Korihor's Philosophy, "Limiting Principles" and the Law of Chastity

[smac97]

In a legal context, a "limiting principle" is a guideline or rule that restricts the scope/application of a legal doctrine, principle, or ruling. It defines the parameters within which a particular legal concept operates or applies. Limiting principles are employed by courts to ensure that their decisions are not overly broad or vague, and that they are consistent with existing legal precedent and principles.  Limiting principles are also applied to test whether a litigant's legal theory or argument is coherent.  These principles help to clarify the extent of rights, duties, or liabilities in various legal contexts, providing a framework for legal analysis and decision-making.

For example, the right to Free Speech has some limiting principles which have been developed and honed over a long period of time:

• Obscenity and child pornography: Defamation occurs if you make a false statement of fact about someone else that harms that person’s reputation. Such speech is not protected by the First Amendment and could result in criminal and civil liability. Defamation is limited in multiple respects.
• False Statements of Fact: False statements of fact said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state," libel, slander, etc. can be unprotected speech.
• Incitement: Speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — is unprotected by the First Amendment. 
• Fighting Words: Words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected by the First Amendment.
• True threat: A true threat is a statement that frightens or intimidates one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting at the speaker’s behest.  Such statements are unprotected speech.
• False Advertising: "The States and the Federal Government are free to prevent the dissemination of commercial speech that is false, deceptive, or misleading."

In a religious/doctrinal context, I think there can be some value in examining Limiting Principles.  For example, a defining trait of Korihor's philosophy was the substantive lack of Limiting Principles.  From Alma 30:

Quote

12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

"{E}very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature..."

"{W}hatsoever a man did was no crime."

This lack of constraints, of Limiting Principles, quickly led people into "wickedness," the only specifically-identified form of which is referenced in v. 18, and is within the domain of the Law of Chastity: "whoredoms."  Rodney Turner has some interesting observations on this concept:

Quote

The plural word whoredoms (used 27 times) is the general Book of Mormon term for unchastity in all of its forms.
...
Jacob’s commendation of them {the Lamanites} in the late sixth century BC (“Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands” [Jacob 3:7]) was in sharp contrast to the whoredoms which he accused the Nephites of committing. Spiritually benighted though they were, the early Lamanites had one vital, redeeming virtue: fidelity in marriage. And this virtue rendered them “more righteous” (Jacob 3:5) in God’s sight than their enlightened Nephite brethren who had the gospel, the church, and prophets to guide them.

Indeed, it was because of their superior spiritual blessings that the Nephites stood the more condemned. “For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation” (D&C 82:3). Because of this principle, no one today faces so severe a judgment as do the Latter-day Saints. The Lord not only judges the sin, but also the spiritual context in which it is committed. This was the basis for the Prophet Joseph Smith’s sincere self-characterization: “I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not, God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 303; hereafter TPJS). Sin is measured against the light in which it is committed. Hence the Lord’s condemnation of those early Latter-day Saints who were “walking in darkness at noon-day” (D&C 95:6).

Although the Nephites were repeatedly denounced for their immorality, there is but a single, somewhat ambiguous reference to such misconduct on the part of the Lamanites. In a proclamation by their then-converted king, he admonished (did not accuse) his people to avoid all sins, including adultery (Alma 23:3). Of course, it is very unlikely that all of the Lamanites observed the law of chastity, but it appears that sexual immorality was not one of their dominant, pervasive sins.

Even at the close of the record where Mormon graphically describes the degenerate behavior of both the Nephite and the Lamanite armies during the final battles between those two peoples, it was the Nephites, not the Lamanites, who raped and murdered captive women (see Moroni 9:7–10). Sexual immorality was essentially a Nephite crime and remained so until their final destruction.

Thus, in the Book of Mormon the charge of whoredoms is leveled against the enlightened groups, the Jaredites and the Nephites, but not the Lamanites. And because the early Lamanites kept the commandment against plural marriage, concubinage, and whoredoms, Jacob told the Nephites that “the Lord God will not destroy them; and one day they shall become a blessed people” (Jacob 3:6). While this promise was fulfilled in a measure when the resurrected Redeemer appeared in AD 34, its greater fulfillment awaits his glorious return in these latter days.

I think the Latter-day Saints should therefore give real thought and attention to the Law of Chastity, particularly including its Limiting Principles.  I say this because in some quarters in the Church, I think there is some tension between what the Church teaches regarding Limiting Principles / constraints / parameters versus what individual members may feel.  Elder Renlund summed things up fairly well in 2020:

Quote

The law of chastity is an eternal law, given by our Heavenly Father to all His children in all ages. It remains in force and is as applicable today as it was in earlier times in history. As with other commandments, the law is given by Heavenly Father to bless and help His children achieve their divine potential. Obeying the law of chastity includes abstaining from all sexual relations before marriage and remaining completely faithful and loyal after marriage. Sexual relations are to be limited to marriage between a man and a woman.

Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife. In marriage, sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other. Sexual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate.

As I see it, the primary Limiting Principle in the Law of Chastity is that

• (A) sexual relations are "limited to marriage between a man and a woman."

Within that principle are further clarifying principles, namely, that sex within marriage is intended to

• (B) "create children"

and

• (C) "express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife." 

Further clarifying principles pertain to (C), which are that

• (D) "sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other,"

and

• (E) "{s}exual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate."

In contrast to the foregoing Limiting Principles, there is a school of thought that advances "licentiousness," that is, 

Quote

1. sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd.

2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral.
Synonyms: profligate, abandoned

3. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.

This sort of profound depravity is, I think, fairly rare.  As Rodney Turner noted in the above article, "{in Mormon 9:7-10} Mormon graphically describes the degenerate behavior of both the Nephite and the Lamanite armies during the final battles between those two peoples, it was the Nephites, not the Lamanites, who raped and murdered captive women."  So the Nephites did it.  Today, areas in which sexual slavery, rape and comparable atrocities are allowed/ignored may well be construed as essentially lacking Limiting Principles as to sexual behavior.

A common alternative to licentiousness, then, is to adopt consent as a (the?) Limiting Principle.  This obviates many of the harmful effects of licentiousness.  However, a consent-based Limiting Principle still falls materially short of the Law-of-Chastity-based Limiting Principles noted above.

I think some Latter-day Saints have adopted some variation of a consent-based Limiting Principle to replace or subordinate the Law of Chastity.  Some Latter-day Saints endorse this consent-based model when conceptualizing the morality of  others' sexual behavior, while they otherwise apply the Law of Chastity to themselves.  Other Latter-day Saints may take a more ubiquitous view, which is to advocate that this consent-based model ought to be applied within the Church, even to the extent that the Church set aside most or all of the foregoing Limiting Principles ((A) through (E)).  This would make sense if consent was the sole basis for differentiating appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior.  But, as noted above, consent is not to sole differentiator.  Elder Renlund continues:

Quote

We may wonder, though, “Why should I obey the law of chastity? Why does God care about my moral behavior?” To answer these questions, God has revealed doctrine that, if correctly understood, will motivate us to keep the law of chastity and choose to express our sexuality within the boundaries He has set. As with all of God’s commandments, the law of chastity is best understood within the context of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation and exaltation (see Alma 12:32). Obedience to the law of chastity will bring extraordinary blessings.

All human beings are beloved spirit sons or daughters of heavenly parents with a divine nature and eternal destiny. The reason we have bodies is to build on that divine nature so we can ultimately realize our eternal destiny. Heavenly Father wants us to gain earthly experience, progress toward perfection, and eventually enjoy the fulness of happiness that He enjoys. He knows that for us to have this kind of enduring joy, we need to progress along the course He has established, obeying the commandments He has given.

Understanding that family relationships are to be perpetuated throughout the eternities after this life is vital. After mortality, the faithful are promised that “they shall pass by the angels … to their exaltation and glory … which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19–20).

The doctrine of eternal families in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unique among Christian traditions. We were not created solely to praise, adore, and serve some incomprehensible God. We were created by loving heavenly parents to grow up to become like them. Male and female spirits were created to complement each other. That is why gender is not fluid in the eternities—because it provides the basis for the ultimate gift Heavenly Father can give, His kind of life.

For us to realize this blessing, Heavenly Father commanded that sexual intimacy is to be reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage was intended by God “to mean the complete merger of a man and a woman—their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything … to be ‘one flesh’ in their life together.” We cannot achieve the kind of life our Heavenly Father enjoys by ourselves or without a complete commitment to fidelity within a marriage to our husband or wife according to God’s plan.

In providing such apostolic guidance, I think Elder Renlund and the Brethren in general are well aware that romantic and sexual feelings can be real and powerful.  Then-Elder Nelson addressed this issue back in 2013:

Quote

A pivotal spiritual attribute is that of self-mastery—the strength to place reason over appetite. Self-mastery builds a strong conscience. And your conscience determines your moral responses in difficult, tempting, and trying situations. Fasting helps your spirit to develop dominance over your physical appetites. Fasting also increases your access to heaven’s help, as it intensifies your prayers. Why the need for self-mastery? God implanted strong appetites within us for nourishment and love, vital for the human family to be perpetuated. When we master our appetites within the bounds of God’s laws, we can enjoy longer life, greater love, and consummate joy.

It is not surprising, then, that most temptations to stray from God’s plan of happiness come through the misuse of those essential, God-given appetites. Controlling our appetites is not always easy. Not one of us manages them perfectly. Mistakes happen. Errors are made. Sins are committed. What can we do then? We can learn from them. And we can truly repent.

The Law of Chastity includes both prescriptive elements ("Marriage was intended by God 'to mean the complete merger of a man and a woman—their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything … to be "one flesh" in their life together'") and proscriptions (the Limiting Principles listed above).  Korihor's hedonism does not work, and a consent-based model of sexual morality is, in the end, insufficient.  I am therefore grateful for the Law of Chastity, and for the continuing guidance we receive from prophets and apostles on this matter.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 10 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In a legal context, a "limiting principle" is a guideline or rule that restricts the scope/application of a legal doctrine, principle, or ruling. It defines the parameters within which a particular legal concept operates or applies. Limiting principles are employed by courts to ensure that their decisions are not overly broad or vague, and that they are consistent with existing legal precedent and principles.  Limiting principles are also applied to test whether a litigant's legal theory or argument is coherent.  These principles help to clarify the extent of rights, duties, or liabilities in various legal contexts, providing a framework for legal analysis and decision-making.

For example, the right to Free Speech has some limiting principles which have been developed and honed over a long period of time:

• Obscenity and child pornography: Defamation occurs if you make a false statement of fact about someone else that harms that person’s reputation. Such speech is not protected by the First Amendment and could result in criminal and civil liability. Defamation is limited in multiple respects.
• False Statements of Fact: False statements of fact said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state," libel, slander, etc. can be unprotected speech.
• Incitement: Speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” — is unprotected by the First Amendment. 
• Fighting Words: Words “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are not protected by the First Amendment.
• True threat: A true threat is a statement that frightens or intimidates one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting at the speaker’s behest.  Such statements are unprotected speech.
• False Advertising: "The States and the Federal Government are free to prevent the dissemination of commercial speech that is false, deceptive, or misleading."

In a religious/doctrinal context, I think there can be some value in examining Limiting Principles.  For example, a defining trait of Korihor's philosophy was the substantive lack of Limiting Principles.  From Alma 30:

"{E}very man fared in this life according to the management of the creature..."

"{W}hatsoever a man did was no crime."

This lack of constraints, of Limiting Principles, quickly led people into "wickedness," the only specifically-identified form of which is referenced in v. 18, and is within the domain of the Law of Chastity: "whoredoms."  Rodney Turner has some interesting observations on this concept:

I think the Latter-day Saints should therefore give real thought and attention to the Law of Chastity, particularly including its Limiting Principles.  I say this because in some quarters in the Church, I think there is some tension between what the Church teaches regarding Limiting Principles / constraints / parameters versus what individual members may feel.  Elder Renlund summed things up fairly well in 2020:

As I see it, the primary Limiting Principle in the Law of Chastity is that

• (A) sexual relations are "limited to marriage between a man and a woman."

Within that principle are further clarifying principles, namely, that sex within marriage is intended to

• (B) "create children"

and

• (C) "express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife." 

Further clarifying principles pertain to (C), which are that

• (D) "sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other,"

and

• (E) "{s}exual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate."

In contrast to the foregoing Limiting Principles, there is a school of thought that advances "licentiousness," that is, 

This sort of profound depravity is, I think, fairly rare.  As Rodney Turner noted in the above article, "{in Mormon 9:7-10} Mormon graphically describes the degenerate behavior of both the Nephite and the Lamanite armies during the final battles between those two peoples, it was the Nephites, not the Lamanites, who raped and murdered captive women."  So the Nephites did it.  Today, areas in which sexual slavery, rape and comparable atrocities are allowed/ignored may well be construed as essentially lacking Limiting Principles as to sexual behavior.

A common alternative to licentiousness, then, is to adopt consent as a (the?) Limiting Principle.  This obviates many of the harmful effects of licentiousness.  However, a consent-based Limiting Principle still falls materially short of the Law-of-Chastity-based Limiting Principles noted above.

I think some Latter-day Saints have adopted some variation of a consent-based Limiting Principle to replace or subordinate the Law of Chastity.  Some Latter-day Saints endorse this consent-based model when conceptualizing the morality of  others' sexual behavior, while they otherwise apply the Law of Chastity to themselves.  Other Latter-day Saints may take a more ubiquitous view, which is to advocate that this consent-based model ought to be applied within the Church, even to the extent that the Church set aside most or all of the foregoing Limiting Principles ((A) through (E)).  This would make sense if consent was the sole basis for differentiating appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior.  But, as noted above, consent is not to sole differentiator.  Elder Renlund continues:

In providing such apostolic guidance, I think Elder Renlund and the Brethren in general are well aware that romantic and sexual feelings can be real and powerful.  Then-Elder Nelson addressed this issue back in 2013:

The Law of Chastity includes both prescriptive elements ("Marriage was intended by God 'to mean the complete merger of a man and a woman—their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything … to be "one flesh" in their life together'") and proscriptions (the Limiting Principles listed above).  Korihor's hedonism does not work, and a consent-based model of sexual morality is, in the end, insufficient.  I am therefore grateful for the Law of Chastity, and for the continuing guidance we receive from prophets and apostles on this matter.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Can you think of any mitigating factors, or extenuating circumstances, for breaking the law of chastity?

Perhaps that question has more to do with when the point of judgement/condemnation is taking place. For example, in my mind, the "bill of divorcement" was an accommodation of human frailty, even among the covenant people, unable to abide was was set forth "at the beginning."

[longview]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think some Latter-day Saints have adopted some variation of a consent-based Limiting Principle to replace or subordinate the Law of Chastity.  Some Latter-day Saints endorse this consent-based model when conceptualizing the morality of  others' sexual behavior, while they otherwise apply the Law of Chastity to themselves.

What limiting principles did this apostle disregard?

Name:  Richard R. Lyman
Born:  November 23, 1870
Died:  December 31, 1963 (aged 93)
Positions:  Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, called by Joseph F. Smith, April 7, 1918 – November 12, 1943

Son of Francis M. Lyman and grandson of Amasa M. Lyman. In 1925, Lyman had begun what he called a polygamous relationship without the knowledge of his first wife. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943. The Quorum of the Twelve provided the newspapers with a one-sentence announcement, stating that the ground for excommunication was violation of the law of chastity.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, longview said:

What limiting principles did this apostle disregard?

Name:  Richard R. Lyman
Born:  November 23, 1870
Died:  December 31, 1963 (aged 93)
Positions:  Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, called by Joseph F. Smith, April 7, 1918 – November 12, 1943

Son of Francis M. Lyman and grandson of Amasa M. Lyman. In 1925, Lyman had begun what he called a polygamous relationship without the knowledge of his first wife. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943. The Quorum of the Twelve provided the newspapers with a one-sentence announcement, stating that the ground for excommunication was violation of the law of chastity.

 

1) He didn't have the consent of the keyholder.

2) He didn't have consent of his wife, which is required of all men, except the keyholder (who has properly instructed his wife).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

2) He didn't have consent of his wife, which is required of all men, except the keyholder (who has properly instructed his wife).

That loophole is very convenient. 

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, longview said:

What limiting principles did this apostle disregard?

Name:  Richard R. Lyman
Born:  November 23, 1870
Died:  December 31, 1963 (aged 93)
Positions:  Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, called by Joseph F. Smith, April 7, 1918 – November 12, 1943

Son of Francis M. Lyman and grandson of Amasa M. Lyman. In 1925, Lyman had begun what he called a polygamous relationship without the knowledge of his first wife. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943. The Quorum of the Twelve provided the newspapers with a one-sentence announcement, stating that the ground for excommunication was violation of the law of chastity.

one thing i'd be interested to know is how this only came out years after the affair began? IIRC He started counselling this woman in the 20's or something. Also Elder Orson F. Whitney may have been cheating on his wife too, according to this guy

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That loophole is very convenient. 

I don't make the rules. 🤷

[longview]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

 

1) He didn't have the consent of the keyholder.

2) He didn't have consent of his wife, which is required of all men, except the keyholder (who has properly instructed his wife).

And:

3) He and his new partner secretly went against the manifesto for stopping the practice.

[The Nehor]

I don’t think the analogy in the OP works. The whole idea of free speech restrictions is to keep them as limited and narrow as possible. The idea of the Law of Chastity falling under a similar heading where restrictions on sex are as limited as possible is pretty laughable.

On 5/10/2024 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

This lack of constraints, of Limiting Principles, quickly led people into "wickedness," the only specifically-identified form of which is referenced in v. 18, and is within the domain of the Law of Chastity: "whoredoms."  Rodney Turner has some interesting observations on this concept:

I think the Latter-day Saints should therefore give real thought and attention to the Law of Chastity, particularly including its Limiting Principles.  I say this because in some quarters in the Church, I think there is some tension between what the Church teaches regarding Limiting Principles / constraints / parameters versus what individual members may feel.  Elder Renlund summed things up fairly well in 2020:

As I see it, the primary Limiting Principle in the Law of Chastity is that

• (A) sexual relations are "limited to marriage between a man and a woman."

Within that principle are further clarifying principles, namely, that sex within marriage is intended to

• (B) "create children"

and

• (C) "express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife." 

Further clarifying principles pertain to (C), which are that

• (D) "sexual intimacy should unite wife and husband together in trust, devotion, and consideration for each other,"

and

• (E) "{s}exual relations within marriage must respect the agency of both partners and should not be used to control or dominate."

Calling the law of chastity eternal and suggesting it is such is a bit of a stretch unless you take a VERY loose stance on the Torah being the law of God.

A and B probably fit though that level of specificity on A is new. C and D are pretty modern takes. E was not a thing at all in Old Testament marriage laws.

On 5/10/2024 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

In contrast to the foregoing Limiting Principles, there is a school of thought that advances "licentiousness," that is, 

This sort of profound depravity is, I think, fairly rare.  As Rodney Turner noted in the above article, "{in Mormon 9:7-10} Mormon graphically describes the degenerate behavior of both the Nephite and the Lamanite armies during the final battles between those two peoples, it was the Nephites, not the Lamanites, who raped and murdered captive women."  So the Nephites did it.  Today, areas in which sexual slavery, rape and comparable atrocities are allowed/ignored may well be construed as essentially lacking Limiting Principles as to sexual behavior.

I find it baffling that the Lamanites get certain blessings because their ancestors of over a thousand years ago weren’t adulterers. I sometimes wonder under what blessings and cursings I live under due to my ancestors living in the years before William the Conqueror.

On 5/10/2024 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

A common alternative to licentiousness, then, is to adopt consent as a (the?) Limiting Principle.  This obviates many of the harmful effects of licentiousness.  However, a consent-based Limiting Principle still falls materially short of the Law-of-Chastity-based Limiting Principles noted above.

The licentious often assume that consent based people are like them. I have polyamorous friends who are disgusted that people who cheat on their romantic partners will confess they cheat and expect understanding and think they won’t be judged by polyamorous people. They are judged and not in a kindly way.

On 5/10/2024 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

I think some Latter-day Saints have adopted some variation of a consent-based Limiting Principle to replace or subordinate the Law of Chastity.  Some Latter-day Saints endorse this consent-based model when conceptualizing the morality of  others' sexual behavior, while they otherwise apply the Law of Chastity to themselves.  Other Latter-day Saints may take a more ubiquitous view, which is to advocate that this consent-based model ought to be applied within the Church, even to the extent that the Church set aside most or all of the foregoing Limiting Principles ((A) through (E)).  This would make sense if consent was the sole basis for differentiating appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior.  But, as noted above, consent is not to sole differentiator.  Elder Renlund continues:

Wait….did an apostle just say that gender is fluid in mortality? Wow!

And yes, I know that is probably not what he meant. It makes me giggle though.

On 5/10/2024 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

In providing such apostolic guidance, I think Elder Renlund and the Brethren in general are well aware that romantic and sexual feelings can be real and powerful.  Then-Elder Nelson addressed this issue back in 2013:

The Law of Chastity includes both prescriptive elements ("Marriage was intended by God 'to mean the complete merger of a man and a woman—their hearts, hopes, lives, love, family, future, everything … to be "one flesh" in their life together'") and proscriptions (the Limiting Principles listed above).  Korihor's hedonism does not work, and a consent-based model of sexual morality is, in the end, insufficient.  I am therefore grateful for the Law of Chastity, and for the continuing guidance we receive from prophets and apostles on this matter.

A lot of these notions about marriage being the “uniting of hearts, hopes, lives, love, future, everything” are very modern. The irony is that people talk about the disintegration of marriage partnerships while packing more and more expectations of what it should be that would make our ancestors balk. What do we expect people to do when their marriage doesn’t involve all these attributes? Unsurprisingly one or both partners often end up thinking that they are with the wrong person.