« The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 10: A Personal Experience... | Main | The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 12: Living Together »
The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 11: Chastity
[Previous posts in the series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10]
Okay...let's talk about sex!
(No! Don't run away...!)
This is a Bad Thing for many outside the Church, who solemnly announce raw statistics showing the large percentage of divorces caused by ‘sexual issues’ and say that pre-marital sex is not only ‘okay’ but actually helpful to a marriage.
Now, of course, in the secular world (and many churches, even) sexual relations before marriage is not only acceptable, but expected. A discussion of the moral aspect of chastity is beyond the scope of this series, though, and will be saved for another time. (You might read Jeffrey R. Holland’s “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments” for starters, here…)
It’s one thing to say couples can have sex before they are married, it’s quite another to say couples should have sex before they are married. Leaving the religious issues of chastity aside, let’s discuss this aspect of dating and marriage just from the secular standpoint.
The logic seems to be: shouldn't you see whether you are 'sexually compatible' before you make the commitment to get married? Wouldn't this cut down on the number of marriages that get divorced because of sexual issues?
I'm not denying there are a number of divorces that are due to sexual issues, but I think we're trying to solve the wrong problem here. Let's analysis this philosophy logically...
Suppose we have John and Jane Doe, two singles who say they require having sex with their potential spouses before they get married, as part of the 'getting to know you' process.
This implies that the married sexual experience is important enough to John and Jane that they want to use it as a top criteria for deciding on a suitable marriage partner, and thus need to know it ahead of time.
...which implies that should the sexual experience with person X NOT reach a certain 'quality', John or Jane would NOT be willing to marry him/her...despite any other redeeming qualities person X may possess.
So it appears the 'solution' to avoiding divorces due to sexual issues is simply have them sleep together first and then not get married at all--which may be like shooting a person now so he doesn't die of cancer later--but the real problem here is one of priorities. Should the 'quality' of the sexual experience between John/Jane and their spouses be so important that they'd be willing to abandon the whole marriage because of it? Is that the purpose of marriage...to have sex?
This idea seems to oversimplify--and cheapen--what marriage is about in the first place. It reduces it to the level of self-gratification--'My spouse is here to fulfill MY sexual desires...and I won't marry (or stay married to) someone who does not!'
Let’s go with this for a moment, though--suppose John and Jane do find a sexually compatible person to marry, are they home free now?
Unfortunately, no...because here's the next problem: sexual desires and capabilities can change over time, due to age, pregnancy, health reasons or any number of other factors. If John and Jane got married to person X because they happened to meet their sexual requirements before they got married, what happens if their sex life worsens--one, five, ten years down the road? Since John and Jane have placed the sexual experience so highly on their list of spousal requirements, wouldn't a decline in sexual 'quality' make them, in fact, far more likely to consider divorce (or, at least, adultery)? Then we have just the opposite of the marriage security the two of them having sex before they got married was supposed to be providing.
John and Jane have thus built their marriages on a very sandy foundation...because the odds are far against them that the sexual experiences they have early on will continue throughout the life of the marriage. Remember, marriages are designed to be 'till death do you part' (and beyond, even...)--measured in decades, not months--and the likelihood that a couple--any couple--will have the same sexual experience in their 60's and 70's as they did in their 20's is a little farfetched. (And, no, this is not an invitation for any of you who happen to be in your 60's and feel that you're an exception to write in and share. Please.) Therefore, we have John and Jane almost guaranteeing themselves a big ‘bump in the road’ in their relationships, and they’re driving towards it full speed.
What would you think of a husband who says: "I love my wife...but if she ever started putting on weight and looking less attractive than she does now...I'm gone!"
Or a wife who says: "I love my husband...but if he ever lost his job and we started struggling financially...I'm gone!"
Isn't putting such a high priority on the sexual performance of their spouse more or less the same thing?
After consideration, it shouldn't be a surprise then that (contrary to the theory of these new age philosophers) couples who have sex before they are married do not have a lower divorce rate than those who do not (in fact, it's the opposite). Building secure marriages involves building them on firm foundations, and having a proper attitude towards sex both before and after marriage is one of the important steps.
Next: Living together...
January 22, 2005 in Essays | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1709948
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 11: Chastity:
Comments
People who marry/get engaged after a few weeks often do so because of physical reasons anyway. If year-long LDS engagements were typical, it wouldn't be surprising if sex figured into the equation, which, in that case, it probably should.
I'm more offended by three-date engagements than loving couples who might engage in some sex play after dating for a year or two. Only one of these scenarios is healthy...
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 23, 2005 2:27:34 PM
Oh, and another thing:
If we're really going to be literal about the Law of Chastity and how it applies to unmarried couples, we'll agree that even the half hour before the wedding should be hanky-panky free. This loving couple shouldn't even make out too passionately lest they be technically unworthy of the temple.
And yet a couple that hates each other viciously, long-separated and filing for divorce, can still sleep with each other as "(enemies)-with-benefits" because they're not divorced yet and where else are they gonna get it.
Is it the spirit, or the letter of the law that counts?
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 23, 2005 2:37:33 PM
Gee, "Just an Observer" I'd rather think that one should be continent in both situations.
BTW, the guy I printed the essays out for really enjoyed them and I had a good follow-up home teaching visit. I'm still distilling what I learned from that. (I almost always learn from teaching others).
Posted by: Steve Marsh (Ethesis) | Jan 23, 2005 5:39:29 PM
But my point is that only one of those scenarios is against the Law of Chastity. And these scenarios happen very often in and out of Mormonism. The Law of Chastity is a great rule for teens and immature adults, but it's hardly cut and dried.
I'd reather be part of a loving, "disobedient" couple than a still-married-but-hating-each-other couple taking advantage of a loophole.
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 23, 2005 6:56:54 PM
I'm a little confused here...
>> "If year-long LDS engagements were typical, it wouldn't be surprising if sex figured into the equation, which, in that case, it probably should."
Why 'should' it figure in here? How does holding off for the year hurt their relationship, and how does not waiting for the whole year help them?
>> "If we're really going to be literal about the Law of Chastity and how it applies to unmarried couples, we'll agree that even the half hour before the wedding should be hanky-panky free. This loving couple shouldn't even make out too passionately lest they be technically unworthy of the temple."
Well...yes, that's EXACTLY what the law of chastity says. I don't know anyone who would intrepret it to mean a couple can do whatever they want the hour before the wedding because it's 'close enough'. (You could "Beard Principle" this to death...) Of course, this would be after the temple interview, so they'd probably get away with it, but it is still against the letter AND the spirit of the law. I've never heard anyone say otherwise...
>> "And yet a couple that hates each other viciously, long-separated and filing for divorce, can still sleep with each other as "(enemies)-with-benefits" because they're not divorced yet and where else are they gonna get it."
Um...okay. Why would this be against the 'spirit' of the Law of Chastity? Couples have fights all the time (and 'make-up sex' is supposed to be pretty good). Why would feeling you don't love your spouse, and/or considering divorce, and/or having already filed for divorce make a difference. You're either married or you're not. Otherwise, you're trying to list circumstances in which a married couple could NOT have sex together, and you'd be on very shaky ground trying to clearly identify what those circumstances would be...
>> "But my point is that only one of those scenarios is against the Law of Chastity. And these scenarios happen very often in and out of Mormonism. The Law of Chastity is a great rule for teens and immature adults, but it's hardly cut and dried.
I'd reather be part of a loving, "disobedient" couple than a still-married-but-hating-each-other couple taking advantage of a loophole."
Sounds like you're saying having sex is okay if you're 'in love'. That's pretty much what the secular world says...although, of course, whose definition of love are you going by? The couple themselves? Can you be 'in love' with a girl after a month? A week? An hour after meeting her in a bar? Why, I could fall in and out of 'love' every day with a different girl by that logic ("Well...I really did 'love' her last night!") Setting such an ambiguous standard is the same as having no standard at all. It's pretty much saying: "You can have sex whenever you want" In LDS terms, true love involves commitment, not just attraction. If you're 'in love' with someone, you're willing to stick around for every other part of the relationship that doesn't involve sex...
Posted by: The Baron | Jan 23, 2005 9:12:02 PM
My point about the divorcing couple (note that I did not say merely a fighting one) is that they are on their way OUT of a marriage and an engaged couple is on their way IN.
As long as a couple is legally married, their sexual relationships are supposedly okay. Yet a couple one minute to "I do" is sinning by petting.
Does this not seem strange to you?
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 23, 2005 9:29:47 PM
JaO,
I think you're taking a very extreme example as your baseline for the divorcing couple. While I'm sure that there are indeed couples who hate each other and are in the midst of the mechanics of divorce who still "use" each other physically while withholding real love, in my limited experience a couple starting on the road to divorce usually terminates their sexual relationship first thing -- not because of some sort of rules, but because they simply don't want to be intimate with someone they no longer love.
(And I think it's funny that you call yourself "Just an Observer" while trying to push a contrarian case. If that's what an observer does, what does a critic do?)
Baron,
The other part of the equation is that, like everything in marriage, people grow together sexually over time. Rejecting someone for being "sexually incompatible" for a couple of encounters prior to marriage is akin to the attitude you showcased in some of your previous articles: I want a mate who already knows exactly how to be my perfect companion, dammit! I'll admit in public, if my wife had used "sexual compatibility" as the litmus test for our relationship during our first year, we would have easily been divorced before our anniversary. We've now been married for twelve years (good golly, I'm old), and it's better than ever. Not because we were "compatible," as if that's a permanent solid state, and not simply because we learned how to be "better lovers" in the abstract, but because we learned how to be better lovers [i]to each other.[/i]
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 24, 2005 4:11:26 PM
As an observer of human nature and a commenter on life as I see it, I have posited that the Law of Chastity is literalistic and ineffective as a way to teach "morals."
Too often "morality" in our Church is a synonym for "virginal" if unmarried, etc. My point was that--whether or not its a general occurance, and I'll get back to that--a couple at whatever level of marriage, however and whenever they marry cannot break this "law" by having sex. You meet a girl and marry her the next day? Cool! You are keeping the law of Chastity. You hate your spouse but need the financial security? No problem! Throw in the sex, 'cuz it's not against the law of Chastity and its a nice side benefit. You love your spouse? Great. Sleeping with him/her is a celebration of your commitment together.
But the Law of Chastity isn't about commitment, is it? Neither the Church nor, apparently, Heavenly Father, cares if you "marry right", just that you are married before you do the horizontal hula. A loving engaged couple is subject to Church discipline if they "go too far", yet no matter what the state of one's marriage, even if its the day before the divorce papers are signed and they're "friends/enemies with benefits", it's all good.
And ask any of the many married men on various LDS singles dating sites why they don't hurry up with their divorces already. They don't want to give up having sex until they've found a new wife. They want to "keep the law of Chastity" and "marry in the temple."
See what literalism/Pharasiacal behavior engenders?
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 24, 2005 4:38:26 PM
"Neither the Church nor, apparently, Heavenly Father, cares if you "marry right", just that you are married before you do the horizontal hula."
How does the fact of a baseline behavioral standard translate to "Neither the Church nor, apparently Heavenly Father, cares"? Are you criticizing the fact that there AREN'T more detailed and intrusive rules for all of the possible circumstances in which a person might have sex? Are you honestly asking for Church leadership to become more judgmental and more nitpicky? I don't udnerstand what you're saying -- or more importantly, I don't understand what you think would be a better system than having some important baseline rules and asking people to be in tune with the Spirit.
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 25, 2005 11:12:21 AM
I think you're taking a very extreme example as your baseline for the divorcing couple especially since in many states, having sex will result in your divorce not being granted and the court requiring you to have another 60 day (or whatever) waiting period.
If you are just holding onto a marriage you are exiting (while dating around) in order to minimize the time you are without sex, that sure seems like a violation of the law of chastity to me.
I think that Just an Observer is missing the point, like paying tithes of mint and anise seed ...
Posted by: Steve Marsh (Ethesis) | Jan 25, 2005 11:42:02 AM
[i]I think you're taking a very extreme example as your baseline for the divorcing couple[/i] (agreeing with the comment quoted) especially since in many states, having sex will result in your divorce not being granted and the court requiring you to have another 60 day (or whatever) waiting period.
If you are just holding onto a marriage you are exiting (while dating around) in order to minimize the time you are without sex, that sure seems like a violation of the law of chastity to me.
I think that Just an Observer is missing the point, like paying tithes of mint and anise seed ...
Posted by: Steve Marsh (Ethesis) | Jan 25, 2005 11:42:55 AM
I believe you forgot the link to Elder Holland's talk.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jan 25, 2005 3:23:34 PM
No one who has sex while in any stage of marriage to a legal and lawful spouse (i.e. before the divorce papers are ***signed***) is disobeying the Law of Chastity. And no single person--however in love, however long engaged, even one second before the ceremony--is keeping if it they do engage in any sexual behavior beyond kissing.
This is the Law, and it does not teach people to be moral. Someone can get kicked out of the Church and be made to repent for sleeping with a to-be-spouse. On the other hand, people who are loosely married can be friends-with-benefits to each other as much as they like. I even know (shudder) such people.
I'm not asking the Church to change a thing. I'm just saying it's not as cut and dried as people like to pretend it is. Single people are easy targets: they're never supposed to engage in sexual behavior whatsoever--they're constantly admonished to never neck, pet, masturbate, have sex--as though they are ten years old even if they are fifty. It's not normal, and it's not healthy. Yet if they married a stranger, all of this would be legitimate, and neither against the spirit or the law of the Law of Chastity.
Oooh, those evil single people! They can't be chaste (never mind that in the history of the world, more people than not were born out of wedlock, and even in the Church many/most/all people have broken the Law of Chastity to some degree or another. It's impossible to keep, given that it includes dwelling on sex thoughts and masturbation. No one but a married person can truly keep it, since it means "no adultery." to them.
Everyone shakes their heads at these lascivious singles, but the real immorality in the Church often occurs with uncompassionate, judgemental people live in a strange kind of LaLa land where a fifty-year old virgin is praised and considered "normal" and "healthy" if s/he isn't married. In fact, the Church prefers a 25 year old to marry someone he barely knows--otherwise (and of course this comment is apocryphal) he's a "menace to society."
Okay, that's "not doctrinal", but what in this Church is except these pharisaical rules that do not apply to everyone and don't teach honesty or integrity but take away from it?
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 26, 2005 5:13:22 AM
The Law of Chastity is a law. You are either obeying it or you aren't. You cannot halfway obey the law. You are either having sexual relations with someone to whom you are lawfully and legally wedded or you are not. Does that mean simply obeying the letter of the law is enough? The letter of the law is easy. It is 100% black and white. There is no grey area. You either obey it or you do not. The spirit of the law is what separates true followers of the Lord from the hypocrites.
Thankfully, neither you nor I have the burden placed upon us to Judge. We have been given the principle, it is up to us to live it to the best of our ability. In the end, it will not be just the letter of the law to which we will be measured. We will give an accounting of our intentions during the actions as well.
Is it possible to sin while outwardly doing what is right? Absolutely. Look at the parable of the "widow's mite". Giving to the Lord does not give you a 'pass'. We must be righteous and do so with a 'smile in our hearts'.
Let's look at the scenarios previously mentioned while keeping in mind that in the Church, we teach the standard, not the exception.
1) A couple that is going through a divorce but is taking 'advantage' of the situation by having sex just because they can is obviously making a mockery of this sacred act. Though they are obeying the letter of the Law of Chastity they are in blatant violation of the spirit of the Law of Chastity. They are also making a mockery of God and the power granted to man of procreation. Does this apply to any divorcing couple? I don't know. I'm not in their heads so I don't know what their intentions are.
2) The 'loving' couple that was 'disobedient' prior to marriage was obviously not keeping the letter of the Law of Chastity.
This leads to the question: Can you keep the Spirit of the Law without keeping the Letter of the Law? The answer to this question is a resounding 'NO'. The Lord is not divided. Wrong is wrong. If the letter of the law is simply the carnel observance of the law, nothing more, then the failure to observe the law on the lowest plane logically means that the higher plane is inaccessible as well. The whole gospel and history attest to this pattern. The gospel that was given to the Israelites was a gospel of carnel observances to prepare them for the spiritual law to come.
Going back to the young 'loving' couple. Not only are they at odds with the letter of the Law, but they are also in no position to obey the spirit of the law.
The letter of the law AND the spirit of the law are both vital. You cannot keep the spirit of the law without keeping the letter of the law. And keeping only the Letter of the Law makes you no better than the pharises and sadducees of old.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 26, 2005 12:42:54 PM
JaO,
You're moving into the area of making things up (or changing what things mean) to support your case.
No one who has sex while in any stage of marriage to a legal and lawful spouse (i.e. before the divorce papers are ***signed***) is disobeying the Law of Chastity. And no single person--however in love, however long engaged, even one second before the ceremony--is keeping if it they do engage in any sexual behavior beyond kissing.
Really? Huh. Covenants I made clearly defined the Law of Chastity as being about sexual relations. There are many other things besides out-and-out sex between unmarried people which are discouraged, but that's not the same thing as saying that they've broken the Law of Chastity.
This is the Law, and it does not teach people to be moral. Someone can get kicked out of the Church and be made to repent for sleeping with a to-be-spouse. On the other hand, people who are loosely married can be friends-with-benefits to each other as much as they like. I even know (shudder) such people.
I don't see how your latter two sentences are supposed to support the first one. I suppose that if the Law of Chastity were ALL that the Church taught, you could make a case that it doesn't teach people to be moral, but it's not taught in a vaccuum: It's taught alongside loving your spouse, the sacred nature of the family, etc.
I'm not asking the Church to change a thing. I'm just saying it's not as cut and dried as people like to pretend it is. Single people are easy targets: they're never supposed to engage in sexual behavior whatsoever--they're constantly admonished to never neck, pet, masturbate, have sex--as though they are ten years old even if they are fifty.
How does having as clear standards for old as for young demean the old?
It's not normal,
Sure, by the definition of "what most people are doing." When has this ever been a relevant standard for the Saints, in any era? It's also not normal to pay tithing, to partake of the sacrament, to read the Book of Mormon (or any scripture, really, these days), to pray singly and as a family, to abstain from coffee, tobacco, and alcohol...
and it's not healthy.
Shucks, if we're just going to play the blanket-assertion game, I can counter that: "Is too." Your turn.
Yet if they married a stranger, all of this would be legitimate, and neither against the spirit or the law of the Law of Chastity.
If they entered into such a marriage determined to honor and love (or learn to love) their spouse, you're right. If they entered into it for convenience (say, like the apocryphal tale of the BYU students who ran to Vegas for the long weekend, got married, got busy all weekend, and got an annullment on Monday), then yes, it IS against the spirit of the law. Are you implying that we ought to start judging others by how well the fulfill the spirit of God's laws? Or would you agree that we really ought to leave that up to Him?
Oooh, those evil single people! They can't be chaste (never mind that in the history of the world, more people than not were born out of wedlock, and even in the Church many/most/all people have broken the Law of Chastity to some degree or another.
Once again, "many/most/all" only makes sense with your own private definition of the Law of Chastity. And when you cite the statistic of more people being born out of wedlock, it seems again that you're trying to draw a connection between what is commonly done and what is right to do. I've always understood that the broad, wide road was NOT the one that led to eternal life.
It's impossible to keep, given that it includes dwelling on sex thoughts and masturbation. No one but a married person can truly keep it, since it means "no adultery." to them.
Once again, you're defining the term differently than all the rest of us. Saying that sex thoughts and masturbation break the Law of Chastity is like saying that a flared temper during road rage is equal to committing murder.
Everyone shakes their heads at these lascivious singles, but the real immorality in the Church often occurs with uncompassionate, judgemental people live in a strange kind of LaLa land where a fifty-year old virgin is praised and considered "normal" and "healthy" if s/he isn't married.
Whereas uncompassionate, judgemental people like yourself are hunky-dory, right?
In fact, the Church prefers a 25 year old to marry someone he barely knows--otherwise (and of course this comment is apocryphal) he's a "menace to society."
Not only apocryphal, but entirely untrue. But I suspect that you knew that when you typed it; why let the truth get in the way of good rhetoric?
Okay, that's "not doctrinal", but what in this Church is except these pharisaical rules that do not apply to everyone and don't teach honesty or integrity but take away from it?
Again, this makes no sense to me. Setting some baseline rules is pharisaical? Having a clear boundary doesn't teach honesty and integrity?
Just an Observer (and boy, that handle grows less fitting every day), those who strive to follow the spirit of the law will have no problem with the letter of it. I think it's those who are constantly belittling the entire idea of laws, standards and commandments by tortured logic are the ones demonstrating a deficiency in honesty and integrity.
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 26, 2005 1:48:45 PM
And I REALLY wish I could remember what version of mark-up code works on which websites. Here's my post again, with some clarifying punctuation:
JaO,
You're moving into the area of making things up (or changing what things mean) to support your case.
"No one who has sex while in any stage of marriage to a legal and lawful spouse (i.e. before the divorce papers are ***signed***) is disobeying the Law of Chastity. And no single person--however in love, however long engaged, even one second before the ceremony--is keeping if it they do engage in any sexual behavior beyond kissing."
Really? Huh. Covenants I made clearly defined the Law of Chastity as being about sexual relations. There are many other things besides out-and-out sex between unmarried people which are discouraged, but that's not the same thing as saying that they've broken the Law of Chastity.
"This is the Law, and it does not teach people to be moral. Someone can get kicked out of the Church and be made to repent for sleeping with a to-be-spouse. On the other hand, people who are loosely married can be friends-with-benefits to each other as much as they like. I even know (shudder) such people."
I don't see how your latter two sentences are supposed to support the first one. I suppose that if the Law of Chastity were ALL that the Church taught, you could make a case that it doesn't teach people to be moral, but it's not taught in a vaccuum: It's taught alongside loving your spouse, the sacred nature of the family, etc.
"I'm not asking the Church to change a thing. I'm just saying it's not as cut and dried as people like to pretend it is. Single people are easy targets: they're never supposed to engage in sexual behavior whatsoever--they're constantly admonished to never neck, pet, masturbate, have sex--as though they are ten years old even if they are fifty."
How does having as clear standards for old as for young demean the old? (Gotta love that. "I'm not asking the Church to change, I'm just saying they're doing it wrong.")
"It's not normal,"
Sure, by the definition of "what most people are doing." When has this ever been a relevant standard for the Saints, in any era? It's also not normal to pay tithing, to partake of the sacrament, to read the Book of Mormon (or any scripture, really, these days), to pray singly and as a family, to abstain from coffee, tobacco, and alcohol...
"and it's not healthy."
Shucks, if we're just going to play the blanket-assertion game, I can counter that: "Is too." Your turn.
"Yet if they married a stranger, all of this would be legitimate, and neither against the spirit or the law of the Law of Chastity."
If they entered into such a marriage determined to honor and love (or learn to love) their spouse, you're right. If they entered into it for convenience (say, like the apocryphal tale of the BYU students who ran to Vegas for the long weekend, got married, got busy all weekend, and got an annullment on Monday), then yes, it IS against the spirit of the law. Are you implying that we ought to start judging others by how well the fulfill the spirit of God's laws? Or would you agree that we really ought to leave that up to Him?
"Oooh, those evil single people! They can't be chaste (never mind that in the history of the world, more people than not were born out of wedlock, and even in the Church many/most/all people have broken the Law of Chastity to some degree or another."
Once again, "many/most/all" only makes sense with your own private definition of the Law of Chastity. And when you cite the statistic of more people being born out of wedlock, it seems again that you're trying to draw a connection between what is commonly done and what is right to do. I've always understood that the broad, wide road was NOT the one that led to eternal life.
"It's impossible to keep, given that it includes dwelling on sex thoughts and masturbation. No one but a married person can truly keep it, since it means "no adultery." to them."
Once again, you're defining the term differently than all the rest of us. Saying that sex thoughts and masturbation break the Law of Chastity is like saying that a flared temper during road rage is equal to committing murder.
"Everyone shakes their heads at these lascivious singles, but the real immorality in the Church often occurs with uncompassionate, judgemental people live in a strange kind of LaLa land where a fifty-year old virgin is praised and considered "normal" and "healthy" if s/he isn't married."
Whereas uncompassionate, judgemental people like yourself are hunky-dory, right?
"In fact, the Church prefers a 25 year old to marry someone he barely knows--otherwise (and of course this comment is apocryphal) he's a "menace to society.""
Not only apocryphal, but entirely untrue. But I suspect that you knew that when you typed it; why let the truth get in the way of good rhetoric?
"Okay, that's "not doctrinal", but what in this Church is except these pharisaical rules that do not apply to everyone and don't teach honesty or integrity but take away from it?"
Again, this makes no sense to me. Setting some baseline rules is pharisaical? Having a clear boundary doesn't teach honesty and integrity?
Just an Observer (and boy, that handle grows less fitting every day), those who strive to follow the spirit of the law will have no problem with the letter of it. I think it's those who are constantly belittling the entire idea of laws, standards and commandments by tortured logic are the ones demonstrating a deficiency in honesty and integrity.
Posted by: Nathan | Jan 26, 2005 1:52:08 PM
The covenant in the temple used to say "sexual intercourse" but now says "sexual relations." I think you are the one prevaricating and justifying. According to President Kimball, who spoke more about this subject than any other prophet:
"Though many outside the Church regard masturbation as normal, LDS leaders teach that the practice is wrong, one that feeds base appetites and may lead to other sinful conduct. Similarly, unmarried couples who engage in petting or fondling are breaking the law of chastity, and stimulating impulses that may lead to other sin."
The fact that masturbation is against the Law of Chastity is repeated in the deacon's manual and talked about ad nauseum in conference.
Maybe President Kimball and all the prophets have been speaking as men when they've pronounced this. After all, 97% of men break the law of Chastity that way.
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 30, 2005 7:15:26 AM
And if the necking, petting and masturbation are not against the Law of Chastity, what right do bishops have to question teens, young adults and other single people about their private sexual habits, or to require confession of the same? That is prurient and abusive, especially since it's none of their business!
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 30, 2005 7:18:08 AM
Finally, here's what I mean about the Law of Chastity not teaching "morality".
1. Morals in LDS speak often means abstaining from sex. Culturally, "morality" has gradually become a code word for "sexuality only within marriage."
2. Since premarital sexual relationships are (according to Nathan) "discouraged" and some of those relations (actual penetration) are specifically against the Law of Chastity, young members of the Church eager to have sex (naturally) are eager to get married, since in their minds sex=marriage.
3. Thus, the moral/ethical choice on whom to marry--even if it takes 20 years to find a suitable partner-- is sometimes supplanted by the exigence of needing to "marry worthily" by not having premarital sexual relationships (necking, petting, masturbation, various kinds of intercourse, other sexual behavior, all of which are clearly against the Law of Chastity).
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 30, 2005 7:25:19 AM
Back to my point:
A worthy LDS man or woman who never marries, even if s/he dies at age 100, is expected NEVER to have any kind of sexual experience, or at very least to feel exceptionally guilty and thus repent for it.
This is not moral (i.e. ethical) but it's "morally clean" (i.e. in accordance with the law of Chastity).
This is CRUEL; that before marriage every orgasm is to be confessed to either God or the bishop, with a promise that it never happen again until marriage if that ever occurs.
Posted by: Just an Observer | Jan 30, 2005 8:29:19 AM
JaO,
From your statements, it has become obvious that you neither understand the principle nor the reasons behind it.
All of your points have been based on the carnal aspect. Not once have you focused on the spiritual aspect of the first law of heaven: Obedience.
Obedience is the number one reason for doing anything we do.
"I know not, save the Lord commanded me." Those words by our ultimate earthly father are meant to teach us a lesson.
You say it is 'Cruel' to die at the age of 100 without the sexual experience. Are you really that shallow? You think that the sexual experience is so important that your life has been one of cruel punishment if you do not experience sex or anything like unto it? Is your vision that myopic? Do you really only see things in the light of this life only? Can you not extend your vision to the Eternities and the ultimate potential of Man? I submit that the individual who has lived 100 years on this planet and has never had the opportunity to wed but maintains his or her purity has a crown more spectacular than the weakling that has succumbed to the temptation. Think about what you are saying.
You are point-blank justifying sexual relations for someone if they have gone through some 'incubation' period. Apparently, if you have lived life on this earth long enough, you are somehow entitled to be sexually gratified. What a complete mockery of the power God has given us.
We've been placed here with limited powers. One of them happens to be the power of procreation and the sex act. Have you not thought for one minute that how we weild these limited powers is an indication of what we may do with infinite power?
Posted by: Chris | Feb 2, 2005 10:13:49 AM
The link to Elder Holland's talk has been added (Sorry for the delay...)
Posted by: The Baron | Feb 11, 2005 11:18:28 AM
Baron,
I've had much fun reading through all your posts and especially this series. One comment on this particular issue, though.
Completely leaving aside the religious implications, I believe you might be short changing the secular view of premarital sex.
If sex (or sexual compatability) is important in a marriage partner, shouldn't that be part of the marriage decision making process? I agree that it shouldn't be the whole enchilada, but (again, from a purely secular POV) shouldn't it be part of the equation?
For example: as a fellow fan of heavy metal, if I were to be contemplating marriage with someone who hated hated hated heavy metal, I'd have to be concerned... first, because the amount of time I could listen to metal would decrease; second, because s/he might not understand why I like heavy metal; third, it would be one less interest we shared; and fourth, it might point to some greater problem/difference we have.
Of course, not liking heavy metal is not necessarily a deal-breaker. I'm sure I could date, love, and marry someone who hates it. But it should be taken into account with the marriage calculus.
(Perhaps this is a bad analogy, but I think it works from a secular standpoint.)
Posted by: Pris | Feb 16, 2005 6:02:47 PM
Anything can be used as criteria for choosing a marriage partner--important or not (Part 8 discusses this idea) The problem is since sex is so 'fluid' (it can improve after time through practice, or decline through time because of the factors mentioned in the post) judgments based on sexual experience at any one point of time start to become meaningless, because things can change very quickly. The more you divorce sexual activity from love and committment at the beginning, the less likely you are to be able to 'reattach' sex and committment together after you're married, leading to weaker bonds within marriage.
It's odd that society seems to think you should have casual sex first (for practice) and then have meaningful sex later--without considering this is far more likely to create people who have casual sex first and then more casual sex later. In other words, people can't just flip a switch in their heads after marriage to make sex 'meaningful'. The attitudes towards sex (or anything for that matter) one has from the beginning will affect everything that happens later...
Posted by: The Baron | Feb 17, 2005 7:40:29 AM
I have just recently discovered that, even In marriage, there are practices which are unnatural, unworthy, and unholy. I have always thought that any amount of expiramentation can be done as long as it is between husband and wife and both are agreeing to it. What are these practices which are unworthy? Why are people made so attractively for each other if, when married, they can't go all the way in all the areas of expirimentation involving chastity?
Posted by: just an observer | Mar 9, 2005 6:31:38 PM
"All areas of experimentation involving chastity" is a fairly broad statement.
Is there no line to be drawn involving married couples--including bondage, sadomasochism and other 'extreme' forms of sexual activity? What about consentual adultery and wife-swapping?
Couldn't you conclude that somewhere along that scale you've reached a point where the couple--whether they are both agreeing or not--has violated the spirit of what married sex is for in the first place? The point of the law of chastity in the first place is to treat sexual matters with the respect and gravity they deserve--and it's not supposed to be casually abandoned after marriage, thinking "Now we can do ANYTHING we want..."
There isn't a Church handbook that says THESE sexual positions are good and THESE are 'of the devil', but seriously...there will always be extremes in anything that 'go too far'--'moderation in all things' will always be required.
Posted by: The Baron | Mar 10, 2005 1:13:53 PM
Have you seen the last young single adult fireside broadcasted from Salt Lake with Dallin H. Oaks? In that talk, he made it clear to us all that 'moderation in all things' is not what we should have, and gave an example from the scriptures which says we should "love the Lord with all our heart, might, mind, and strength". That says there are some things we should not have moderation in. I think the 'moderation' term is just one of the traditions some lds people have to try and explain what our behavior as ladder day saints should be. I'm not trying to contradict your main point, though, cause you are right about that.
Posted by: just an observer | Jun 15, 2005 9:17:44 PM
