The Law Of Chastity: What Does It Cover?

[Log]

The topic of the thread is in the poll. I don't wish it to be more explicit than that, so limit your responses to the poll, please.

For reference, the Law of Chastity is: men and women shall have no sexual relations except with their legally and lawfully wedded spouses.

In the 1800s, it was apparently phrased as (speaking from the male side) "I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord."

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

I answered "no" because of Mt 5:27-28.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[bearhoof]

I answered "no" because it's the correct answer.

[mfbukowski]

Why does it matter?

[Log]

In ancient days (repeated in the latter days), the Lord commanded that murderers should be slain. On the other hand, manslaughterers were afforded a chance to atone, somewhat, for their actions and even the ability to escape to one of a few cities set aside for them to live out their lives.

Clearly, manslaughter is of a different nature than murder.

I believe it matters because some are prone to making mountains out of molehills, which may hinder some in their repentance process should they be made to believe that such-and-such things are of such severity as to put their eternal soul in jeopardy with little hope of recovery - which kind of things actual violations of the Law of Chastity would be.

Basically, one does not wish to condemn the manslaughterer as a murderer, for there is a qualitative difference between the two; likewise, to help someone repent from certain things, it is unhelpful and inaccurate to paint their actions as violations of the Law of Chastity when they are not.

[katherine the great]

I don't even understand the question.

[blackstrap]

I don't think being chaste is like being pregnant.So to say that one is either chaste or not is incorrect. The Church considers all the circumstances surrounding an act and a wise leader will also.To say,as log,that the meaning of the 1800's is to have nothing to do with any daughter of Eve is so restrictive as to stop all human interaction.

[Log]

KTG: when an endowed member violates the Law of Chastity, they are generally excommunicated - I believe men more often than women, for various reasons - and the violation consists of illicit relations.

There are other things which are commonly described as violations of the Law of Chastity, but which do not, so far as I am aware, result in excommunication, even if they do result in other disciplinary actions for endowed members, and which do not involve illicit relations.

I believe it is because the first category of actions is understood to actually be true violations of the Law of Chastity, while those in the second category are understood not to be - in other words, describing the actions as violations of the Law of Chastity is a rhetorical device, unjustified by an appeal to the law itself.

As another parallel, consider murder vs. abortion. We generally hold that abortion is like unto murder, yet we also acknowledge that it is not murder. To call abortion murder, in this context, is a rhetorical device.

I'm sorry - that's as plain as I can be given board guidelines.

.To say,as log,that the meaning of the 1800's is to have nothing to do with any daughter of Eve is so restrictive as to stop all human interaction.

BS, I must disagree with you - because I quite see the point of generally avoiding women except the one I'm married to; the parable of the truckers on the cliffside road springs to mind. Nevertheless, my reference to the 1800s version of the phraseology is to point up the fact that the law has always referred to illicit relations.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[Duncan]

i'm confused

[Log]

Well, I clarified it as much as I could.

[blackstrap]

Just "B" will do log as...well , ...you know. If we are talking about illicit relations ,then I can agree with the definition.The ability of a man to restrict his relationships so as to avoid contact with a female ,however,is nigh unto impossible.

As a side note,however,the local "theatre group" has been the downfall of several marriages because of the loose interactions.

[Log]

Just "B" will do log as...well , ...you know. If we are talking about illicit relations ,then I can agree with the definition.The ability of a man to restrict his relationships so as to avoid contact with a female ,however,is nigh unto impossible.

As a side note,however,the local "theatre group" has been the downfall of several marriages because of the loose interactions.

Yeah - I've clarified the poll title and question, with respect to relations, as much as I could.

And I will agree that the 1800s version is making the principle known through contextually understood hyperbole. I'm guessing even Brigham shook the sisters' hands on Sunday.

Sucks about your theater group, but it suggests a question - I wonder if mixed-sex workplaces are likewise conducive to illicit relations. I bet there's been studies done on it, somewhere.

[Senator]

What happened to Jason?

Where's Jason when you need him??

[mercyngrace]

What happened to Jason?

Where's Jason when you need him??

You read my mind ;P

I think there is a celestial law to which we aspire and a telestial law or terrestrial law (depending on when we live) under which we are bound by covenant.

We don't currently excommunicate people for having a lustful thoughts (think of the empty church buildings!) nor do we currently excommunicate people for remarrying after divorce even though there is an explicit reference to such as adultery in Matthew 5:32.

In terms of consequences, every violation of the law of chastity is explicitly related to others (i.e. interpersonal) regardless of how many people are in the room when the violation occurs. Whenever we objectify others to gratify our own lusts, even within a marriage, our actions become self-centered and limit our ability to purely love others.

Consider the causality described in the wise words of a loving father to his son:

see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love;

If bridling our passions, controlling self and putting others before us, allows us to love more fully, then certainly the inverse is true. Unbridled passions manifest by dehumanizing others as mere objects of our own pleasure, diminishes our capacity to love completely.

Sounds very interpersonal to me...

Edited May 7, 2012 by mercyngrace

[katherine the great]

I still do not understand the question. Is this referring to actual sexual intercourse vs. other types of sexual activity? And to say that endowed LDS people who violate the law of chastity are generally excommunicated is simply incorrect. I know lots and lots of endowed LDS people who have violated the law of chastity, and very few who have been excommunicated. I think probationary action is much more common now than actual excommunication--except maybe for repeat offenders.

[Garden Girl]

I still do not understand the question. Is this referring to actual sexual intercourse vs. other types of sexual activity? And to say that endowed LDS people who violate the law of chastity are generally excommunicated is simply incorrect. I know lots and lots of endowed LDS people who have violated the law of chastity, and very few who have been excommunicated. I think probationary action is much more common now than actual excommunication--except maybe for repeat offenders.

I don't really understand either, Katherine... I always assumed not having "sexual relations" covered numerous sexual activities, including intercourse simply because there are actions that can produce similar results as actual intercourse. I don't think one can participate in these activities, or that they are not covered because one doesn't have intercourse.

I agree that breaking the LoC doesn't mean automatic excommunication... I too have known of people who have been disciplined but not ex'd, if they showed a willingness to sincerely repent.

GG

[altersteve]

The law of chastity basically boils down to keeping your thoughts and actions pure. What that encompasses has been addressed by the Church on countless occasions.

[katherine the great]

The law of chastity basically boils down to keeping your thoughts and actions pure. What that encompasses has been addressed by the Church on countless occasions.

I agree.

[David T]

KTG: when an endowed member violates the Law of Chastity, they are generally excommunicated

This is not accurate, at least not any more. While Law of Chastity violations including physical sexual relations are indeed generally brought before a disciplinary council, Excommunication is not, by far, the first thing on the table, or, for most, even the most likely outcome. It is certainly a possible outcome, but is not by far automatic.

Edited May 7, 2012 by David T

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The topic of the thread is in the poll. I don't wish it to be more explicit than that, so limit your responses to the poll, please.

For reference, the Law of Chastity is: men and women shall have no sexual relations except with their legally and lawfully wedded spouses.

In the 1800s, it was apparently phrased as (speaking from the male side) "I will never have anything to do with any of the daughters of Eve, unless they are given to me of the Lord."

For my daughters it means, "no marriage until you're 35 and no sex until I am dead".

[David T]

I don't think its against board guidelines to plainly say what he's hinting at.

I'm pretty sure log is talking about, what the For the Strength of Youth refers to as "arous[ing] those [powerful sexual] emotions in your own body.", ie, masturbation. IE, he's asking if the Law of Chastity only involves actions taken with others, as opposed to also involving acts taken with oneself.

It is true what he said that this - as well as it's partner pornography - , while strongly counseled against, do not result in formal disciplinary councils. And definitely do not place one's membership in jeopardy. I believe it still is policy that a bishop or Stake president who is aware of this habit in a youth should not recommend them to serve a mission. Mission presidents will regularly have talks asking those with this habit to confess to him, and to stop it. But it is not something one is sent home for.

I think it's sort of viewed in the Church today as a gateway drug.

Edited May 7, 2012 by David T

[Senator]

For my daughters it means, "no marriage until you're 35 and no sex until I am dead".

This post will be instructive (evidence) in the event of your untimely and premature departure from this life.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Senator

[Senator]

I don't think its against board guidelines to plainly say what he's hinting at.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Log]

I don't think its against board guidelines to plainly say what he's hinting at.

Let's hope not.

I'm pretty sure log is talking about, what the For the Strength of Youth refers to as "arous[ing] those [powerful sexual] emotions in your own body.", ie, masturbation. IE, he's asking if the Law of Chastity only involves actions taken with others, as opposed to also involving acts taken with oneself.

That's it. It is my understanding, however, that there shall be no sex-themed threads. Now I expect it to be closed.

It is my view, in a nutshell, that that is not a violation of the Law of Chastity, which explicitly contemplates solely interpersonal relations.

It is my view that that is, rather, an "unholy and impure practice."

[BlueDreams]

Let's hope not.

That's it. It is my understanding, however, that there shall be no sex-themed threads. Now I expect it to be closed.

It is my view, in a nutshell, that that is not a violation of the Law of Chastity, which explicitly contemplates solely interpersonal relations.

It is my view that that is, rather, an "unholy and impure practice."

OHHHHH.....Man, I was so not getting that at all.

And no, I don't think it just covers interpersonal relations. I prefer to think of the LoC less in terms of what you're to do then rather a list of don'ts. The principle is to have a loving and sacred bond with one's spouse. So breaking (or something against) the LoC would be anything that takes away from that sacred relationship. Masturbation, since it focuses on self-gratification as opposed to building up the relationship between spouse could count against the LoC. But not everything (or most anything) that would be against the LoC should expect excommunication....or even disciplinary action.

With luv,

BD