given, the reality of sex and working out from that…But commandments are always being filtered through our perceptions and thinking. So, I dunno…. I definitely don’t want to “go back” to any other time or place…
Contraception isn’t foolproof. The possibility of bringing an eternal being into the world should give people pause, and I don’t think the freedom and pleasure of the 99 is worth the distress of the 1.Maybe so but it seems like someone could use the same basic rationale to claim we should never drive or ride a car anywhere because there’s always a slim chance some of us will end up in a wreck and even die. The way I see it, dealing with some risks is just a part of life. If the rewards are relatively high and the risks are low then it’s no surprise that many people will continue to be more than happy to take their chances. It’s not like playing with fire where there is no reason for it to begin with because it is a basic physical desire that most people have at some point. Even in the worst case, if someone gets pregnant when they didn’t want to and they are morally opposed to abortion they could always give the baby up for adoption. I have also known some couples that got married quickly because of this and some single mothers that raised children on their own and it was never the end of the world even if it wasn’t the ideal they hoped for. That’s why I don’t get some of the exaggerated fear and hard-line attitudes about this as if we are dealing with the plague instead of something the majority of Americans will end up doing without any major problems. For example, look at some of the comments from Elder Bednar in the last conference.
David A. Bednar wrote:…Lucifer labors to make the sons and daughters of God confused and unhappy and to hinder their eternal progression. The overarching intent of
the father of lies is that all of us would become âmiserable like unto himselfâ (2 Nephi 2:27). Lucifer wants us ultimately to be alone in the dark and without hope…Satan relentlessly works to distort the most important elements of the Fatherâs plan…Because a physical body is so central to the Fatherâs plan of happiness and our spiritual development, Lucifer seeks to frustrate our progression by tempting us to use our bodies improperly…Violating the law of chastity is a grievous sin and a misuse of our physical tabernacles… it is easy to discern that the counterfeit companionship advocated by the adversary is temporary and empty…Your bishop or branch president is the spiritual physicianâs assistant who is authorized to help you repent and heal. Please remember, however, that the extent and intensity of your repentance must match the nature and severity of your sinsâespecially for Latter-day Saints who are under sacred covenant…The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lordâs truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls. I promise that obedience to the law of chastity will increase our happiness in mortality…I don’t see it. In fact, one of the main reasons I became inactive after my mission was precisely because I found that strict obedience to the Law of Chastity didn’t make me nearly as happy as ignoring it did. Then because I believed I was already under condemnation and didn’t really want to repent or confess to the bishop anytime soon I didn’t see the point of home teaching, attending meetings, paying tithing, or obeying the WoW anymore either and didn’t get married in the temple. Maybe Church leaders would see all this as a confirmation of how serious these sins supposedly are because just look at me now criticizing the “Lord’s anointed” but personally I feel like I was set up for this exact outcome by a slippery slope and self-fulfilling prophecy the Church itself created. Basically every step of the way there was a comfortable and convenient way to do things and a hard and painful way and every single time it seems like the Church’s way was the hard way. Maybe in some cases the hard way really is worth it but to me it looks like most active members don’t really know the difference as long as they don’t deviate much from the Church’s expectations for long but if they do they will quickly find out for themselves that some of this isn’t nearly as important as the Church continues to act like it is (1 Thes. 5:21).
The opening question asked why the church teaches the law of chastity. I like Roy’s answers. I would also add that abstinence prevents single parenthood which can be hard on the single parent. As much as I see a lot of single parents doing a lot of great work, often single parents are the most vulnerable to economic hardship when they experience job loss, sickness etcetera — from what I saw as a priesthood leader. Sex out of marriage costs the Church money.
I also noticed that single parents were often left with less capacity to serve in high pressure callings. I see this as another reason that chastity is so important to our church — couples have more time to devote to outside volunteer interests. Again the church’s interests are served by abstinence.
My opinion? I am no longer certain about the law of chastity because of what happened to me (married someone incapable of sex). Sexual incompatibility, if important to one person in a marriage, can be a real hardship and can lead to divorce, infidelity, and excommunication (so far I’ve not experienced any of these, but have come close to the first two). To be able to test sex before marriage would be highly valuable. However, I stop short of advocating it for everyone. I am torn on that issue for the time being, and will teach abstinence to my children.
Well the church wants to tell you what to eat, what to wear, how to talk, what to do on Sunday, who to associate with, how to spend your money, and a myriad of other things. I think it is only natural for it to want to control the big one sexual behavior. Reflexzero wrote:It makes me wonder if anyone has studied the desire for sex being a factor with the rapid rate of LDS courtship and marriage. My LDS friends probably never lasted much more than 6 months from the first date to the wedding, while my non member friends ranged from 3 to 10 years.
I worked in one of the BYU’s counseling departments, and I can provide anecdotal evidence that almost all the couples I saw had gone from first date to wedding within 9 months. People were shocked when they heard my own engagement was ‘6 months’ as if that were ‘long’! My non-LDS friends were terrified for me that I was committing to a life with one person when I had limited physical interaction with them, for one thing, but also for only having known them for a year. My only married non-LDS friends were together for over a decade (cohabiting for 7 years of that time) before they tied the knot.
It’s funny to me (sortof) how Spencer W. Kimball acknowledges that sex is one of the reasons people end up in divorce court, but then he’s also the one responsible for rooting around in married couples bedrooms restricting sexual practices (see: oral sex letter)
This is a generalization I am typically uncomfortable with making, but while I can’t say that men’s sex drive is innately higher (maybe it’s perceived as higher in our society because our society feeds that idea so significantly) I think, that from personal experience, boys are much more anxious to marry in the church – there’s no sexual outlet; masturbation is a sin and so is anything else. My non-LDS boyfriends were often more rational at looking at our relationship, less driven to taking huge steps over short periods of time, and frankly, less ‘wired’ all the time.
Reflexzero wrote:It is disturbing to me when we blame sexual urges on the devil, when it is likely hormones and neurology at work.
This bothers me too.
While I’m ranting fairly indiscriminately (sorry), I think the whole chastity discussion is done horribly anyway – the boys are told ‘keep it in your pants until marriage’ and the girls are essentially told to quash any pilot light of sexuality they may have so they don’t tempt the boys, but somehow after an adolescence of denying even being remotely sexual, they’re supposed to suddenly have a sexual identity so they can fulfil their divine roles as wife and mother, both of which involve sex. The irony is horrible.
I think chastity can be a good thing – I think it’s a bit of a hedge about the law though. The law, in my mind, is trying to minimize procreation in a situation that would be less stable (considering this chastity thing has roots waaaaay back before birth control or clear insight on menstruation etc) and the hedge about that law forms on the basis that marriage = more stable.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Ann wrote:…I guess I don’t think God “intended” or invented sex for X,Y or Z purpose. I think it’s more like God taking the given, the reality of sex and working out from that…But commandments are always being filtered through our perceptions and thinking. So, I dunno…. I definitely don’t want to “go back” to any other time or place…
Contraception isn’t foolproof. The possibility of bringing an eternal being into the world should give people pause, and I don’t think the freedom and pleasure of the 99 is worth the distress of the 1.Maybe so but it seems like someone could use the same basic rationale to claim we should never drive or ride a car anywhere because there’s always a slim chance some of us will end up in a wreck and even die. The way I see it, dealing with some risks is just a part of life. If the rewards are relatively high and the risks are low then it’s no surprise that many people will continue to be more than happy to take their chances. It’s not like playing with fire where there is no reason for it to begin with because it is a basic physical desire that most people have at some point. Even in the worst case, if someone gets pregnant when they didn’t want to and they are morally opposed to abortion they could always give the baby up for adoption. I have also known some couples that got married quickly because of this and some single mothers that raised children on their own and it was never the end of the world even if it wasn’t the ideal they hoped for. That’s why I don’t get some of the exaggerated fear and hard-line attitudes about this as if we are dealing with the plague instead of something the majority of Americans will end up doing without any major problems. For example, look at some of the comments from Elder Bednar in the last conference.
David A. Bednar wrote:…Lucifer labors to make the sons and daughters of God confused and unhappy and to hinder their eternal progression. The overarching intent of
the father of lies is that all of us would become âmiserable like unto himselfâ (2 Nephi 2:27). Lucifer wants us ultimately to be alone in the dark and without hope…Satan relentlessly works to distort the most important elements of the Fatherâs plan…Because a physical body is so central to the Fatherâs plan of happiness and our spiritual development, Lucifer seeks to frustrate our progression by tempting us to use our bodies improperly…Violating the law of chastity is a grievous sin and a misuse of our physical tabernacles… it is easy to discern that the counterfeit companionship advocated by the adversary is temporary and empty…Your bishop or branch president is the spiritual physicianâs assistant who is authorized to help you repent and heal. Please remember, however, that the extent and intensity of your repentance must match the nature and severity of your sinsâespecially for Latter-day Saints who are under sacred covenant…The doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people in a world that increasingly mocks the sanctity of procreation and minimizes the worth of human life. But the Lordâs truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls. I promise that obedience to the law of chastity will increase our happiness in mortality…I don’t see it. In fact, one of the main reasons I became inactive after my mission was precisely because I found that strict obedience to the Law of Chastity didn’t make me nearly as happy as ignoring it did. Then because I believed I was already under condemnation and didn’t really want to repent or confess to the bishop anytime soon I didn’t see the point of home teaching, attending meetings, paying tithing, or obeying the WoW anymore either and didn’t get married in the temple. Maybe Church leaders would see all this as a confirmation of how serious these sins supposedly are because just look at me now criticizing the “Lord’s anointed” but personally I feel like I was set up for this exact outcome by a slippery slope and self-fulfilling prophecy the Church itself created. Basically every step of the way there was a comfortable and convenient way to do things and a hard and painful way and every single time it seems like the Church’s way was the hard way. Maybe in some cases the hard way really is worth it but to me it looks like most active members don’t really know the difference as long as they don’t deviate much from the Church’s expectations for long but if they do they will quickly find out for themselves that some of this isn’t nearly as important as the Church continues to act like it is (1 Thes. 5:21).
I’m the product of premarital sex, so maybe I’m more inclined to say, “Wait just a minute here.” I am against fear-mongering, and there is something about the tone of your Elder Bednar quote that sets me on edge – so sour and dramatic. I don’t like it. But having intercourse is NOT a risk that all sane people take, like driving a car. It’s more like drunk driving.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.