Single adults and law of chastity

[butterfly]

God married Adam and eve. I don't see why he couldn't marry anyone else.

Plus, there is a big difference between lust and sexuality. Lust is rooted in selfishness. Sexuality is a basic element of who we are. Teaching youth or single adults that their sexuality is wrong, or that holding hands on a date is wrong because it could be sexually exciting, is very harmful.

Sexuality is an actual need just like thirst or hunger, and that need doesn't disappear just because you're single. Sexual needs should not be repressed or shamed; they should be understood and channeled in appropriate ways.

[Spaced_Out]

God the creator of the constitution set up common law courts and common law marriage. Much much different then what we have perverted it to be today.

Common law marriage requires no clergy. No signed documents no permission from the government. Just simply a man and woman agreeing to marriage in back yard or where ever in front of a witness. Or living together long enough. I believe the us gov has put a actual number of years on it now to where it's official and can be claimed on taxes.
But still it's common law marriage. Which God put his stamp of approval on in d&c 101 where he claimed authorship of it.

In most cases it is agreeing to have sexual relations without any marriage contract. True marriage is in the temple under authorization. In most countries one can just go to a magistrate and pay a few dollars for registration and the marriage is done and the church accepts it. Marriage has always been an issue of registration by authorized personal - it is the same in every culture that I know of. Common law marriage is the same it has to be officially documented and registered. Just because the law allows person to practice prostitution and sleep around, does not make it lawful in the eyes of God. The law of Moses had many rules and regulations dealing with marriage, it is not something new or something the church has changed. The scriptures talk of fornication which is without marriage.

Some Muslim countries to bypass the marriage requirement they have 'clergy' that for a fee can give you a temporary marriage for a few days then it automatically annuls. Only the woman is not allowed to marry again for a month due to potential pregnancy, which can leads to complicated custody issues. Jesus when on the earth spoke very clearly about this type of corruption of marriage.

[Red]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

[Red]

Are the commandments of tithing or sabbath observance different with adults vs teens?

No, they are different from member to member, and completely okay for temple worthiness.

The law of chastity is clear.

I don't believe it is. Is it no sexual intercourse outside of marriage or no sexual relations outside of marriage? If it's no sexual intercourse outside of marriage does that mean pretty much everything else is acceptable? Oral sex, petting, making out, just so long as you don't actually put a penis and vagina together? If it's sexual relations, what constitutes "relations?" Where do you draw the line? Is kissing okay? How about massages? At what point do you break the law? These are questions I was constantly exposed to growing up and for which the answers were very unclear. No one wanted to spell things out.

I haven't read the manual, but what if "no sexual relations outside of marriage" simply means don't commit adultery? It's like the Oxford comma, there's meaning in interpretation. Let's eat Grandma. Let's eat, Grandma.

[Red]

I agree with Spaced Out that if one breaks the Law of Chastity and drives away the Holy Spirit, he or she will pay, pay, and pay for it, in one way or another, for a long time to come. If I ever find myself single again, I don't think I will risk dating, unless it is a group date or a visit to Church or the temple - no more close dancing or date movies for me. I'd rather stay single than risk my membership again.

Contact or skin hunger is real though and creates its own set of problems. I remember once when I was a single middle adult, with no children of my own, and no living parents, close friends, or siblings in the area, I went years without touching another human being - not even hugs or handshakes. It was its own kind of hell, and one most married men and women can't relate to.

Is the HG REALLY driven away? Or is the fear created by the church the real feeling we experience? In my experience, it was the church that created the ill feeling, not the absence of the HG.

[Red]

True marriage is in the temple under authorization. In most countries one can just go to a magistrate and pay a few dollars for registration and the marriage is done and the church accepts it.

This part bOthers me bc it's not true entirely. The church doesn't wholly accept an LDS couple being married without going through the temple "first." Case in point, friends of mine who did nothing to violate church standards were married civily because the man was a convert. He had been a member for a year, yet because they married civily because of his non-member family and elected to go through the temple after the ceremony, they were denied the temple recommends needed to go in and were told they had to wait a year. They didn't even realize this would happen until after the fact. What difference does their obtaining a piece of paper and having a civil ceremony make on the "worthiness" to enter the temple? Nothing. They were as worthy as anyone else I've ever known but denied it because they had a party before and a piece of paper that says they're married?

[Matchmaker]

I agree with Spaced Out that if one breaks the Law of Chastity and drives away the Holy Spirit, he or she will pay, pay, and pay for it, in one way or another, for a long time to come. If I ever find myself single again, I don't think I will risk dating, unless it is a group date or a visit to Church or the temple - no more close dancing or date movies for me. I'd rather stay single than risk my membership again.

Contact or skin hunger is real though and creates its own set of problems. I remember once when I was a single middle adult, with no children of my own, and no living parents, close friends, or siblings in the area, I went years without touching another human being - not even hugs or handshakes. It was its own kind of hell, and one most married men and women can't relate to.

Is the HG REALLY driven away? Or is the fear created by the church the real feeling we experience? In my experience, it was the church that created the ill feeling, not the absence of the HG.

From what I understand, the Holy Spirit will not dwell within an individual who is willfully, and in some cases rebelliously, breaking the commandments.

[Rose Garden]

No, they are different from member to member, and completely okay for temple worthiness.

The law of chastity is clear.

I don't believe it is. Is it no sexual intercourse outside of marriage or no sexual relations outside of marriage? If it's no sexual intercourse outside of marriage does that mean pretty much everything else is acceptable? Oral sex, petting, making out, just so long as you don't actually put a penis and vagina together? If it's sexual relations, what constitutes "relations?" Where do you draw the line? Is kissing okay? How about massages? At what point do you break the law? These are questions I was constantly exposed to growing up and for which the answers were very unclear. No one wanted to spell things out.

I haven't read the manual, but what if "no sexual relations outside of marriage" simply means don't commit adultery? It's like the Oxford comma, there's meaning in interpretation. Let's eat Grandma. Let's eat, Grandma.

That's one hell of a comma.

[Red]

I was curious about what the "manual" actually said. After reading it, I began to realize how thoroughly American the text was. I've read a lot of books and studied a lot of different cultures and I began thinking that the manual is simply a reflection of purist American ideology. Makes sense though, the church was founded in America. So then I did some reading on the church in Europe. While I have not spoken to many European members, the ones I do know don't fuss over semantics the way Americans do. What I read, though, indicated that Americans are puritan prudes because European LDS (and I would imagine African and South American) aren't bothered by nudity. Different things I read said that when European LDS watch conference, they typically acknowledge that a lot of the comments made are directed toward kids going to BYU or American LDS in general. They comment that it's extremely difficult to find long shorts or sleeved tops and so usually they just forgo the standard. I've always known Americans to be ridiculously prude, but apparently even European LDS aren't even bothered by the nudity in their surroundings. They have a different attitude toward the body. Except America, most countries don't sexualize the body. It's only a body. It's only sexual if you MAKE it sexual.

[JohnnyL]

I was curious about what the "manual" actually said. After reading it, I began to realize how thoroughly American the text was. I've read a lot of books and studied a lot of different cultures and I began thinking that the manual is simply a reflection of purist American ideology. Makes sense though, the church was founded in America. So then I did some reading on the church in Europe. While I have not spoken to many European members, the ones I do know don't fuss over semantics the way Americans do. What I read, though, indicated that Americans are puritan prudes because European LDS (and I would imagine African and South American) aren't bothered by nudity. Different things I read said that when European LDS watch conference, they typically acknowledge that a lot of the comments made are directed toward kids going to BYU or American LDS in general. They comment that it's extremely difficult to find long shorts or sleeved tops and so usually they just forgo the standard. I've always known Americans to be ridiculously prude, but apparently even European LDS aren't even bothered by the nudity in their surroundings. They have a different attitude toward the body. Except America, most countries don't sexualize the body. It's only a body. It's only sexual if you MAKE it sexual.

Yes and no. It's a typical excuse, but it sure hurts the church, its members, and investigators--seen it many times. Open up the classified ads from 20 years ago in a big city newspaper, you'll find likely 7 pages on sexual seekers.

[zionminded]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

Marriage is not the panacea for sexual experiences. Consenting adults who can agree on healthy intimate experiences that are not harmful, criminal, coercive etc., can find a great deal of peace in their lives. Sexual experiences that violate these and other factors inside marriage are also wrong, and in my opinion violate the law of chastity too.

[JohnnyL]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

Marriage is not the panacea for sexual experiences. Consenting adults who can agree on healthy intimate experiences that are not harmful, criminal, coercive etc., can find a great deal of peace in their lives. Sexual experiences that violate these and other factors inside marriage are also wrong, and in my opinion violate the law of chastity too.

Marriage is not the panacea, but it is the only way, even for nonmembers--it's still the law of chastity, a commandment of God, and one that brings blessings by obedience and cursings by disobedience. You won't find peace by breaking it.

[Serragon]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

[zionminded]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

[Red]

It's better to stay chaste when you are dating and endure the temptation and difficulty of not having your intimacy needs fulfilled than to start messing around before marriage and have the guilt of what you are doing propel you into marrying some guy or girl you liked, loved, or were just attracted to, but who would not make a compatible marriage partner and you would end up getting divorced from a few years down the road.

Don't rush into sexual intimacy with someone or you will find the Bishop (or you or your partner) rushing you into an ill-fated marriage soon after. I speak from experience.

It would be even better to not rush into a marriage even if you were sexually intimate. Too many young couples think they have to get married because they "messed up" and that's just not true. You're not resigned to marriage bc you were intimate. THATS what creates divorces.

Marriage is not the panacea for sexual experiences. Consenting adults who can agree on healthy intimate experiences that are not harmful, criminal, coercive etc., can find a great deal of peace in their lives. Sexual experiences that violate these and other factors inside marriage are also wrong, and in my opinion violate the law of chastity too.

Zionminded, I agree with you, I was just showing my agreement in a different way.

[Sarah]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

[Finrock]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

The women were not property to be given to someone. That doesn't make sense to me, that they were given.

-Finrock

[Sarah]

Marriage is to teach 2 people to become one. Sex is an important part of this.

Any selfish gratification of the natural man is a violation of God's Law.

Like when Joseph smith married other men's wives?

Selfishness is when you take something that isn't yours, demand something be given you, expect that something should be given you in return for all your giving, or request something with a feeling of entitlement. Just because Joseph was given many "gifts" in this sense, doesn't mean he was being selfish. God gave him this special gift, or the keys and authority to start this order, and he was given these wives from the Lord. They were not really the other man's property anyway. It is not wrong to be given things, but obviously how you receive those gifts matter. If you receive wives with a feeling of entitlement you are not going to appreciate them and reciprocate by giving back to them as much as you would if you truly appreciated and loved each one.

The women were not property to be given to someone. That doesn't make sense to me, that they were given.

-Finrock

I don't fully understand it myself, but anytime the Lord gives a man the opportunity of offering his gift - the marriage offer or ordinance, - the Lord in essence "gives" that woman to that man. I say this because in one of my Truman Madsen videos, he makes the point that in one of the revelations given to Joseph (and I'm not sure which one that is), Joseph is told by the Lord that He has "given" Emma to Joseph to be his wife. Truman Madsen then says that this shows how marriages are "made in heaven." But did the Lord just hand over Emma? No, she had her own freedom to choose to give herself to Joseph, so I look at it like this - If the Lord says you are free to marry a woman and give yourself to her, and then the woman also gives herself to you, the Lord has essentially given you your wife. So Joseph was given these women in the sense that he was given authorization to marry them. All the men in and out of the Church at that time who did not have permission by the Lord to take more wives were not given wives as gifts from the Lord, but took what they felt they deserved. So one is selfishly motivated, and one is motivated by love for the Lord.

[Sarah]

In the Lord's eyes, the behavior itself is not so much a moral issue, but the motivation behind the behavior is more important and what essentially makes something right or wrong, moral or immoral. That's why I kept disagreeing with Amonhi in some of his threads, because I felt like he was trying to say that some behaviors are always going to be immoral, and our real test is to see if we stand up to God when he commands us to do an immoral act. This is not the case. Sex for instance is a specific behavior, but in one instance it is good, and another it is bad. What makes it bad is if selfishness is the motivation behind it. And if you are having sex outside of marriage, even if both of you "love" each other, that still is selfish because you are taking something that is not authorized for you to have. God has told us when we can give and receive sexual intimacy, and that is only within the bounds of marriage. If you obey that command you are showing love to God. If you don't obey his command then you are acting selfishly. And then within marriage, you have the choice to have sex with selfishness as your motivation, or with the motivation to love your spouse. The man has the greater test here, because he has to come to realize that if he is having sex at the expense of his wife - expecting her to sacrifice for him - he too is being selfish.

Taking a life is a behavior. I think you can argue that both God the Father and Jesus engaged in this behavior with the death of Jesus. They both could have stopped it from happening but let it happen, and actually Jesus was laying down his life to fulfill the will of his Father. But it was all motivated by love, and that makes the behavior holy. We learn that Abraham and Issac probably had all the same feelings. It was the ultimate sacrifice to give up one's own life or the life of your child to demonstrate love.

[brianj]

This part bOthers me bc it's not true entirely. The church doesn't wholly accept an LDS couple being married without going through the temple "first." Case in point, friends of mine who did nothing to violate church standards were married civily because the man was a convert. He had been a member for a year, yet because they married civily because of his non-member family and elected to go through the temple after the ceremony, they were denied the temple recommends needed to go in and were told they had to wait a year. They didn't even realize this would happen until after the fact. What difference does their obtaining a piece of paper and having a civil ceremony make on the "worthiness" to enter the temple? Nothing. They were as worthy as anyone else I've ever known but denied it because they had a party before and a piece of paper that says they're married?

It depends on where you live. In some countries (United Kingdom, New Zealand, maybe others) will not permit marriages to be solemnized within a temple. In those areas the church allows people to go to a temple to be sealed within 24 hours of their marriage or they have to wait one year. And there are even exceptions to this rule. I understand that if a couple marries and one of the two hasn't been a member for a year, they can be sealed once that person hits their year mark.

It wasn't always like this. In the 1960s the church enacted the current policy as a way of encouraging sexual purity and worthiness amid the moral decline of that era. Before then you could get married outside of the temple and be sealed after your honeymoon, though many chose marriage within a temple. It's an imperfect solution, but it was enacted with divine approval as a way to encourage us to remain worthy. The gospel is perfect, but the church isn't perfect. It is an imperfect entity run by imperfect people, but it will help us become perfect.

And don't think I'm some kind of fan boy regarding this policy. I am a convert, the only member of my family to accept the gospel. I would give almost anything to be able to have a marriage ceremony in a nice location, even on the grounds of a temple, then go inside and be sealed. That way my wife would be sealed to me immediately and my family and friends could be in attendance. When the immorality of homosexual marriage was forced upon the nation I heard people speculate that one day the church might be forced to either marry gays or lose their authority to conduct marriages. In response to that idea I thought, "That's terrible, but I hope it happens."

[gkearney]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

[brianj]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

Unfortunately the family know that it's not *really* the wedding, especially if they are asked to come to the temple for a photography session on the grounds. But this is better than not doing anything.

I remember when I joined the church (1987) the leaders were saying to not do a civil ceremony or even a ring ceremony after the sealing because it would somehow detract from the sealing. I am glad that advice is no longer offered!

[gkearney]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

Unfortunately the family know that it's not *really* the wedding, especially if they are asked to come to the temple for a photography session on the grounds. But this is better than not doing anything.

I remember when I joined the church (1987) the leaders were saying to not do a civil ceremony or even a ring ceremony after the sealing because it would somehow detract from the sealing. I am glad that advice is no longer offered!

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

[Lizzy60]

There is another solution to the marriage problem that some families encounter. That is a small temple marriage followed by the couple traveling to another location and a second civil wedding for the nonmember family.

Unfortunately the family know that it's not *really* the wedding, especially if they are asked to come to the temple for a photography session on the grounds. But this is better than not doing anything.

I remember when I joined the church (1987) the leaders were saying to not do a civil ceremony or even a ring ceremony after the sealing because it would somehow detract from the sealing. I am glad that advice is no longer offered!

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

A young man marrying a convert just did that in my ward. I don't know how "secret" they kept the temple sealing, but the day after they were sealed, the Stake President officiated their marriage in our ward building. Both families seemed very happy about the arrangement.

[brianj]

The method I propose is that the couple says nothing to anyone about the temple sealing. It is something they do in private. They then go a have a standard wedding for the whole family.

I don't think this approach will work. Keep the sealing private and you will upset the temple worthy relatives who think they have a right to be present. And I totally understand that position. It is hurtful to parents who are not church members to be denied access to their child's marriage over something they don't understand, and it would be just as hurtful to the parents who do have temple recommends to be denied access to their child's sealing when they know that the sealing is the real marriage and a subsequent ceremony is just theater.

If I were getting married and I had the money, I would absolutely insist on being married in New Zealand. Take an overnight or weekend trip to Ottawa or Calgary (staying in separate hotel rooms, of course), go to the New Zealand embassy or consulate, acquire your marriage license, then fly with both families to Auckland and make everybody happy with a public marriage and a subsequent sealing. And, as an added bonus, if you charter say 20 or more seats between a US gateway and Auckland an airline would probably give you a pair of upgraded seats for the newlywed couple. Of course, buying a bunch of seats and hotel rooms, probably also having a few guests expect you to cover the cost of their rental car, passports, and food, is cost prohibitive to probably 90% of the population or more. And then, if you are from a big church family or marrying into one, then you'll have another 200 people who are upset you didn't also fly them out.

Under the current policy, no matter what you choose you just plain lose unless every invited guest has a temple recommend.