Rethinking the Law of Chastity

Janey, Amen and Amen! Acknowledging the breadth and depth of the human experience and meeting people where they are at rather than expecting them to conform to your life experiences is more likely to encourage those same people to approach a deep, personal relationship with the Savior. Even if you are of the opinion that your way is the best (or only) way, the Gospel as presented in the Scriptures is truly “given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” Keeping this idea in mind, we all, leaders included, should be working to be more inclusive, not less so. The principles you present here adapt the principles of the law of chastity to our various situations and life circumstances, offering hope and potential to more of God’s children. The integrity of Gospel principles is maintained while making room for those of us who don’t quite fit into the “male gaze” perspective of Church members.

At least one generation of youth – probably many – grew up thinking masturbation is evil and right up there with murder. It’s not quite as common today to hear youth leaders talk about it, but it still happens. I know a bishop who quizzes all the youth in his ward on masturbation.

Masturbation is normal and should never be discussed in an interview setting. It is not a sin.

And while you’re at it you could add a section on voyeurism – by leaders. It’s a sexual sin for an adult to ask teenagers about their sexual activities.

Toad,
That bishop should be reported to the stake president and/or to general authorities. He will be counseled and/or released.

climber, Here are four more data points:
3. The church published “the” set of questions to be asked for missionary interviews — masturbation is not included on that set. It also isn’t included in the temple recommend questions set.
4. The church re-wrote the law of chastity question for the temple recommend interview into two parts — do you strive to be clean? and, do you keep the law of chastity? A youth can honestly answer YES to both questions even with a habit.
5. The handbook makes it clear that this matter is not a basis for church discipline — this, there is no need for confession.
6. A confession is supposed to be voluntary and at the member’s initiative — given the power differential, a bishop’s questioning on this matter will elicit a forced confession, not a voluntary confession.

But some bishops and stake presidents don’t follow instructions, and voyeuristically ask the question — and yes, given all of the above, voyeuristically is an apt adverb for this behavior.

A call to a general authority from a parent will quietly help the offending local officer to start following instructions.

“Sexual feelings are an important part of God’s plan …” There’s still the baggage, after marriage, that *anything* sexual with your spouse is still improper. That’s why the question about “Unnatural sexual practices” in the 1980’s Temple recommend interviews were problematic in multiple ways. Is sexual pressuring a spouse into sex unnatural, when your spouse has no desire? There’s people that want children, but not the sex to procreate them. And, is sex with your spouse, after the point of being able to have children, a sin? There was one GA in the past, who claimed he had never once seen his wife naked over the decades. Is that natural, or, unnatural?

Changing gears, my first Mission President asked every Elder in the regular Zone Conference interviews if they masturbated. Yet, there were missionaries there flaunting mission rules (Water skiing! Skinny dipping! Going to a local college bowl game that had no Church school connection, taking trips to sight see far out of the mission, buying local celebrity beer, etc.), or, having serious anger management issues.

Then, we have had the over graphic interviews, where there’s been tender youth getting asked not just about if they masturbate, but if they do any other sexual activities, in detail. Yes, several times this has led youth to try out the things asked about in interviews, because they had never thought of them before.

Again, we also need to stop the chewed gum & contaminated food types of memes for teaching chastity. Those who have been victims of sexual abuse feel worse by such things.

Elisa, Of course, there is no phone number! But if your spouse’s cousin’s daughter is married to the nephew of a general authority, you might be able to make contact! But if contact is made, by call or by letter, appropriate counsel will be given to the church officer. However, no one will ever respond back to you with thanks for the notice and an assurance that things have been handled, so maybe an anonymous letter to the First Presidency is best.

We live in a over sexualized world. Improper prioritized. Suggesting that God is some how inadequate in dealing with all his children or limited in his counsel may be a sign of standing in the wrong place while considering this subject. We are not animals nor are we slaves to the subject. What God has said is true. What this perspective is is just that a perspective based on the perspective that life is all about sex and that value is derived from it. It is a very small part of this life but important. God has said is sufficient. If it’s not clear then more thought may be required. People, men and women that swollow the world’s perspective will never be happy nor align nor make sense of what God has said or intended. This life is but a small part of the eternities. Quite often these perspective seem extremely short sided, as if they are talking about a God they don’t believe exists. Much like the non believers think. It’s a cute analogy and slant but it seems devoid of essential truth and the eternal. We LDS active believers, including women, are the happiest, healthiest and most fulfilled, extensive research has shown because we believe what we believe and have the perspective about sex and family that we do. I know there are lots of different experiences but for the the most part it’s better this way. For some they don’t fit in the mold, most don’t. That doesn’t me we change or distort truth. We need to keep changing and striving ourselves and accept that we don’t get everything we want when we want them but believe Christ that in time all will be made right.

That sounds like the humanist idea of explaining why they don’t agree or can’t make sense of things right now. Blame it on the brethren’s weakness. When it has nothing to do with the brethren but everything to do with truth.

Yes, God has revealed his truth regarding sexual morals, it’s purposes and it’s boundaries and it is not limit to some “prophetic male gaze”. What ever that means. Truth is truth no matter what gender speaks it and to say prophetic and male gaze implies its not prophetic, but only a male perspective. Christ is in tune with all genders and their human experience. He experienced it all in the garden. If he only experienced the male sins and pain and suffering then the atonement wouldn’t cover females. Which would mean all women are doomed. Which is not the case.

It’s as if the brethren are leading blindly, fumbling around, a process of trial and error. Yes, because of the few occasions of “error”, when something doesn’t match a popular world view or narrative or timing, it must be the brethren in error again.

Another thing, the shear fact that you can quote “error” ridden brethren to prove a point makes your argument lack credibility. Who’s to say President Nelson or Joseph Smith are speaking truth then, when you quote them? That’s appears to be belief of convenience.

If there is truth to be revealed he will use those very people to reveal it. He will never use an individual not within the bounds of the authority to speak for him and if we as individuals receive revelation contrary to them we are much more likely to be in error than them. Believe me I have tried it:)

Your personal experience does not transcend God’s truth. Your personal experience doesn’t necessarily prove that the brethren have errored, which is possible but less probable than you having misinterpreted your experience. There is no such thing as individual truth that transcends universal truth.

But I respect that you want to make sense of something that doesn’t seem to make sense. That doesn’t mean that your sense has made an accurate interpretation of that experience.

Using the few and often limited possible understandings to make sense of things eternal in nature like those spoke about in this article leads to many possible and likely errors.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2022/10/31/a-church-ombudsman/

This is the post on By Common Consent referenced above.

Janey, I would love to say “well done” except your efforts, as you say, are a work in progress, so we’re not “done” here. Which I believe is a productive approach, and one that truthfully honors the realities of human sexuality — both understanding from our power to observe and reason in a scientific way, and illuminated by our faith in God. The way you’re structured this for our collective examination, and your ambitious desire to address everything affected by the LoC, deserves credit. This is a most positive approach.

No doubt it’s triggering to some, as demonstrated in the comments, particularly Scott and Wow, whose remarks are confusing to me in their lack of logic I could follow, but nonetheless illuminate a position of belief held by many in the church, realistically demonstrating issues that we face.

I only have time for a few notes—

Could we adopt the concepts of presiding when we describe authority to use or eschew birth control? For instance, a woman presides over her own choices about birth control for her own body, with authority to override outside directives that don’t work for her. Same for a man, though his issues are less layered, he presides over birth control effected by his body, with veto authority. Regarding a married couple, neither presides over the other’s sexuality, but the pair has the responsibility to educate collectively about each partner’s specific needs, and to come to an agreement that honors both partners. This is specific to birth control, but would apply to other aspects as well.

Unwanted pregnancy, birth out-of-wedlock, and adoption are a big, messy cluster of issues within the LoC, enough to derail an entire discussion. Especially since that cluster is adjacent to a discussion of abortion.
So I won’t go there further, except to point out that the approach to these issues historically taken by the church bears scrutiny, and has evolved more or less, and without announcement, from some rather abusive policies.

And this: masturbation is healthy. So is discussion.

I hope this contributes.

on masturbation, I think it would be important to acknowledge that it can become a very out-of-control and unhealthy habit when performed to excess and help should be sought in such a scenario

because that DOES happen a lot, especially for teenage boys, it can become an addiction that gets in the way of doing things like homework or even just interacting with friends and family members, and this can happen long before they’ve ever even heard/read the word “masturbation”

so I think that something does need to be said (to youth), something along the lines of: “masturbation is a natural thing, if you’re doing that every now and then, no big deal, but if it becomes a regular habit that gets in the way of day-to-day things that you have to, and/or if it encourages you to find visual aid for it (porn), then you should get help”

that said, it is definitely something a priesthood leader should not be asking a youth specific details about (even something simple as a ‘yes’ or ‘no’).

But honestly I don’t know what the best method is to introduce the concept of masturbation to youth, parents won’t always do it, in my experience in white-mormon UT, parents were extremely squeamish about talking with their kids about sexuality of any kind and offload that responsibility on the bishop. And a bishop introducing the topic to a youth who may have never heard of masturbation (and thus having to describe how it works) also seems extremely inappropriate. I’m not sure what the best way to go is.

This conversation is super important. I love the framing of the idea of presiding over one’s own body. I agree that the scriptural foundations for the modern church’s teachings on sex are tenuous and unhelpful at best, abominable at worst.

I think the section on porn here, while lightyears ahead of the church’s thinking, is still a bit reductive though. From what I’ve read, recent studies (including one at BYU) show porn use by itself has little negative effect on people and relationships while religious belief about the evils of porn coupled with porn use results in crippling shame and all sorts of behavioral and relationship problems. It’s the shame that kills love.

I’ve also heard some compelling arguments for what I’ve heard called “porn literacy” (which is a horribly misleading term that suggests deep familiarity with porn sub-genres which it is not). What it actually means is having an awareness of what porn is and what it isn’t. It is fantasy. It is not a tutorial on realistic or healthy intimacy. It is made by actors. It is often made through unethical practices like exploitation and coercion. That’s something kids should be made aware of—not just “it’s bad because the prophet says so.”

Porn literacy also includes an understanding that erotic media is not monolithic. There is a vast difference between depictions of healthy intimacy in mainstream media (where intimacy coordinators are increasingly having a positive effect on workplace environments) and exploitative depictions of sexual violence, to say nothing of the exploitation of minors. There is a movement out there that advocates for and produces “ethical porn.”

The church lumps it all into one category and, in so doing, does the members a disservice. If this is a behavior humans are drawn to, we should better interrogate why, understand what it is and what it isn’t, what its dangers truly are, and expand the conversation rather than frightening and shaming people into disintegrating their marriages and self-esteem.

See the novel “God Spare the Girls” for a treatment of these same issues within the Evangelical community.

(I lived for a while in Texas and I like to read)

I will try to be brief. I will preface my comments by saying that much of my own changes in thinking about chastity have come from being in a sexless marriage for years. I think I would characterize much of my thinking as a desire to really understand the underlying moral principles around sexuality that form the basis of the law of chastity (maybe similar to the more principled approach we claim to want to use in the new FTSY).

I mostly agree with principle 1 about identity and self-acceptance. I think I would add — I’m not sure what to call — a principle of fluidity or acknowledgement that sometimes it is difficult to be completely certain about our sexual orientation and desires. In the sexology circles I frequent, there is no shortage of stories of couples who were all over each other before marriage, but then, a few years after marriage, one discovers they have little sexual desire. This could be due to the novelty wearing off, or other life circumstances (pregnancy and children are often implicated), or things like mental illness (depression, etc.), or even normal changes a person undergoes through life. I don’t want to give the impression that I think full on sexual orientation can change, but I think there is value in accepting that how one identifies at 15 or 18 or 21 or marriage or whatever is not a completely fixed and immovable thing from that point forward. What we want and like and value sexually can change through life, and we may need to have the ability to talk to ourselves about those changes as we go through life.

It could just be my experience, but I think an important part of this includes the ability to navigate sexual differences in marriage (if one marries). I think one of the most important things I wish I had done differently is been able to accurately and honestly understand the priority I wanted to place on sexual fulfillment. As a “good, Mormon/Christian boy,” I believed that God wanted me to place low priority on sexual fulfillment. I understood that it was okay to have sex and be sexually fulfilled if, by chance, it happened that way. But sexual fulfillment was supposed to be an unimportant part of marriage, completely unrelated to feeling love for a spouse and feeling loved by a spouse. I have a completely different understanding now. I just wish it had not taken years of marriage before I could honestly talk with myself and a spouse about how important I thought sexual fulfillment was. Trying to look outside myself, I think this discussion ought to extend to all (singles, LGBT, etc.). What do we think a moral basis for sexual fulfillment ought to look like for these populations?

Regarding your reasons for porn use given here, I would (naturally?) want to include a “higher desire spouse using porn/erotica/masturbation as a tool for relieving extra sexual energy that a lower desire spouse cannot receive” aspect here. Years ago, I decided that I could deal with our sexual differences if I could allow myself solo outlets for the sexual energies that my wife could/would not receive. I think there’s a conversation to be had here.

I would not add much to principle 2, except that I find there are some hard questions and conversations to be had around consent and respect and navigating sexual differences in marriage. I don’t have many answers to this, but I will say that one never “owes” a spouse sex in any way — I think consent is inviolate. I also don’t think one can unilaterally refuse to have sex or otherwise engage in navigating sexual differences and expect a spouse to stay married to you. I recently saw an instagram post that said, in short, a man [I would add woman] is not obligated to stay in a sexless marriage. Somewhere in this conversation is a more robust conversation of the role of sex in marriage and when and how divorce is the better choice.

Full agreement with principles 3 and 4.

IMO, as I have studied our rhetoric around the principles behind the law of chastity, I think our current understandings and rhetoric are substantially built on procreation. I think there are many moral implications that come with the ability to bring children into the world, and so I think this needs to be here. I like all of your principles here. If we move in this direction, I think we would need (is need to strong?) to be able to look at the wrong ways we currently use procreation to understand the law of chastity and how changes in our understanding of procreation better reflect a more robust morality around sexuality.

I already mentioned the idea that I think we need a better understanding of what sexual fulfillment means for singles and LGBT. In many ways, the changes to my understanding that suggest that sexual fulfillment is a valuable thing is part of why I think homosexuals ought to be able to marry whomever they like. I think we might need a special conversation around bisexuals and monogamy. I think we should have conversations around how singles can understand sexual fulfillment even if/when they choose to be sexually inactive, which probably needs a more robust understanding of the morality of solo sexual activities.

Overall, I like your framework, and I like that you engaged the topic.

Mike, I know that the number of women who say they have been raped varies depending on several variations, if the question is anonymous or not, and what definition is used. If “had sexual intercourse they did not want” is the definition, then yes it is very high. Gawd awful high. And if it is so gawd awful high, why do the general authorities totally fail to address it? Because it isn’t even on their radar, not something that affects them, not something they have ever bothered to pray about, so they have no answers, except for the victim/survivors to disappear. But supposedly they get inspiration to lead ALL the members f the church. Nope, totally missing the boat on anyone whose life experience isn’t like their own.

Men admitting to rape also gets very high when the question leaves out the word “rape” and just asked the men if they have ever had intercourse when they knew the woman did not want to or was unable to object. One survey taken of college men came out that one man in 17 was guilty of the legal definition of rape. And that is just men who will admit to something that fits the legal definition. If you ask them if they have manipulated or coerced the woman into agreeing to sex she does not want, or purposely gotten her drunk, or it goes up even higher.

So, your point about failing to ask young men about it before a mission is valid. The church doesn’t even consider that a young man might be guilty of something worse than just getting a girl pregnant. They might be guilty of sexually abusing younger children or rape. Both of which do more damage than a child born out of wedlock.

The church wants to make rape and immorality into a black and white issue of what was done, and not consider issues of consent, violations of trust, and all those complicating issues. This is why we get general authorities telling child sexual abuse victims that if they look hard enough they will see how they had some responsibility or using terms like “nonconsensual immorality.” Well, if it is nonconsensual on the part of one participant, it isn’t immorality on their part, and is kind of double immorality on the part of the one who didn’t get consent. And sure, if the child didn’t fight to the death she maybe could have done more to resist. But they really just don’t get it.

The church doesn’t consider the damage done. A teen girl can be immensely damaged by her father or some adult in authority over her just forcing a sexual kiss. It is sexualizing her in a non sexual relationship and violating the trust of that relationship that does the emotional damage. But kissing your daughter isn’t seen as a sin, even if it is a French kiss. I was sexually abused by my father, while my baby sister was only French kissed by him one time. Guess which one of us was permanently damaged and never trusted a man again, and which one was able eventually to heal? It was not according to the church’s definition of how bad the abuse was. It was according to how bad the violation of trust was. That is the sin next to murder.

My husband and I started following the work of Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife this last year. She’s an active LDS psychologist who specializes in sexuality. We’ve listened to her free podcasts, joined the Facebook group that discusses the principles she teaches, we’ve bought one of her courses and we’re subscribed to her paid podcast “Room for Two.” (Best $100 you will ever spend if you want to work on your marriage. Seriously. You get to listen in while she counsels couples, and hoo boy! it’s the most inspiring yet uncomfortable experience to find yourself thinking, “Uh-oh…. I do that too.”)

And only now, after 30+ years of fights and pain and tears is there finally hope for the sexual part of my marriage because we discovered her work. Oh, and if you think only women have hang-ups because of how we’ve taught the LoC, you’re wrong. If you think men are always the higher-desire partner, you’re wrong.

I believe firmly in the beauty of the actual Law of Chastity, except that’s not what we’ve been teaching thus far. We’re improving, but we’ve done real damage because we’re afraid of sexuality instead of grateful for it. There are many, many marriages that are quietly hurting, and not living up their potential, because we don’t understand the principles behind the Law of Chastity. Principles of agency and embodiment and becoming like our Heavenly Parents. Principles that bless ALL of us, married, single, divorced, straight, LGBT+.

Dr. JFF has done more for my spirituality and growth than any GC talk in the last 10 years. When she talks about our scriptures and theology and what God is calling us to develop towards, my soul expands. She’s one of the reasons I’m still active. And as I read the issues brought up in this thread, I keep thinking, “Hey, JFF has talked about consent. She’s addressed pornography. She has an amazing course about how to talk to our teenagers. She helps people in sexless marriages. She has great advice about navigating desire differences.”

She’s writing a book that will be published soon. I can’t wait. Once it’s out, can we have a blog post about it?

bwbarnett,

I will testify before you, God, and any witnesses, any court in heaven or on earth that myself and several people I know personally have fasted, prayed, and sought further direction from God in the temple in regards to the Church’s stance on the Law of Chastity in how it relates to LGBT+ members. And we have received the revelation that God approved of us approving of gay marriage, which is currently against the Church’s policy on the Law of Chasity. You can dismiss this all you want, but I warn you with every part of my soul that to do so would put you on dangerous, dangerous ground. Careful what you claim about other people’s revelations, and their testimonies. And no, I don’t care to hear about how ‘it’s different for the prophets because of stewardship, etc.’ Not one of us claims it as a revelation for the Church to supplement anything. Tread softly my friend.

Late to the party, but sex is obviously the most prominent thing that is covered by discussions like this. A relationship is so much more than just sex however; it includes intimacy, acceptance, love, affection, hugs, kisses. As a single man in the church, these are things that I don’t get. I barely even get dates with women. Obviously we think about the law of chastity in terms of the sexual act itself, but I also miss out on all the other healthy parts of a relationship. “It is not good for man to be alone” and yet (for various reasons both personal and church-related) I am.

Interesting speaker at BYU five years ago pointed out that the collaboration between the religious right, and political conservatives has contributed significantly to secularízate on in the USA. Many of us find the logic of trying to justify harsh conservative policies with the Jesus we read in the New Testament is at best, a stretch, and at worst, seriously torqued.

The authoritarian voice seems to work immensely well with some people. Their beliefs are strongly held, and sincere. Others of us need facts and objectivity. We allow more room for nuance, for contributions from academics and professionals, and our own critical thinking skills.

Deseret News article about the BYU speaker to follow.

I read @bwbarnett’s comments. They just seldom land for me. I wish him well back.

“First Principle: Identity and Self-Acceptance”

The context created by the restored gospel provides the best means for us to come to know who and what we really are. IMO–we can’t achieve complete self-understanding with it.

One Climbs | Steve Reed – A Proposed Reinterpretation of Jacob 2:30
https://oneclimbs.com/2017/01/05/a-proposed-reinterpretation-of-jacob-230/

Chiasms Jacob 2:23 – 35
Chiastic covenant curse
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J41cYHqcOdd4rURQY4_6J4xX7kdVYuYbVd4GsFeST6I/edit#