4 Better Chastity Object Lessons for Youth

[NightSG]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree my 10 yr old does NOT have a cellphone.  And the daughter I mentioned (almost 18) does pay for her own phone, and her car, and insurance.

Been thinking about one of the limited cell phones for my oldest (7) but there's no way I'd hand her a phone without some serious restrictions.  There are a few kid-targeted devices out there that can only call/text a parent-determined list of numbers, usually with GPS tracking and other features like a time based and remotely triggered silent mode so you can shut down all but parent or emergency calls during school hours, etc.  Some will forward inbound calls from unapproved numbers to the parent's phone too, so you know who's trying to call your kids and can relay a message if it's legit.  (Teacher or friend who hasn't made the list yet, or whatever.)

[MrShorty]

15 hours ago, yjacket said:

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect strong LDS youth to want to marry someone who is a virgin-in fact I think it should be expected.  LDS youth should settle for no less. ...Not practicing abstinence demonstrates a lack of self-control and self-mastery.  I would advise my children not to marry someone who has demonstrated that lack of self-control-it will not bode well for a marriage (which is all about self-control, self-mastery and sacrifice).

I don't want to take away from JaG's point that people should be able to choose for themselves what criteria (including virginity) they will use for choosing a spouse, because we each have that right. However, I don't think I am going to encourage youth to put virginity on their list. I would probably encourage them to look at the deeper character traits of self-control and selfishness/selflessness (both in their spouse and in themselves). I think it is because I am not certain about the connection/correlation between virginity and self-control and selfishness. I think NightSG gives some good examples.

Diverce(e)s/Widows/Widowers -- Do we really believe that these individuals lack self-control and selflessness because they are no longer virgins?

Converts -- Do we believe that their sexual histories pre-baptism are rooted in selfishness and a lack of self-control? Do we not believe that they could have developed these traits before and after their baptisms? How do we view repentance from sexual sin? I don't know how many saw the movie Charly based on Jack Weyland's novel. The one scene that has stuck with me over the years is when Sam was in the park wrestling with Charly's sexual history before he could commit to marrying her, and this seemed to be a big part of his hesitance. Could he marry Charly knowing that she had had previous sexual relationships before she joined the church (chewed gum seemed to go through his mind a lot, as I recall).

As JaG said, people can use whatever criteria they want to determine who they will marry. I am not convinced that this one (virgin/non-virgin) is a wise criteria that I would recommend.

[yjacket]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As JaG said, people can use whatever criteria they want to determine who they will marry. I am not convinced that this one (virgin/non-virgin) is a wise criteria that I would recommend.

I'm not talking about widows or divorcees (which bring their own problems and baggage-I would also recommend my kids to never marry a divorcee too). I'm talking about youth, as in they had sexual relations outside of marriage.

?? How is it not a wise criteria.  One is choosing an eternal partner and you are saying selection of a mate based on the 3rd most grievous sin (besides murder and denying the Spirit), is not wise?  I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just telling you that line of thinking is just inaccurate and plain wrong.

Sexual relationships is the basis of society, the foundation of life and should only be used within the bounds of marriage and you are saying that it isn't a wise criteria.  Praytell what does make a wise criteria then? Whether you can have a conversation together?  If one can't actually follow one of the most important commandments God gives, how is one going to actually function in the most important role in life, spouse and parent?

We must live in different worlds.    

Fornication before marriage is a huge deal and one should think long and hard and think some more and think some more, before deciding that they want to marry that person.

This isn't about virgin/non-virgin, this is about following the most basic of God's commandments.

And yes divorcee bring their own baggage, they just do-it doesn't make them (or those who have fornicated) any less in the eyes of God, and the Atonement has claim upon them.  But we are talking about the person you want to spend the rest of eternity with . . . if one decides to marry one who has fornicated or a divorcee, one must go into it with eyes wide open that there will be issues they will confront that other people will not have to confront.

[NightSG]

30 minutes ago, yjacket said:

And yes divorcee bring their own baggage, they just do-it doesn't make them (or those who have fornicated) any less in the eyes of God, and the Atonement has claim upon them.

But of course, we are way too good to let go of the things the Lord has put behind Him.

[MrShorty]

33 minutes ago, yjacket said:

This isn't about virgin/non-virgin, this is about following the most basic of God's commandments.

I know it is cliche, but I think you might have answered the question yourself right here. I don't think that Virgin/non-virgin is the real issue. There are deeper issues (like obedience) underlying the surface issue. I think there is value in seeing past the surface issue and understand the deeper issues. The better the deeper issues are understood, the better our ability to make decisions.

[Larry Cotrell]

True, if people have sinned in the past and God has forgiven them, we should too. However, if their lack of virginity is a sign of deeper disobedience to God, it's probably best not to marry them. It's not about whether or not they are a virgin, it's about whether or not they are living in sin.

[yjacket]

14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I I don't think that Virgin/non-virgin is the real issue. There are deeper issues (like obedience) underlying the surface issue. I think there is value in seeing past the surface issue and understand the deeper issues. The better the deeper issues are understood, the better our ability to make decisions.

I never said it was.  This topic is on teaching Chastity, virgin/non-virgin isn't the issue, Chastity is the issue, which encompasses (for those who have never been married) virgin/non-virgin.

Having said that there are issues that can arise when marrying a non-virgin who has been chaste. We are talking about the most intimate act a human being can ever do or conceive of. Of course there are potential minefields when one marries a non-virgin who has been chaste-but those minefields generally do not involve any worthiness,self-mastery or self-control problems, more of potential issues simply from having sexual relationships with others.

I dislike the chewed bubble gum analogy because it cheapens the meaning.  Having sexual relations is more than just chewing bubble gum . . .  

Edited September 27, 2016 by yjacket

[Rhoades]

On 9/24/2016 at 10:00 AM, ldsnet said:

these lessons keep returning because object lessons work. So what object lessons can we use instead to teach the principle of chastity responsibly and accurately.

I agree with others who have said don't use object lessons for the law of chastity.  Teach it plainly.  ("I glory in plainness" 2 Nephi 33:6)

I use object lessons for some topics, but only to reinforce what is also taught plainly and I frequently remind my students that no analogy is perfect.  I never use them for the law of chastity.  I wouldn't say the lessons "keep returning because object lessons work".  Since it's a topic that Satan really wants to confuse them on, object lessons invite more confusion than it's worth.  You don't need an object lesson to get their attention for this topic.  It won't help them better understand the principle.  And in a deacons quorum you don't need a parable to conceal parts from some while teaching others (Luke 8:10).  You can teach it plainly.

Make sure the deacons are familiar with everything taught in the sexual purity section of "For the Strength of Youth".  It's great.  Read it together.

I've also taught deacons (and younger children in my own home) using this video by the church: https://www.lds.org/youth/video/what-should-i-do-when-i-see-pornography?lang=eng

[NightSG]

53 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

True, if people have sinned in the past and God has forgiven them, we should too. However, if their lack of virginity is a sign of deeper disobedience to God, it's probably best not to marry them. It's not about whether or not they are a virgin, it's about whether or not they are living in sin.

And there's the whole key; what are they doing, not what did they do at some point in the (sometimes very distant) past.

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

And there's the whole key; what are they doing, not what did they do at some point in the (sometimes very distant) past.

There are consequences to our actions and behaviors.  The Atonement helps us change and helps us become One with God, but it does not, cannot take away the consequences. Sexual relations outside of marriage is a very big sin . . ..there are consequences for our actions.  I would not marry an individual who had sex out of wedlock. period, end of story. And I would advise my children the same. 75 years ago, the consequence for premartial sex was generally children out of wedlock.  Now, due to modern birth-control, it has cheapened the mortal consequences for premartial sex (and this is not a good thing).

There are some things you just don't do in life. Pre-martial sex is one of them.  There are plenty of fish in the water who have kept themselves chaste; go find one of them and marry them is my advice to the righteous youth. In marriage we are counseled to not be unequally yolked in marriage. A righteous youth from the start marrying someone who was rebellious and who is now good is probably going to be unequally yolked.  It is unreasonable to expect the whole, chaste youth who has not wavered to be equally yolked to the once rebellious youth. The portrayal of it happening in life is generally for fairy tales. 

Like attracts like. . . which is why in general this isn't going to be an issue. More likely than not the chaste youth will end up naturally with other youth who have a similar background. The individual who had a wild-side in the past but who is now clean will more likely than not attract someone who also had a wild side at one point. It's just natural selection.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, NightSG said:

And there's the whole key; what are they doing, not what did they do at some point in the (sometimes very distant) past.

 Our bishop once mentioned that Paul of Tarsus persecuted and killed Christians and he didn't beat himself up for it after he converted. That's a good point to remember in my view.  We all make mistakes of course, and no one is perfect. 

[Just_A_Guy]

What we did, very often remains part of who we are even after the Atonement has done as much work as it's going to do in mortality.  Trauma victims may still have flashbacks, trigger points, or night terrors.  Unwed/divorced parents still pay child support, and have to coparent with their exes.  Fornicators may be dealing with STDs that can only be managed, never cured.  Divorcees may tend to be deeply suspicious of the motives and loyalties of potential romantic partners.

That said:  I can definitely visualize that a 20-year-old single Mormon's "minimal standards" for what they expect in a potential mate, may change if that Mormon remains single at the age of 30, or 40, or 50.  Part of that might be "desperation"; but there's also the fact that as they mature they may be ready to take on baggage that, as a 20 year old, they weren't ready to shoulder.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What we did, very often remains part of who we are even after the Atonement has done as much work as it's going to do in mortality.  Trauma victims may still have flashbacks, trigger points, or night terrors.  Unwed/divorced parents still pay child support, and have to coparent with their exes.  Fornicators may be dealing with STDs that can only be managed, never cured.  Divorcees may tend to be deeply suspicious of the motives and loyalties of potential romantic partners.

That said:  I can definitely visualize that a 20-year-old single Mormon's "minimal standards" for what they expect in a potential mate, may change if that Mormon remains single at the age of 30, or 40, or 50.  Part of that might be "desperation"; but there's also the fact that as they mature they may be ready to take on baggage that, as a 20 year old, they weren't ready to shoulder.

I agree with both paragraphs. I have single friends that set impossibly high standards than wonder why they are still single or much worse-fall to pieces and get out of relationships (sadly including marriages) when someone fails to live up the those standards. Like it or not life is messy and and we don't always practice what we preach-or preach what we practice.

The other tragic part is that sometimes you can be virtually 90% innocent in a divorce or failed relationship. Why should you be punished if you are the the innocent party?  

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The other tragic part is that sometimes you can be virtually 90% innocent in a divorce or failed relationship. Why should you be punished if you are the the innocent party?  

I see where you're going, though I would quibble with the language somewhat.  "Punishment" entails the deprivation of something to which the person would otherwise be entitled--and of course, no man is entitled to the affections of any particular woman.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I see where you're going, though I would quibble with the language somewhat.  "Punishment" entails the deprivation of something to which the person would otherwise be entitled--and of course, no man is entitled to the affections of any particular woman.

You didn't see where I was going. Sorry I wasn't clear.  I meant "punished" as in "you can't get married again" like with the Catholic Church. Luckily our church doesn't do that. We agree that no man is entitled to the affections of any particular women. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by MormonGator