Chastity

[Bri55]

I have a boyfriend, and we promised to always keep the law of chastity. Then I read that we should not participate in passionate kissing. We have been together for a long time, so we have made out like most couples have. There was no touching in inappropriate places, no getting on top of one another, and it was not laying down. We do French kiss though and I have heard some LDS people say that is bad and some think it is ok and normal. I’m still not sure if I am keeping the standards and if I should stop kissing like that. I didn’t think it was a big deal until I read something by Spencer W Kimball, but we have been together for almost a year and have never gone farther than making out, and we don’t plan to. Is this ok?

[Jane_Doe]

Hi @Bri55, welcome to the forums.

I'm going to start my question my addressing the obvious, and then going into the nuanced.

Obviously ok: basic kissing, hand holding.  The type of stuff you'd feel completely fine doing with your grandma watching you.

Obviously not ok: clothes coming off, inappropriate touching/kissing.

 

More nuanced: things like prolonged passionate kissing.  For this rather than giving a Law of Moses laundry list of do's-and-don't-does, I'd rather focus on the spirit of things: is what you are doing being done to provoke those feelings which should be reserved for a husband and wife?  If you're doing A for the purposes of invoking those feelings or they do invoke those feelings, then I would back off.  

[MarginOfError]

Quote

Strongly tied to the sacred, private parts of the body are powerful emotions intended to be used within the covenant of marriage between a man and woman in ways that are appropriate and acceptable to them both. They are an important part of the love and trust that bond a husband and wife together and prepare them for the responsibilities of a family. They bring the blessing of children. These emotions are not to be stimulated or used for personal gratification outside of the covenant of marriage. Do not touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body to stimulate those emotions. Do not allow anyone to do that with you, with or without clothing. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. -- Richard G. Scott, Oct 1998 General Conference

This is the standard I fall back on to evaluate these questions.  It ties decision to your level of sexual arousal.  If you aren't overly aroused, don't sweat it. If you continue to get involved in these make outs specifically to get the arousal, then maybe you should dial it back.

Keep in mind also that the nature of the relationship may play a role in the decision.  I am much less concerned with adult boyfriend and girlfriend who are moving toward marriage engaging in some make out than I am with teenagers making out on the first date.  

While the law of chastity is clear (no sexual relations outside of marriage), there are dating-in-a-serious-relationship activities prior to marriage that are not necessarily sexual. It isn't always clear to me where the line is drawn for any two people.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Quoting Elder Scott: "Do not arouse those emotions in your own body."

I think this is key.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter @Bri55...but...licking each others tongues may not arouse those emotions in you...but I'd bet a donut it does in him. And I'd bet a dollar that it actually does in you too.

Is it a "sin"? I don't think that's the standard we set for all behavior, particularly where the definition of what literal "sin" is gets pretty blurry pretty quickly. What standard should we have?

Holiness.

On a side note: Why are you together for a long time french kissing each other but haven't moved forward towards marriage? Get busy with it or move on to greener pastures!

Edited June 11, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[omegaseamaster75]

5 hours ago, Bri55 said:

I have a boyfriend, and we promised to always keep the law of chastity. Then I read that we should not participate in passionate kissing. We have been together for a long time, so we have made out like most couples have. There was no touching in inappropriate places, no getting on top of one another, and it was not laying down. We do French kiss though and I have heard some LDS people say that is bad and some think it is ok and normal. I’m still not sure if I am keeping the standards and if I should stop kissing like that. I didn’t think it was a big deal until I read something by Spencer W Kimball, but we have been together for almost a year and have never gone farther than making out, and we don’t plan to. Is this ok?

The simple fact that you feel the need to ask tells me that something needs to change. Is french kissing normal? (i don't have a problem with it) but would you do it in front of your bishop or mother? Probably not, it should probably be reserved fro a more deep and meaningful relationship. While you claim to not have much feeling about it I can guarantee you that your BF does.

If you don't plan on going further along than making out I say back it up a little bit slow things down. It is easy to get wrapped up in the physical aspect of a relationship without really getting to know an individual. you've been dating a year? time to make some decisions about your relationship. You don't mention your age so it is hard to advise.

[faithful_father]

@Bri55 in my opinion french kissing is one of the signs that you're physically and emotionally connecting in your relationship. It's not bad per se as along as you don't allow it to be. If you have the spirit in your life then you have your answer. 

President Kimball has said some stuff in his day that might just have been his opinion. Especially if it was written in the commercial book the Miracle of Forgiveness.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 6/18/2019 at 8:20 AM, faithful_father said:

@Bri55 in my opinion french kissing is one of the signs that you're physically and emotionally connecting in your relationship. It's not bad per se as along as you don't allow it to be. If you have the spirit in your life then you have your answer. 

President Kimball has said some stuff in his day that might just have been his opinion. Especially if it was written in the commercial book the Miracle of Forgiveness.

Hmm. The opinion of President Kimball vs the opinion of random internet posters.

Which opinion seems wiser to harken unto?

Hmm. A real head scratcher. 

[MrShorty]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. The opinion of President Kimball vs the opinion of random internet posters.

Which opinion seems wiser to harken unto?

Hmm. A real head scratcher. 

I know this was written sarcastically, but I will agree - it is a real head scratcher. I ceratinly agree with some of Pres. Kimball's opinions on sexuality and chastity, but there are others where I prefer the opinion of random people on the internet. I have not tried to poll myself to see if I am in agreement with 80% or 50% or whatever% of his sexual opinions, but I know there is a sizeable percentage in both categories (and another sizeable percentage of not sure). So, yes, a real head scratcher. When do I hearken to the opinion of Pres. Kimball and when do I hearken to the opinion of random people on the internet?

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I ceratinly agree with some of Pres. Kimball's opinions on sexuality and chastity, but there are others where I prefer the opinion of random people on the internet.

This thinking is sadly common. Of course you're free to accept any opinion you want, no matter the source.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When do I hearken to the opinion of Pres. Kimball and when do I hearken to the opinion of random people on the internet?

Did you really just say this?

Dude.  This is the internet.  For all you know I'm a 75-year-old pedophile sitting on my poopy diapers watching kiddie porn on one screen while scratching my vegan cat, talking to you like some LDS adherent barely passing for sane.

If the opinion of random people on the internet contradicts the opinion of a highly respected KNOWN real-life personality... always go with the KNOWN real-life person.

[MrShorty]

@anatess2 I would like to hope that I am not making these choices based solely on "Well, no one on the internet would ever lie or try to deceive, so the internet people must be right." I would like to hope that I am making choices based on the strengths/weaknesses of the arguments. Some of Pres. Kimball's opinions on certain sexual topics, in my opinion, don't hold up to the arguments presented by random people on the internet. Some of those random people claim to be experts (so we could branch off into what do you do when the opinions of experts clash with the opinions of prophets/apostles), therapists (similar branch), scientists/sexologists (another similar question), or any other variation. Sure, people on the internet can be some pretty crazy people wearing whatever crazy sock puppet they chose, but sometimes I find the arguments compelling. And, I agree with The Folk Prophet, that it is kind of sad when I find the arguments against one of Pres. Kimball's opinions compelling.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@anatess2 I would like to hope that I am not making these choices based solely on "Well, no one on the internet would ever lie or try to deceive, so the internet people must be right." I would like to hope that I am making choices based on the strengths/weaknesses of the arguments. Some of Pres. Kimball's opinions on certain sexual topics, in my opinion, don't hold up to the arguments presented by random people on the internet. Some of those random people claim to be experts (so we could branch off into what do you do when the opinions of experts clash with the opinions of prophets/apostles), therapists (similar branch), scientists/sexologists (another similar question), or any other variation. Sure, people on the internet can be some pretty crazy people wearing whatever crazy sock puppet they chose, but sometimes I find the arguments compelling. And, I agree with The Folk Prophet, that it is kind of sad when I find the arguments against one of Pres. Kimball's opinions compelling.

My statement stands:  Always go with the KNOWN real-life person.  Finding random people on the internet's opinions as compelling is more than likely confirmation bias - you want to believe them, or you want to find a reason not to harken to President Kimball.

But, what do I know.  I'm just a random person on the internet.

Edited June 20, 2019 by anatess2

[MrShorty]

@anatess2 Confirmation bias certainly could be at play here. Maybe even for both the things where I agree with Pres. Kimball as for the things where I disagree with him. It seems to me that discernment is hard work sometimes. Sometimes the easy outs are some form of "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over" (Duane Boyce has a nice article over at Interpreter from a couple of weeks ago) or "I don't like what the prophet says so I will reject it". I find I don't readily understand the difficult stuff in between.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@anatess2 Confirmation bias certainly could be at play here. Maybe even for both the things where I agree with Pres. Kimball as for the things where I disagree with him. It seems to me that discernment is hard work sometimes. Sometimes the easy outs are some form of "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over" (Duane Boyce has a nice article over at Interpreter from a couple of weeks ago) or "I don't like what the prophet says so I will reject it". I find I don't readily understand the difficult stuff in between.

I think you're misunderstanding me.  I do not condone "easy outs".  But, when you're faced between RANDOM PEOPLE on the internet and PEOPLE IN REAL LIFE YOU TRUST... especially a prophet of the Church, there's no question about whose opinion has more value.

Do not take any advice from random people on the internet.  Always verify such "internet information" with people you trust.  Don't go eating a no-carb diet just because these internet people tell you how good it is and how much weight they lost!

 

[MrShorty]

56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Always verify such "internet information" with people you trust.

Okay -- then let's say that I have verified my opinions against the opinions of people I trust. Some of them are authors of books (where it can be a little easier to verify credentials and such) and others are various other experts in the fields of marriage and sexuality (though many of them I encounter over the internet). However I think you want to parse the "who" I consulted in coming to these opinions, I feel pretty good about those conclusions -- except that they run contrary to Pres. Kimball's opinions.

[Just_A_Guy]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

For all you know I'm a 75-year-old pedophile sitting on my poopy diapers watching kiddie porn on one screen while scratching my vegan cat, talking to you like some LDS adherent barely passing for sane.

Duly noted, Anatess; duly noted.  

Edited June 20, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

I was reading in 1 Nephi 11 in my scripture study the other day and found vs 34-36 to be quite compelling:

 

34 And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord.

35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

 

I'll let my implication as to the subject at hand stand on its own merits for now.

[MrShorty]

I hope I am not wandering in darkness towards the great and spacious building, though I guess one must always be conscious of the possibility. Is every opinion that runs counter to Pres. Kimball's opinion (or other prophet/apostle's opinion) automatically coming from the great and spacious building? Is it possible to hold and express and opinion contrary to a prophet's opinion and not be on the road towards the great and spacious building?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I hope I am not wandering in darkness towards the great and spacious building, though I guess one must always be conscious of the possibility. Is every opinion that runs counter to Pres. Kimball's opinion (or other prophet/apostle's opinion) automatically coming from the great and spacious building? Is it possible to hold and express and opinion contrary to a prophet's opinion and not be on the road towards the great and spacious building?

As I see it, there are an awful lot of people who seem to like to pick and choose which apostles and ideas they're going to fight against. And so in some ways they do, indeed, point and mock at certain ideas. In particular you see this with the likes of Spencer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie, Boyd K Packer, etc.

Whereas I know and accept that not everything uttered by every apostle throughout the years is perfect in every way, I don't really know of many things said or taught by them that if we cling to and trust will lead us away from our Father in Heaven.

There's this strange idea out there that rejecting Spencer W. Kimball's teachings is somehow better for us. Why? How? Even if masturbation doesn't lead to homosexuality, isn't the spirit of the idea sound -- that giving into carnal sexual urges outside the bounds of marriage drives us away from the proper God-ordained use of sex? We like to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- and that's when it starts sounding very quickly like pointing and mocking from the great and spacious building. Adding to that, there is no proof, whatsoever, that he was wrong on his ideas. All there is is a bunch of anecdotal, unreliable testimony from sexual deviants.

As I see it, we either stand and support and defend the apostles of the Lamb or we do not.

As I see it, none of us really has a clue -- so we either trust God, His plan, His ways, His anointed teachers, and His chosen leaders, or we rely on the weak, foolish, blind arm of flesh.

As I see it, none of us really understand ourselves, our sexuality, the eternities, or the importance of these things, so wisdom dictates that we trust in He who does understand, and the watchmen He has placed on the tower who see further and understand better than we do because of their authorized positions, having been placed and directed by God to guide us. To reject their teachings based on our blind positions behind the veil is just dumb. We're a bunch of no-nothings laughing at Alma and Amulek as they claim that Ammonihah will be destroyed if we don't repent. We're Pharisees mocking Christ for claiming the temple will be torn down.

Because we've been taught "sex" by the world, we think we understand, and so we cast off the wisdom of God, believing we know better. We're smarter. We have science and philosophy and psychology! We're so learned! Well we ought to well know what God has said about relying upon the wisdom of man and how being learned in relationship to that is pure foolishness.

[omegaseamaster75]

On 6/22/2019 at 7:56 AM, MrShorty said:

 Is every opinion that runs counter to Pres. Kimball's opinion (or other prophet/apostle's opinion) automatically coming from the great and spacious building? 

No, since the MIracle of Forgiveness was mentioned that is a book full of his opinions, some good, some great and some missed the mark by a country mile.  

 

On 6/22/2019 at 7:56 AM, MrShorty said:

 Is it possible to hold and express and opinion contrary to a prophet's opinion and not be on the road towards the great and spacious building?

Yes, because our leaders on not infallible, they make mistakes.

 

On the whole however it is often wiser to heed their council rather than not. 

[omegaseamaster75]

On 6/22/2019 at 8:26 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

There's this strange idea out there that rejecting Spencer W. Kimball's teachings is somehow better for us. Why? How? Even if masturbation doesn't lead to homosexuality, isn't the spirit of the idea sound -- that giving into carnal sexual urges outside the bounds of marriage drives us away from the proper God-ordained use of sex? We like to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- and that's when it starts sounding very quickly like pointing and mocking from the great and spacious building. Adding to that, there is no proof, whatsoever, that he was wrong on his ideas. All there is is a bunch of anecdotal, unreliable testimony from sexual deviants.

I think we can all agree that masturbation does not lead to homosexuality.

Now the idea that we should avoid this practice is sound, we should learn to control our carnal urges and do nothing that distances us from the presence of God or the ability to be open and receptive to his guiding influence. So the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water,  we should be able to see and understand what the underlying message is as it applies to all of us. However there is a reason that this book is no longer in circulation and is no longer used as a part of the repentance process. In general most people cannot see beyond what they don't agree with and are unable to pull out the pure wisdom and council that we are given in that book.

[The Folk Prophet]

55 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think we can all agree that masturbation does not lead to homosexuality.

Prove it.

(Edit: specifically, prove that this statement is false: "[masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation – practiced with another person of the same sex – and thence into total homosexuality."

Edited June 24, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

No, since the MIracle of Forgiveness was mentioned that is a book full of his opinions, some good, some great and some missed the mark by a country mile.  

How do you know your opinion on the Miracle of Forgiveness doesn't miss the mark by a country mile?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Yes, because our leaders on not infallible, they make mistakes.

Unless they have admitted (as they have in rare cases) that something was a mistake, by what standard do we judge which of their views are mistakes and which are not?

[MrShorty]

I'm not sure that masturbation is the example I would have chosen. Tends to be more contentious. The example I probably would have chosen was his view on oral sex in marriage, which does not seem to trigger as much contention. Perhaps because in the decades since Pres. Kimball, no one from the Church wants to officially endorse what Pres. Kimball stated (they seem to try very hard to say that couples can decide for themselves independent of what Pres. Kimball opined).

41 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Unless they have admitted (as they have in rare cases) that something was a mistake, by what standard do we judge which of their views are mistakes and which are not?

Unless we are going with either extreme (all or none of their views are mistakes), this seems like the $64 question. How do we make this judgement? When is it necessary to make this judgement (some issues are minor -- like the question over Christ's birthdate. others are more important)? What are the consequences of judging incorrectly (either erroneously agreeing with them or erroneously disagreeing with them)?

I don't think I fully understand this issue, which could be why I repeatedly bring it up in different contexts. How do we discern truth from error?