Comments on: What Can’t Mormons Do? Part 2: The Law of Chastity

By: Bus

Bus — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:07:23 +0000

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.

By: ceejay

ceejay — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:43:42 +0000

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”?

By: rebecca

rebecca — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:39:28 +0000

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.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:45:30 +0000

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.

By: rebecca

rebecca — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:56:16 +0000

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.

By: Bus Gillespie

Bus Gillespie — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 04:07:34 +0000

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.

By: rebecca

rebecca — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:46:53 +0000

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.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 07:08:35 +0000

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?

By: katrina

katrina — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:10:55 +0000

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

By: Pinto

Pinto — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:17:00 +0000

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.