The Law Of Chastity: What Does It Cover?

[Log]

I would ask the "No" voters to explain how they justify their position in light of the explicit phraseology of the formal statement of the Law of Chastity.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[Mark Beesley]

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."

Whether it is a violation of the Law of Chastity, or an unholy and imipure practice is really beside the point. Assuming one is still senstitive to the Spirit, one will know without any doubt that the masturbatory acts that they are engaging in (including looking at pornographic material) grieves the Spirit and destroys one's feelings of self-worthiness. To the extent that it matters,(and again, I don't think it does) the wording of the covenant in the Temple makes it perfectly clear that sexual relations with one's self is a violation of the Law of Chastity.

[Log]

Whether it is a violation of the Law of Chastity, or an unholy and imipure practice is really beside the point.

That is, however, the point of this thread.

To the extent that it matters,(and again, I don't think it does) the wording of the covenant in the Temple makes it perfectly clear that sexual relations with one's self is a violation of the Law of Chastity.

The very idea of "sexual relations with one's self" is literally self-contradictory.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[Mark Beesley]

I would ask the "No" voters to explain how they justify their position in light of the explicit phraseology of the formal statement of the Law of Chastity.

Why do we have to have laws that define marriage now? Because some people want to pervert the meaning.

Why clarify the Law of Chastity? Because some people want to pervert the meaning.

Even assuming that the verbiage of the earlier covenant has been accurately stated, it does not profess to be an all-inclusionary recitation of every act that might be violative of the Law of Chastity.

[Mark Beesley]

The very idea of "sexual relations with one's self" is literally self-contradictory.

No it isn't. Masturbation involves a relationship between your hand and your genitals.

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 26:14

No pun intended.

[cinepro]

It is my impression that the Church is in a transition period from a strong "anti-masturbation" stance to a "don't ask-don't tell" attitude.

There is still a generation of leaders and Church members that are carrying the torch for the old view, but within a generation or two, I suspect the subject will no longer be discussed, and everyone will just kind of accept that it's okay as long as it's done in moderation and without the help of pornography.

If we see a drop in the incidence of prostate cancer in LDS men over the coming decades, that could be an indicator that I was right.

I also can't figure out, for the life of me, why Elder Packer's 1976 conference talk on the subject (the infamous "little factory" talk) has been removed from the Church website. What does that mean?

Edited May 7, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

No it isn't. Masturbation involves a relationship between your hand and your genitals.

Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love. - Woody Allen

[David T]

It is my impression that the Church is in a transition period from a strong "anti-masturbation" stance to a "don't ask-don't tell" attitude.

There is still a generation of leaders and Church members that are carrying the torch for the old view, but within a generation or two, I suspect the subject will no longer be discussed, and everyone will just kind of accept that it's okay as long as it's done in moderation and without the help of pornography.

If we see a drop in the incidence of prostate cancer in LDS men over the coming decades, that could be an indicator that I was right.

I also can't figure out, for the life of me, why Elder Packer's 1976 conference talk on the subject (the infamous "little factory" talk) has been removed from the Church website. What does that mean?

First, your link, which goes to a May 1976 ensign, is incorrect. The talk was in October 1976 Priesthood session, which is found here. But, well, the Packer talk (and anything by Packer, actually) is still missing from that conference site, too.

It might have something to with it being the same talk where he said he wouldn't condemn or omit the option of punching out someone making homosexual advances.

Edited May 7, 2012 by David T

[T-Shirt]

I also can't figure out, for the life of me, why Elder Packer's 1976 conference talk on the subject (the infamous "little factory" talk) has been removed from the Church website. What does that mean?

It must really bother you that the Church, for whatever reason, has taken down one of the favorite targets, of people like you and your fellow critics, previously used as a tool for mockery and, at least among yourselves, rounds of uproarious laughter and hilarity. I can't imagine why the Church would do that.

Edited May 7, 2012 by T-Shirt

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

One of my daughters has already had three virgin births...right?

[Log]

No it isn't. Masturbation involves a relationship between your hand and your genitals.

You have every right to your opinion. However, you've changed a word, and are no longer talking about what the Law of Chastity is talking about.

[Log]

Why clarify the Law of Chastity? Because some people want to pervert the meaning.

Who wants to pervert it? The people who point out that the explicit formulation of the law considers interpersonal relations only, or those who wish to incorporate non-interpersonal non-relations?

Likewise, some interesting individuals want to extend the WoW to include cold drinks. Astounding.

Even assuming that the verbiage of the earlier covenant has been accurately stated, it does not profess to be an all-inclusionary recitation of every act that might be violative of the Law of Chastity.

Your observation is only trivially true, and quite beside the point to boot.

The formulation of the law immediately prior to the current one specified "sexual intercourse." The law, in each of its known statements, explicitly addresses interpersonal relations.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

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 can just hear you saying "Ewww" now that you know what is being discussed.

Totally agree about endowed people who violate chastity NOT being excommunicated. It would be pretty unusual if indeed they were, and I agree it is the "repeat offenders" who could be candidates for excommunication.

Edited May 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

Totally agree about endowed people who violate chastity NOT being excommunicated.

We don't ex endowed adulterers and fornicators generally? (Note that I am not saying "automatically.")

[BCSpace]

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.

The LoCh (as opposed to the LoC, Law of Consecration) covers more than interpersonal relationships. But I would say that interpersonal relationships is where Church discipline for LoCh violations generally begins. We typically don't ask about thoughts, masturbation, or pornography etc. in interviews unless one decides to confess such or there is an "interpersonal" relationship problem involved.

Especially regarding the first two, the reality on the ground is essentially "don't ask don't tell" and other than staying out of situations, piling more duties onto the young confessor, and advising to mentally hum those hymns, there is not a lot to be done or that can or should be done.

Edited May 7, 2012 by BCSpace

[Minos]

No sex threads.