Law of Chastity- What does it mean?

[beefche]

The law of chastity is more about control than it is about never feeling sexual impulses.

I agree with this statement. I will add a caveat, though. I also believe that single people should avoid doing things to our partner that will get their motor running. If I know that putting my hand on his leg turns my bf on, then I would make sure I didn't do that. The same thing might not do that to me, but if it arouses him, then I have the responsibility to avoid it.

Vort, interesting to know about men. <wondering how this thread is going to affect my upcoming singles conference actions....>

[Generally_Me]

I read a book once that defined the difference between chaste and celibate. Reading over this thread it appears people are using the "celibate" definition in place of "chastity". Not necessarily bad, IMO.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Generally_Me

[Misshalfway]

I agree with this statement. I will add a caveat, though. I also believe that single people should avoid doing things to our partner that will get their motor running. If I know that putting my hand on his leg turns my bf on, then I would make sure I didn't do that. The same thing might not do that to me, but if it arouses him, then I have the responsibility to avoid it.

Vort, interesting to know about men. <wondering how this thread is going to affect my upcoming singles conference actions....>

Yeah. I am with you. But I would think the primary responsibility would be for your BF to know what pushes him too far and stop it on his own. It would be rather weak for him to blame you for lighting his fire when you really just meant to pat him on the knee.

[Misshalfway]

I read a book once that defined the difference between chaste and celibate. Reading over this thread it appears people are using the "celibate" definition in place of "chastity". Not necessarily bad, IMO! A little overboard, but not bad.

I think it is important to say that we aren't talking about celibacy here......before marriage OR after it.

I think some think that they can't or "shouldn't" have any pleasurable affection between the sexes in order to keep the law. I think this is wrong to place such shame around normal, natural human processes and desires. And one is wrong to think that fidelity and chastity inside of marriage can't be exciting and satisfying. We are talking about keeping passions inside proper bounds and used for selfless purposes. It is the selfishness and lusts and indulgences that we are trying to discipline. Discipline does not mean turning the water off completely or only turning the water on when a baby needs to get made or never taking ones garments off. Hyper responsibility is not better than normal responsibility.

[beefche]

I agree Miss 1/2 with all your statements--are you me?

I think we need to remember that intimacy is a God given gift and sacred. There is nothing shameful or wrong or bad--it's all about timing and limits.

I have the responsibility to let my bf know that touching me in that manner pushes me in a direction I don't want to go--he then has the responsibiilty to respect that and not do that particular touching. I think a relationship that is mature and based on mutual respect would include discussing these matters. I need physical affection and would need for my bf to show me he cares. We can discuss what is acceptable and what isn't.

After marriage, the same prinicple applies. There should be mutual respect and openness about what is acceptable and what isn't. I don't believe that "anything goes" after marriage. But I do believe that it is difficult to relax our "stop" buttons--going from "don't touch my knee" to "touch me all over" is sometimes difficult to adjust to.

Was that rambling? What was the question?

[ryanh]

and the absense of lust.

to me it is anything that causes sexual arousal.

I went to bed last night, having read those two portions of posts, wonding how on earth that could be reality, and any but the most impotent of young men having a chance to be found "moral". Heaven forbid any unmarried male under the age of 45 being given a temple recommend!

For men, this is impossible. Affection IS arousal.

And our feminist-infected notions notwithstanding, this is not a bad thing. Sex is the glorious act that allows men to feel things they would otherwise experience only partially or with great difficulty. It should be no surprise that a goodnight kiss does different things to a man than it does to a woman.

Sisters, you are welcome to this idea of "affection without arousal", but please realize that it's not reality for men, at least when applied to male/female dating relationships. It's some weird kind of science fiction.

AMEN!

I hadn't heard too many misconceptions about oral. Pretty clear case of problems there unless one is trying really hard to justify.

The selfishness of the use of procreative powers in self-masturbation is wrong, even though the world would like to tell us otherwise.

Sometimes I get a little worn from hearing over and over just the prohibitions without understanding "why". I'm definitely a 'tell me the purpose' guy. I recently read an article that laid this out clearly. Wish I did a better job at keeping useful talks/quotes organized. Basically, since procreation is so central to the plan of salvation, the manner in which the plan is carried out and new spirits come to earth, it is an honor and great responsibility to have been given such a power, and as such, should be treated with the reverence and respect it deserves. He has only authorized it's use within the bounds of marriage.

[will227457]

I think it is important to say that we aren't talking about celibacy here......before marriage OR after it.

I think some think that they can't or "shouldn't" have any pleasurable affection between the sexes in order to keep the law. I think this is wrong to place such shame around normal, natural human processes and desires. And one is wrong to think that fidelity and chastity inside of marriage can't be exciting and satisfying. We are talking about keeping passions inside proper bounds and used for selfless purposes. It is the selfishness and lusts and indulgences that we are trying to discipline. Discipline does not mean turning the water off completely or only turning the water on when a baby needs to get made or never taking ones garments off. Hyper responsibility is not better than normal responsibility.

Looks like I agree with you......sexual impulses are normal and I think that to often we make it sound wicked, shameful, or bad this creates a sexual represion that some members find other outlets for...take pron addiction in the church it seems to run rampant.....what is the underlying cause of this?

DICIPLINE is key to controling our desires and living with in the boundries of the LoC

[Vort]

...take pron addiction in the church it seems to run rampant.....what is the underlying cause of this?

Pornography use outside the Church appears to be much greater than inside the Church. If your implication is that living the law of chastity somehow drives people to porn, or that repressive sexual attitudes among Church members encourage clandestine porn usage, I think you are mistaken.

[Dravin]

Group dates and such would be best.

Nothing wrong with pairing off in public, its when you do it in private that issue start. Taking a gal to Denny's just you and her doesn't really cause issues, now when you do what my sister and BIL did and drive to the park after dinner and sit in the car all alone in the dark and talk all night long, even to the point of falling asleep in the car together then you are inviting problems.

Pairing off at some point is a good thing (if we aren't talking about teen dating), in fact Dalin H. Oak is in support of it ( LDS.org - Ensign Article - Dating versus Hanging Out ). It is a component of courting and finding your eternal companion. Of course we may be running into definition issues, I suppose a group date could be considered pairing off (you are specifically going out with a gal even if another couple is accompanying you). That said I think not being alone is good advice. I'd like to make dinner for a gal some time as a date (I think it'd be cheap and well received) but it is inseparably connected with a group date of some sort in my mind as the thought of being alone in her apartment (or my place, it's where the kitchens are) causes all sorts of alarm bells to ring. Though I suppose a picnic might work as a non-group date as long as you aren't going to the park at night and secreting yourself in the bushes.

Now about the OP. I agree there is a lot of confusion about what exactly is entailed by the Law of Chasity. I was generally shocked on my mission to hear about NCMO (Non-Committal Make-Out) and have missionaries try to convince me I should do my best to experience it when I got home (my expressions that while tempting I wasn't really interested received disbelieved responses), even had one missionary gush to me about how running your hands along a girl's side and feeling the side of her bosom is the best thing out there. Others would talk about hours long make-out sessions and if you'll forgive the terminology having blue-balls afterwards. I had various degrees of success trying to convince them that make out sessions are against the Law of Chasity, at least as I understand it and how Spencer W. Kimball explained it. There are some that would say this is willful ignorance they know very well what the Law of Chasity is, but they would have answered they were keeping the Law of Chasity and in perfectly fine territory if asked.

Now for the mandated facetious part of my post: If anything that may cause arousal is against the Law of Chasity that means I better not lay eyes on a pretty girl (and no that isn't a euphemism for starting and fantasizing). I imagine if it's a pretty girl I'd actually developed feelings for that'd be even worse. As Vort sorta points out I don't think some appreciate a bumpy car ride can result in arousal let alone normal and otherwise chaste human contact. Now if you are doing those things (whether it be looking, hugs or driving a certain section of I-15) with the goal of becoming aroused then we run into problems.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Dravin

[beefche]

Sometimes I get a little worn from hearing over and over just the prohibitions without understanding "why". I'm definitely a 'tell me the purpose' guy. I recently read an article that laid this out clearly. Wish I did a better job at keeping useful talks/quotes organized. Basically, since procreation is so central to the plan of salvation, the manner in which the plan is carried out and new spirits come to earth, it is an honor and great responsibility to have been given such a power, and as such, should be treated with the reverence and respect it deserves. He has only authorized it's use within the bounds of marriage.

ryan, you have got to look up Jeffrey Holland's talk, Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments--he gave at BYU when he was president. He gave a modified version of this in General Conference a few years later (can't remember the name of that one). This is THE BEST TALK EVER ON WHY LDS MEMBERS OBSERVE THE LAW OF CHASTITY.

[will227457]

Pornography use outside the Church appears to be much greater than inside the Church. If your implication is that living the law of chastity somehow drives people to porn, or that repressive sexual attitudes among Church members encourage clandestine porn usage, I think you are mistaken.

of course porn use outside the church is greater, and I am not implying that living the law of chastity leads people to it...I didn't say that or write it.....now sexually repressive attitudes run rampant in the church and may encourage some to look for other outlets......in that I am not mistaken

[bluedreams]

I went to bed last night, having read those two portions of posts, wonding how on earth that could be reality, and any but the most impotent of young men having a chance to be found "moral".

O thank heavens, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who felt like that. Well with the exception that I'm a woman.

Chasitity is a personal matter, set and defined by the self. I've set my boundaries to where I feel comfortable and can wake up in the morning without guilt. I set my limits prior to ever having any sort of relationship with men, I've stuck with it, corrected actions that needed correcting in the moment, and lived contently afterwards. They entail things that others here would not, but it is the place where I am comfortable and feel fine in answering that I follow the LoC.

DICIPLINE is key to controling our desires and living with in the boundries of the LoC

I have learned dicipline but it has not given me, personally, complete control. Dicipline has alllowed me to stay entirely seperated from men when I felt it necessary and to follow the stop signs i've placed up for myself. It has not been able to give me full reign though. To say I control my desires is like sayign I control my back. I can use it to bend over, pick up things, move around and stand. But there are certain things I'll never be able to do with my back. I have learned to control many things when it comes to my sexuality but there are certain things I have not been able and never really expect not to do with it fully.

With luv,

BD

[Misshalfway]

I went to bed last night, having read those two portions of posts, wonding how on earth that could be reality, and any but the most impotent of young men having a chance to be found "moral". Heaven forbid any unmarried male under the age of 45 being given a temple recommend!

Oh Ryan! This post pulled at my heart strings !

Look. Every single one of us, women included, have to deal with the sex drive and lust and desire and all that goes into feeling and expressing love. It's easy for both sexes to get confused! The LoC, I believe, is the Lord's way of dealing with it. There are no answers in not dealing with it.....which would include repression or shaming it or indulging it or justifying inappropriate parts of it.

There is no shame in feeling sexual arrousal. Sometimes I feel it for my H and he isn't even in the room! And that happened before we were married too! I am a sexual being and so are you! We should cherish and celebrate those parts of ourselves. Being moral is a matter of balance and wisdom and mastering of the natural man and that is all. And you know, lust happens. Its what we do about it...its HOW we DEAL WITH IT that shows our morality and character.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Misshalfway

[Misshalfway]

Looks like I agree with you......sexual impulses are normal and I think that to often we make it sound wicked, shameful, or bad this creates a sexual represion that some members find other outlets for...take pron addiction in the church it seems to run rampant.....what is the underlying cause of this?

DICIPLINE is key to controling our desires and living with in the boundries of the LoC

The underlying causes of porn addiction, I believe are the antithesis of what I just said about the purposes or goals of the law of Chastity. It's about dealing. Porn addiction is satans way of trapping us in the worst ways of dealing with the scope of emotions, life stressors, and sexual impulses.

It's not a coincidence that PA is a plague inside the church and with the best of our priesthood holders. Satan is targeting us! It's a full frontal assult that is catching us unawares. I often think that a priesthood holder who has PA as an issue does not show how bad of a person he is. Rather it shows that Satan knows his incredible potential.

[Vort]

It's a full frontal assult

heh, heh, heh, heh...

[Misshalfway]

you are bad, vort. very very bad!

[ALUCARD]

LOL you said full frontal...LOL

[Misshalfway]

And while I am washing the embassassment from my face, I just want to reiterate that lust and arrousal are NOT the same thing.

[ryanh]

ryan, you have got to look up Jeffrey Holland's talk, Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments--he gave at BYU when he was president. He gave a modified version of this in General Conference a few years later (can't remember the name of that one). This is THE BEST TALK EVER ON WHY LDS MEMBERS OBSERVE THE LAW OF CHASTITY.

That's the one I was thinking of!!! I can remember just from the title. SO MUCH more enjoyable for me to read that and understand the why than to read something like Kimball just harping on no, no, no, bad, bad, bad. Thank you for the reminder of where I read it.

Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments

Chasitity is a personal matter, set and defined by the self. I've set my boundaries to where I feel comfortable and can wake up in the morning without guilt.

I agree with that in part, but it's also a potentially dangerous line of justification. Whether or not a person feels guilt for something isn't the only definition of right or wrong. Some things can be wrong, even if person doesn't feel guilty for it.

Look. Every single one of us, women included, have to deal with the sex drive and lust and desire and all that goes into feeling and expressing love.

Ok, tangental sarcastic, deeply bitter comment - I 'know' one woman that apparently doesn't. Edited October 23, 2009 by ryanh
Merged posts

[ryanh]

temp

Edited October 23, 2009 by ryanh

[bluedreams]

I agree with that in part, but it's also a potentially dangerous line of justification. Whether or not a person feels guilt for something isn't the only definition of right or wrong.

Very much true....well sort of now that I think about it. No matter my justifications I'll usually have some sense of guilt or prick of conscience for doing something wrong. I can usually trust it. Sense of guilt can be deceiving cuz we're often very good at self-deceoption. What i meant is more so that I'm comfortable with my stance even if others would not be.

Ok, tangental sarcastic, deeply bitter comment - I 'know' one woman that apparently doesn't

Make that two....I knew this one woman was so squeaky clean from a libido that she tried to make the argument that men were not to lust (lust in this sense of desire sexually) after any woman...including their wife. I've heard some crazy things mentioned when it comes to sex in the church, but that topped the cake. It was a good thing I wasn't the teacher cuz I'm pretty sure I would have said something along the lines of "are you nuts!" before I even realised my mouth had moved.

With luv,

BD

[Guest Alana]

I am a robot, BEEP BEEP BEEP

[Dravin]

I am a robot, BEEP BEEP BEEP

Either that or you've been eating to much Graham flour.

[justbeforeeternity]

I'm having trouble seeing how it is physically possible for a person to NEVER get aroused, especially a man. I am a female, but even I have intimate, passionate feelings toward my boyfriend. How can a girl know she is PHYSICALLY attracted to a man without feeling some sort of spark? If I touch a guys hand and feel nothing, I might as well be holding a stone. I spend eternity with a man that I can't be physically attracted to. I also have a hard time believing that any male missionary has gone a full year without masturbation. It's kind of like a biological need for men to do that every now and then right? I am asking seriously because I am having trouble seeing how anyone ever actually makes it to the temple without lying? This comment is not meant to be derogatory or negative, but a serious question and concern. I love the gospel, have been in the church for about a year and a half, but this is something so many young single adults can't get downpat. Why is it that a single though or touching oneself a single time makes you unworthy for the temple for an entire year? Isn't this what the atonement is for? I have heard stories of people who want so badly to be a faithful member, and it tortures them because they will slip up one time and feel terrible about themselves, talk to the bishop, and be asked to go an entire year. How is this even possible? It feels very cruel to me.

Edited October 29, 2009 by justbeforeeternity

[Misshalfway]

I'm having trouble seeing how it is physically possible for a person to NEVER get aroused, especially a man. I also have a hard time believing that any male missionary has gone a full year without masturbation. It's kind of like a biological need for men to do that every now and then right? I am asking seriously because I am having trouble seeing how anyone ever actually makes it to the temple without lying? This comment is not meant to be derogatory or negative, but a serious question and concern. I love the gospel, have been in the church for about a year and a half, but this is something so many young single adults can't get downpat. Why is it that a single though or touching oneself a single time makes you unworthy for the temple for an entire year? Isn't this what the atonement is for? I have heard stories of people who want so badly to be a faithful member, and it tortures them because they will slip up one time and feel terrible about themselves, talk to the bishop, and be asked to go an entire year. How is this even possible? It feels very cruel to me.

Feeling arousal is not the issue. It is just like any other emotion. Anger is a good example as it can be healthy or it can be destructive. It's really more about what we do with our passions that is important. "Bridle your passions, that ye may be filled with love." It isn't about NOT feeling them. It's about guiding them to proper displays. A horse who wears a bridle isn't a horse that is never allowed outside the barn. In fact, a horse on a bridle can run very very fast.

Men, for whatever divine reason, have been given a very wild horse to tame. There is no shame in having these feelings. Boys and men simply need to learn how to train it up properly. Masturbation doesn't help bridle it. It feeds the fire and nutures the wild tendancies. I don't think that masturbation is always evil. But I do think that left unchecked it can become so. If you confess such a behavior, the admonition is to simply stop. Nothing more.