What Can’t Mormons Do? Part 2: The Law of Chastity
The second commandment or standard that I want to discuss is the law of chastity. Aside from the Word of Wisdom (a few posts down), I think this is the commandment that people outside of the church have asked me about most often.
Why would the Lord command something like that? That’s a good question. The commandment against fornication is different from a lot of other major commandments in that sex isn’t an inherently evil thing (unlike killing or stealing, for instance). It’s good. It’s natural. We have powerful, inherent desires that make us want to. Those desires are usually accompanied by good feelings of love and companionship towards someone else. So why would God make us this way, and then command us to hold that back? Also, there are few immediate physical consequences to anyone, so it’s easy to say “hey, no one gets hurt. What’s so bad about it?”
This is an issue I feel pretty strongly about, because it’s a question that I think a lot of counselors and youth leaders of all faiths kind of scoot around. Pamphlets and lessons are filled with horrifying facts about AIDS and gonorrhea and lives ruined by unwanted pregnancies or abortions. While these things are definitely terrible side effects, they’re honestly not the reason. They can’t be! Even if you could ensure that you would never get an STD or an unwanted pregnancy, it still wouldn’t be okay.
The body is sacred. Part of the reason sexual sin is so bad, is that we consider the body to be a part of the eternal soul. This was revealed to Joseph Smith in what is now D&C section 88: “The spirit and the body are the soul of man.” It may not sound like much, but it’s actually pretty earth shattering. Think about it. The reasons I gather most people consider premarital sex bad (if anyone still does) comes from these old beliefs that the body is base and evil, while the spirit is high and noble. Physical desires are to be brutally subdued and mastered. Physical gratification is somehow bad. Celibacy is the high road. Taken to the extreme, people start whipping themselves or sit on poles for 37 years, trying to reach spiritual heights by degrading the physical body.
“Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor 6).
It’s my body, right? Isn’t it my own business? Paul responds with a resounding no. Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price. The Savior has bought us–redeemed us with his blood, and that gives Him every right to command us when and how to use it. Our souls are his: spirit and body both.
“But such a total, virtually unbreakable union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess–their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams. They work together, they cry together, they enjoy Brahms and Beethoven and breakfast together, they sacrifice and save and live together for all the abundance that such a totally intimate life provides such a couple. And the external symbol of that union, the physical manifestation of what is a far deeper spiritual and metaphysical bonding, is the physical blending that is part of–indeed, a most beautiful and gratifying expression of–that larger, more complete union of eternal purpose and promise” (Holland, Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments).
A sacred act. A third reason, and probably the most important of the three, is that sexual intimacy is not only a symbol of union, it’s a sacred act in and of itself. Again, I’ll defer to Elder Holland:
“. . .sexual union is also, in its own profound way, a very real sacrament of the highest order, a union not only of a man and a woman but very much the union of that man and woman with God. Indeed, if our definition of sacrament is that act of claiming and sharing and exercising God’s own inestimable power, then I know of virtually no other divine privilege so routinely given to us all–women or men, ordained or unordained, Latter-day Saint or non-Latter-day Saint–than the miraculous and majestic power of transmitting life, the unspeakable, unfathomable, unbroken power of procreation. . . I know of nothing so earth-shatteringly powerful and yet so universally and unstintingly given to us as the God-given power available in every one of us from our early teen years on to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never seen before in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity–a child, your child–with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.”
It cannot be said better. Sexual intimacy is the vehicle to create life, and as such, is one of the most sacred things we do on earth. Whether or not we actually create life with it, we still tap into that power, and doing so under any other circumstances than those for which it was ordained is a form of mocking the privilege God has given us. Would we run laughing into a sacrament service, overthrow the table, spill the bread and water on the floor and then run out? Of course not. So viewing the body as sacred, and sexual intimacy as a sacred act, why would you ever knowingly mess with that?
Just to conclude, I hope this helps to make a little more clear why Mormonism seems to be so strict when it comes to sexual intimacy. It boils down to a respect for sacred things. I also understand that the law of chastity sounds completely out of place right now in the world. But it doesn’t matter; it’s true. And that is why I follow it.
Bravo. That’s why I keep it too. (well, the AFTER marriage part of it).
That was very well written, and every bit of it is true. The talk you refer us to read is absolutely eye opening and wonderful too.
Great post.
Though I’ll disagree with the statement that “the only reason I can think of not to get married is because you’re really not that committed. You’re not absolutely positive you want to be with that person forever, so you don’t want to take that final permanent step.” I am totally committed to my relationship. Unfortunately my significant other and I live in different states since we’re finishing up school. There are also health insurance issues and financial issues. I think it is more responsible not to get married at this time due to those reasons then it would be to get married so that we could be sexually intimate within the bonds of marriage. Just my opinion.
If health insurance and financial issues are a reason not to get married then where is your faith? You are more worried about the what world wants you to do than you are about what God wants you to do. You need to trust in God not in man. Do you really think it is more responsible to trust in man and have sex before you are married than it is to trust in God and wait?
It’s true, there may be some people who get married to have sex. But other people have done just as stupid things for sex. Sex is a part of marriage but it is not the reason every mormon gets married.
Mrs. Eliza, I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was saying that there are other factors to consider besides total commitment when deciding when to get married.
Also I’m not saying that because of these reasons, it’s ok to have sex before marriage. I’m just saying that some people choose to wait to get married even though they are totally committed to each other.
And finally, in my situation, the primary reason that my boyfriend and I are not married is because we live in different states. And I don’t think God would want me to drop out of school just so I could get married. Just as God doesn’t want me to have sex before marriage.
Cuz Dave ~ Nice to see re-iterations of that CURA paper. And nice to see you got it out of the writing funk you were in. Well done, ol’ chap.
Makes my little theology-of-sexuality heart sing.
This morman way of thinking actually relates alot to my beliefs being a christian,, a born again believer. what are the main differences between the two???
My friend is morman but drinks coffee and tea, does this seperate you from the church??
-katrina
Katrina,
Thanks for your comment! I have a lot of born again evangelical christian friends, and I know that the standards in terms of chastity are very similar. At the heart, I think we’re all just trying to obey the Lord’s commandments.
As for theological differences regarding the law of chastity: I can think of a few (this is based on talking to other evangelical christians so you’ll have to correct me if you don’t consider them differences):
1) Mormons believe that the spirit and the body together are the soul of man, and that man cannot be made perfect in Christ without a body.
2) Mormons also believe that marriage itself continues formally after this life and forever. Marriage in the eternities is to be had only in the highest degree of glory in the eternities.
I think that these doctrines are unique to LDS theology, and they definitely give us a slightly different angle when approaching the sacredness of sexuality.
About the coffee and tea question: God revealed instructions on diet through the prophet Joseph Smith in what is now called the Word of Wisdom (which is part one of this 3-part “what can’t mormons do” series). It’s definitely a commandment not to drink tea or coffee. I’m not sure, though, what you mean by “separate you from the church.” You won’t be kicked out of the church. You’ll always be welcome at church, and you’ll still be considered a member.
However, there are some definite privileges that you lose by not living the gospel the best you can. I’m thinking specifically of the temple. The temple is an especially sacred place, and there are restrictions on who can attend. In order to attend the temple, you have to be living the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, among other things. That shouldn’t be confused with church attendance, though. I hope that’s not too vague; does that answer your question?
I am not trying to disprove this belief, but i disagree with it 100%. I have seen the best and most solid of relationships become tense and stagnant due to the tension this rule causes, and many people, including some of my own relatives, jump into marriage as early as 19 to avoid their relationships becoming so. Sex is needed in relationships, as you cannot truely know the person you are with until you have shared everything together. I agree, it is a spiritual, amazing thing to share with someone, and there is no way better to show love to another than to be with them physically. But love does not exist only behind the sanctity of marriage. Love can die between two people before marriage, or during, and so i believe that having sex with someone you love is not a sin, as love should be celebrated to it’s full extent while it is alive.
The truth is, in todays society, 19 year olds are not finacially stable or emotionally prepared to commit to marriage. And i know that you will put a spin on it, saying that ‘the realatinships aren’t strong enough to withstand marriage, and if they’re not emotionally prepared for it then they shouldn’t be having sex’. All i can say is, i have been with my boyfriend for 3 years, i love him, i have slept with him, i will marry him someday…but i’m not ready for it at 18. I don’t believe i’m a sinner.
Rebecca, I guess that’s where you and Jesus Christ disagree. He would consider you a sinner. And if we want to consider him the author of truth then his truth holds a bit more credibility than your’s.
From our current promiscuous cultural perspective it might seem pretty risk free to engage in premarital sex (that is if you don’t consider the rise of STD’s) but for generations young couples were able to get to know each other without having sex with each other until they were married and the divorce rates were much lower.
I do not hold my beliefs as truth, only as preference and opinion. I believe that it should not be considered a sin to be with someone you love in the most intimate and beautiful way possible, even when you are not bound by a certificate.
You are also forgetting, generations ago, divorce was percieved as ‘taboo’ and women held much less power in the household. Due to this, teenages were under greater control by their parents on who they were allowed to consort with, and even if a woman wished for a divorce, her social standing would make it difficult for her to support her family alone.
And as for STI’s, yes the risk is growing…but this is because people choose to sleep with various partners, not one whom they are fully commited to.
Rebecca,
I have a question for you: when you say you disagree 100%, is it because you don’t believe in God, or that you don’t believe He has really commanded this, or that you just think the commandment itself is a little misguided?
Here’s the reason I ask: Obviously you’re not convinced by the reasons I’ve put down here. That’s ok; I don’t expect everyone to be. But you’re arguing a sociological point, where our reasons are spiritual.
That being said, I also disagree with you on a sociological level. It’s not spin when I say I genuinely don’t think you should be having sex with someone if you’re not ready for marriage. I think they represent the same commitment, and should occur on a similar level of emotional maturity. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for financial arguments. For having children, maybe, but not for getting married. People have been doing this for centuries. People do this now. It works out fine.
From what you have said, it seems like we have the same basic ideal: that of sharing that kind of relationship with only one person. Being totally committed to just one person. Because I follow this law, I am guaranteed that ideal, and that makes me happy. I hope you marry your boyfriend, as you say you will. For your sake, I hope it works out.
Dave,
If i had to classify my believes, i would put them down as agnostic. I believe in scientific evidence and fact when it comes down to creation, i think evolution is fact, but i also believe god may have been behind it. And i believe the 10 commandments are excellent set of rules to live your life by. However, i think the god that is shown in the bible is not true to what actually exsists. How can god be all loving and vengefull? (thinking back to the 7 plagues of egypt, i believe a god who kills innocents to punish the parents is not worth worshipping). How can He have given us the free will to choose what path to take with our lives, if He is all knowing? I believe many contradictions lie within the bible, and hence you and I believe in 2 very differnt versions of the same god.
So when it comes down to it, i have both a spiritual and sociological point. If the god represented in the bible is the true representation, He is irrational. Hence, i believe it irrational of him to ask for two people who love each other to wait to have sex until a certificate is signed. Love should be expressed between two people in every sense while the love is still in exsistance, as love dies out of marriage and within, and is proof of gods irrationality that He does not seem to understand.
While love must be nurtured to ensure its growth, the responsibility of running a house, paying bills and the general organisation that is required is on a completely different level of maturity. Because of this, the realisation of love and the readiness for marriage and the responsibility that comes with it are on two different emotional levels.
And yes, i believe in being totally commited to one person. But i believe part of loving and being commited to that person is sharing everything with them, married or not. And if it doesn’t work out, i will regret nothing, because i celebrated love while it was alive.
How does a Mormon define “sexual relations”? Would that include kissing? Homosexual kissing?
Looking at cellphone photos from your girlfriend of her in a bikini? Long hugs?
What if one person feels the relation is sexual? Does the other person necessarily then define it “as sexual”?
20 years ago the church authorities were a little more specific in their questions when they interviewed members regarding their worthiness for temple recommends or priesthood advancements. The question was have you had sexual intercourse with anyone other than your spouse? But as the society got increasingly perverted and lascivious the leadership realized that they needed to broaden the question to the more encompassing “sexual relations”. Once they did that many members wanted a list of activities that would be deemed inappropriate. That kind of reasoning can be likened to the ancient Jews preoccupation with what was and wasn’t allowed on the Sabbath.
Personally I think everyone knows very well what the term sexual relations refers to but my explanation to some of the youth of the church was that if the activity is using your partner to provide you with sexual stimulation then it is not only sexual relations but selfish relations. The church doesn’t want to get pulled into a Sadducee discussion of which side of the line each action happens to be on. Their approach is to teach people how to behave in a proper and positive manner toward each other and if the person feels that what they are doing is wrong the spirit will guide them to seek clarification and direction from their local bishop.
It’s really quite simple: you don’t have any sexual relations with anyone besides your husband or wife. Why? Because God said so! There are consequences for every choice that one makes. Our body’s are sacred to God. It would be very wise for you to go back and read this article in it’s entirety. Don’t just read the words, read to understand