Is this considered against the law of chasity?

[Bella]

My friend and her boyfriend went on a camping trip together. They both shared a tent and slept together, but didn’t do anything sexual. My friend is confused if that is considered breaking the law of chasity. If it is, then would it also postpone the mission of the boyfriend since he wants to maybe go on one? 

[NeuroTypical]

You know what you get if you take 100 boyfriend/girlfriend couples, and put them alone in tents for a night, and all 100 couples say "we didn't do anything sexual"?

Many, many couples who are lying. 

This isn't about breaking the law of chastity (unless your friend is lying), this is about trying to avoid alcohol by sleeping in a liquor cabinet.  Some things are just not good ideas. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by NeuroTypical

[Jane_Doe]

Hi @Bella, welcome to the forum!  You being concerned about the Law of Chasity and your boyfriend's disrespectful to go on a mission are both great things.  So I'm going to be really straight with you here:

 Similar to how riding around on a motorcycle without a helmet and with a passenger sitting on the handlebars shows a lack of many things. non-sexual sleeping with your boyfriend is a REALLY stupid thing to be do.  It shows a lack of commitment to God and your covenants with Him, a lack of understanding of those covenants, and leaves the door wide open to a whole web of sin.

I would make it a priority to study things more, and deepen your testimony.  That is something the Bishop and/or your youth leaders and very much help with too.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Jane_Doe

[Plein Air]

.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Plein Air

[MarginOfError]

5 hours ago, Plein Air said:

I do recall reading in the handbook a few years ago that church callings were not supposed to be given to members who are living with someone of the opposite sex even if it was a platonic relationship. 

I would like to see your reference on this.  I'm not familiar with this restriction in the Handbook.

[Plein Air]

.

Edited August 2, 2020 by Plein Air

[person0]

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I would like to see your reference on this.  I'm not familiar with this restriction in the Handbook.

I don't know about the handbook, but as a missionary, I knew of a similar situation where an investigator was not permitted to be baptized while he was living with a member of the opposite sex, despite the fact that their relationship was platonic.

[MarginOfError]

I could actually look up the section numbers for the restriction on baptism.  But that is not the same thing as a restriction on a calling.  I know that probably sounds insane, but as a case study, there was a certain person in my ward that, if they had requested to be baptized, I don't think we would have been supportive of it (habitual, serious transgressions that were unlikely to change quickly). But, as it turns out, the person had already been baptized and began their descent into this pattern of transgression after their baptism.

Their name came up as a potential primary teacher. The bishop was hesitant because he was considering disciplinary action. So I told the bishop, either call the disciplinary council or give them the calling. They won't progress until you do one or the other. This person became a primary teacher.

I won't say that we hold pre-baptism people to different standards than post-baptism people, but we do sometimes respond to their specific challenges differently. Is there a case where I might give a cohabitating member a calling?  Maybe. Depends on a lot of different factors.  I just think it's important we don't invent requirements that aren't needed, or perpetuate requirements that don't actually exist.

Edited August 6, 2019 by MarginOfError

[scottyg]

"If" that is all that happened then no, no problem. The Law of Chastity revolves around sexual relations. What if they were watching a movie and fell asleep on the couch? No problem, as sleeping is not the problem...the problem is physical interactions that are meant to be reserved between a husband and a wife, and placing ourselves in compromising situations that can lead to trouble. The use of the word "sleeping" in our culture has more than 1 meaning.

Just sleeping (as in Zzzz) - not a problem.

Sharing a tent while unmarried - definitely a bad idea.

They should set better boundaries in the future and stick to them.

[Anddenex]

We are taught a very simple and easy principle -- avoid the appearance of evil. If the two friends were just sleeping in the same tent they aren't breaking the Law of Chastity, and they are not avoiding the appearance of evil.

There is a reason why BYU has the policy of no one in opposite sex apartment after a certain time.

[Guest MormonGator]

On 8/6/2019 at 1:06 PM, person0 said:

I don't know about the handbook, but as a missionary, I knew of a similar situation where an investigator was not permitted to be baptized while he was living with a member of the opposite sex, despite the fact that their relationship was platonic.

Same thing happened down here, but I think the couple had an off again, on again type relationship. Regardless, the bishop made it clear she couldn't get baptized until they got married.  

Edited August 13, 2019 by MormonGator

[person0]

44 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Same thing happened down here, but I think the couple had an off again, on again type relationship. Regardless, the bishop made it clear she couldn't get baptized until they got married.  

I served my mission in Florida.  I guess it happened there twice 😁

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, person0 said:

I served my mission in Florida.  I guess it happened there twice 😁

Where in Florida?

[person0]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Where in Florida?

Tampa Mission, but I spent 1 year in Fort Myers and 6 months between Bradenton & Sarasota, the rest was just here and there.

[Serviteur du seigneur]

This just feels so wrong. They shouldn't have slept together, this is just so much intimacy, only for a husband and a wife.

People forgot what are the purposes of dating. And they re doing it all wrong.

Which is kind of sad, because i want to marry someone that is just sexually pure as i am.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don’t know if it’s against the LOC.  But it’s kind of dumb, and being dumb is always contrary to the Gospel whether or not it immediately results in Church discipline.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Quote

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt ^alove the Lord thy God with all thy ^bheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy ^cmind.

38 This is the first and great ^acommandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt not be dumb

40 On these two commandments hang all the ^alaw and the prophets. 

(Matthew 22:36 - 40)

I believe JAG is referring to this passage of scripture, which has sometimes been tragically misinterpreted to label those who cannot speak as heretics.

[Backroads]

I had a roommate (church member) who often had her boyfriend (church member) spend the night. They slept on her bed, clothes on, atop The covers, in order to stay "safe."

None of my business, but always struck be me as too close for comfort.

[omegaseamaster75]

On 8/2/2019 at 10:58 PM, Bella said:

My friend and her boyfriend went on a camping trip together. They both shared a tent and slept together, but didn’t do anything sexual. My friend is confused if that is considered breaking the law of chasity. If it is, then would it also postpone the mission of the boyfriend since he wants to maybe go on one? 

Seems like you are not getting a straight answer here. I will give you one.

No the LOC was not violated IF as you are saying nothing happened.  No need for alarm and no mission will be postponed.

Frankly I would never mention it to anyone and make a mental note to never put myself in that kind of position again.