A different Q15 --------- Question #5 (Chastity--is it getting hot in here?)

[NOWmormon]

Each day, for the rest of May, please share your honest response to each temple recommend question, based on what you believe right now
-

#5
Do you live the law of chastity?
-

Personal note:
This is the only question that refers to a law, yet this law is not found in the scriptures.

In fact, lds.org contains only references to portions of this law (from church leaders, articles, etc.).

In the temple, we “covenant and promise” to “observe and keep” the law of chastity.

The temple definition of the law of chastity is:
“No sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. “

But surprise, we are not told the whole story.

To read the entire law, you must visit http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Chastity,_Law_of

The law of chastity dictates restrictions regarding:
-Perverse or coercive sexual acts within marriage
-Dress
-Speech
-Thought
-Literature
-Movies
-Television
-Conversation
-Bodily functions

The site references an “original 1992 publication”

But does not state:
-When was this law created?
-Who wrote it and approved it?
-How/when was it published?
-When was it added to the temple endowment?
-When was it added as a temple recommend question?

Does anyone know?

[Nonny]

I'm not sure that members have much access to this definition Of the LOC from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a publication meant to explain Mormonism to the wider world. I'm not sure what the authors' level of approval was needed from the upper management, but, probably some, like BRM's Gospel Doctrine. I think all the detailed points about the law of chastity are covered in church lessons over the years and the Handbook.

Incidentally, the wording of the covenant used to be more specific, i.e. used the word intercourse instead of relations. I guess that left too much leeway for other acts not technically covered.

I think covenanting to be faithful to a spouse is a good thing. What I find amusing is that it is based on being "legal and lawful." It seems odd to me that God would need the stamp of government approval on one of God's covenants.

[oliver_denom]

This, I think, is a law in the sense that it came from a time and culture where chastity wasn't something you had to prove or justify. It was self evident.

The bigger mystery is how a religion like Mormonism, founded by a libertine, became so obsessive over chastity. For Smith, I think the law of chastity was a cloak he used to make himself appear virtuous in spite of his frequent adultery. For Young, however, I think the law of chastity is what he used to wield unquestioned power. He could break up families, exile men, and use his polygamous wives as a symbol of his status. He was able to reduce women to the functions of child birth and objects for rewarding or punishing his subjects. Having sex without his permission and outside his authority was a direct rebellion against his power.

After polygamy, I think chastity fell back to its earlier Victorian roots. Yes, there is still an element of power because sex is used to coerce people into marrying young and having children, but it's also a belief or feeling that sex is just disgusting and wrong. Smith certainly didn't feel that way, but it's proven itself effective for producing mounds of guilt and shame that can be used by the church to keep people begging their leaders for relief. It hurts both sexes, but it seems to hurt women the most. They are taught that they are the gate keepers for sexual activity and therefore carry the bulk of the blame for anything that happens. This effects how they dress, speak, and interact with the opposite sex, not to mention that they alone have to endure the difficulties of pregnancy and the social punishments which are levied against the unmarried.

So you could look at this from the perspective of power, but it's experienced as shame and revulsion. Chastity is a law which is deeply felt, and the consequences of power just naturally follow. It's unquestioned because of our indoctrination. Sex for many of us is liked the trigger for Pavlov's dogs. When the bell is rung, we react with deep shame, guilt, and anxiety. It's automatic.

For me, I've lived the church's law of chastity through my teens, twenties, and half my thirties without having a knowledge of what it was or how it worked. Of course masturbation was a part of that mix, which is perfectly normal, but I mentally punished myself for it and would repent. My girlfriends and I would skirt the edges of propriety, but again, I would severely punish myself and feel retched. Once I was married, I never felt the desire to cheat, so living the law became a lot easier. I live it now I suppose, but I'm actively trying to rid myself of the guilt and shame. If I do that successfully, no longer feel ashamed, then am I really living the law, even if I'm only having sex within marriage? Isn't the shame an important part? If my wife and I were to separate, then I would have no compunction over having a sexual relationship with someone I dated. I'm staying faithful to my wife because I love her, not because the church says there's a law involved.

So yes and no. I don't believe in the law, but I technically follow it for different reasons.

[Dravin]

Yes, as per the definition given in the temple. Of course, you're expected to answer yes prior to going to the temple to learn the Law of Chastity.

[Corsair]

I will also stick with the Law of Chastity in the temple and answer Yes I do live the Law of Chastity.

[Give It Time]

Yes

[wtfluff]

The temple definition of the law of chastity is:
“No sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.“

I wonder how long it will take them to get a 'revelation' about updating the wording for modern Utah? (We know the rest of the world doesn't really matter.)

“No sexual relations except with your husband or wife of the opposite sex to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.“


As far as answering the question? I'd probably make a lame attempt at imitating Bill Clinton and say: Please define "sexual relations."

[Jinx]

This one I can say yes to.

[Can of Worms]

Yes. I love my husband and our relationship is the most important in my life. I continue to live much as I have throughout my life - though my definition of modesty has changed slightly. I bare my shoulders when it is warm and my skirts and shorts are an inch shorter. While this does not align with the current definition of modesty, it matches definitions from earlier eras. My mom wore garments and VERY short skirts in the 60s and 70s (I'm not sure how she did it and have never felt comfortable enough to ask!). In the 50s, it was acceptable for YW to wear strapless dresses to church formal events. How did such a huge shift happen in what is considered modest? In our region, some chaperones have had YW kneel on the floor to prove their dresses are modest. (WTF???)

I don't think loosing faith in premise of the church changes who I am at my core and these are things that I value and will continue to value. Though, it is freeing not to have some old guy I see at the grocery store ask me questions about it from time to time.....

[LostGirl]

I always thought this was an easy yes.
I had never really thought too much about what this "law" is or where it came from beyond the wording in the temple, to which I can honestly answer yes.
Like oliver though I keep it because I love my husband, not because the church tells me to.

[2bizE]

Yes. I love my spouse and am committed to her, regardless of church beliefs.

[MoPag]

Yes.

[Just This Guy]

Yes according to the temple definition. Some of the wider definitions that the church likes to tack on additional requirements, the answers may vary.

[redjay]

Yes. Only me and Mrs RJ in our relationship, as far as I know.

Flying solo is none of the church's business - at any age, and the church stays outside of the bedroom door.

My biggest problem with this question is that the church still equates sex with worthiness and by default induces shame - I have children that I do not want to have shame issues for what is normal development.

I bitterly regret sending children to 'speak to the bishop' and now see myself as party to ecclesiastic abuse, by making them go and speak about there sexual practices with a middle aged man.

Luckily the bishops were super, paternal, christlike people - who I know and trust. But it was still wrong to put my kids through that.

[Mormorrisey]

Yep, I also ponder this as part of the temple definition. Have never cheated on Sister M, end of story.

Now, we all know the law of chastity has a whole load of other connotations, from what you read, to "flying solo" (love that expression, redjay!) to what you watch, etc. etc. In that way, it's actually less challenging to be be married, I have a whole lot of sympathy for those who are single who are forced to try and answer this question. When I was single, I squirmed a lot more over this question, I can tell you that. This, for me, is one of the easier ones. But for those who have to endure the shame of it all, it's not one of the better questions.

[grammaticus]

Personal note:
This is the only question that refers to a law, yet this law is not found in the scriptures.

In fact, lds.org contains only references to portions of this law (from church leaders, articles, etc.).

In fairness, I think the scriptures quoted in the article support most of what is regarded as "the law of chastity." There are pretty clear prohibitions on incest, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Old Testament. Jesus condemns adultery in the New Testament.

Granted - the Old Testament is extremely problematic and includes prohibitions against all sorts of things we disregard today as well as commands to do all sorts of things we'd find abhorrent today. But, to say what we call "the law of chastity" is not found in the scriptures is inaccurate.

[NOWmormon]

Personal note:
This is the only question that refers to a law, yet this law is not found in the scriptures.

In fact, lds.org contains only references to portions of this law (from church leaders, articles, etc.).

In fairness, I think the scriptures quoted in the article support most of what is regarded as "the law of chastity." There are pretty clear prohibitions on incest, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Old Testament. Jesus condemns adultery in the New Testament.

Granted - the Old Testament is extremely problematic and includes prohibitions against all sorts of things we disregard today as well as commands to do all sorts of things we'd find abhorrent today. But, to say what we call "the law of chastity" is not found in the scriptures is inaccurate.

Thank you.
I was speaking of the phrase "Law of Chastity".
And yes,the scriptures contain some of it, but over the years, church leadership has added additional parts:
This link alone includes
-Perverse or coercive sexual acts within marriage
-Dress
-Speech
-Thought
-Literature
-Movies
-Television
-Conversation
-Bodily functions

Most, missing from the scriptures.

[Silver Girl]

Although I do not agree wth the church's very intrusive way of involving itself in our most personal lives, I believe in "chastity" as a term for define our personal integrity in intimacy, and our loyalty to our partners. I expect honesty and integrity from a spouse, and give the same in return.

It disturbs me to know that Joseph Smith used sex to control others in the context of a church and also to create a "special, secret club" of predators and victims. Early followers musts have been terribly confused and conflicted, and if they were in isolated frontier areas, they were also trapped. The journey to and settlement in Salt Lake created a "bird's nest on the ground" for predators such as Brigham Young.

So, yes, I have a personal moral compass regarding chastity. And I have zero respect for the church's guilt-fest through TR interviews and the disgusting history of the early church.

[Korihor]

This question is extremely complicated for me.

Do I observe it today as I understand it? Yes

Did I follow when I was TBM as I understood it? Yes and No.
Yes, I did observe it in terms of faithfulness to my spouse, absolutely.
Did I observe the fuzzy, cultural, dogmatic and implied rules? I suppose it depends on the bishop.

[Guy]

Yes. Only me and Mrs RJ in our relationship, as far as I know.

Flying solo is none of the church's business - at any age, and the church stays outside of the bedroom door.

My biggest problem with this question is that the church still equates sex with worthiness and by default induces shame - I have children that I do not want to have shame issues for what is normal development.

I bitterly regret sending children to 'speak to the bishop' and now see myself as party to ecclesiastic abuse, by making them go and speak about there sexual practices with a middle aged man.

Luckily the bishops were super, paternal, christlike people - who I know and trust. But it was still wrong to put my kids through that.

Ditto everything in this post!

And "Yes" to Q5.