Girls as "Guardians of Virtue": We Need to Eliminate That Phrase and Mentality from Our Vocabulary and Culture

I have heard the following concept expressed multiple times over the decades I have been involved in the Church, and I can't express forcefully enough how much I loathe it - and how badly I wish we could remove it completely from our discourse:

Girls should be guardians of virtue for boys.  

This is something about which I feel passionately, largely because I have two sons and four daughters - and I believe deeply that such a concept is insidious and dangerous, both for girls and for boys.  It is wrong on multiple levels, but I want to highlight in this post three reasons I abhor it so strongly:

1) It completely misrepresents virtue and what it is meant to and can be. 

Virtue is not another word for chastity.  Virtue, in its archaic form, meant " an effective, active, or inherent power or force; the quality or practice of moral excellence or righteousness" (from dictionary.com) It actually derives from the Old French word for "maleness" and is found in words that begin with "vir" - like "virility".  Thus, "a virtuous woman" is not always a virgin; she is a strong, effective, active, powerful, moral, righteous woman.  A virgin simply is one manifestation of a virtuous woman, and not being a virgin does not negate virtue.  For example, rape does not diminish or rob a woman of her virtue, and equating virginity with virtue distorts virtue and causes emotional damage to further complicate an already traumatic event. 

Proverbs 31:10 ("Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.") is quoted often with regard to the worth of a virtuous woman, but the next 20 verses generally are ignored - and those verses explain what verse 10 means. I highly recommend reading them.  Due solely to length concerns, I will not include the entire passage, but I will summarize them and what they say about a virtuous woman - bolding the things that might surprise some people and setting the description in quotes to stress the highlighting.  (I also want to stress that I believe a virtuous woman doesn't have to do everything in the following list - that these things are examples of what a virtuous woman does.) 

A virtuous woman is trustworthy, treats her husband (if married) well, works with her hands, rises early, feeds her household, purchases land, plants food, becomes physically strong, serves the poor, makes clothing and other materials, sells merchandise, is strong (again) and honorable, speaks wisely and kindly, is active, is praised, fears the Lord, is blessed.  

A virtuous woman is a strong, active, independent, honored person - not a virgin who simply must guard her virginity for the benefit of men.  Women no longer are considered the property of men, and we need to eliminate any hint of that former structure from our vocabulary, even if we generally are unaware of the connotations.  We need to educate our girls and boys about this ancient foundation and teach them to let go of the "guardian of virtue for men" idea once and for all. 

2) Virtue is not "guarded"; it is "exercised"and "developed" and "strengthened".  

That is important, and being merely a guardian of virginity robs girls of developing into the strong, active, independent, honored women they are meant to be.  

3) Both virtue and chastity should be the responsibility of the individuals who possess them.  

Boys and girls together, mutually, should protect their own chastity and exercise / develop / strengthen their own virtue (and help others do the same) - so that, ultimately, virtuous women can marry virtuous men and raise virtuous children to become virtuous adults, in a never-ending cycle of eternal virtue and progression.  Telling girls to guard virtue for boys does more than rob those girls; it also robs those boys in a very real and powerful way. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Commandments - Measurable or Subjective; and, Changing Our Discourse about Modesty

While putting the finishing touches on my Sunday School lesson prep tonight, I realized that it has been a few weeks since I've posted a summary here. We had Stake Conference; my wife taught the following week; we had General Conference last week; I forgot to post the summary from the last time I taught the class. Here is a VERY abbreviated summary of that last lesson:

With the topic being "commandments", we talked about the difference between commandments that are fairly objective and easily measured and those that are more subjective and impossible to measure consistently or universally. Since the students had mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity in the first week's lesson, we focused on those commandments again - and added modesty as another discussion point.

First, I asked the students to list the things that are part of the Word of Wisdom. All of the first answers they gave were the things from which we abstain, with the things that are encouraged coming after the forbidden things. We talked about how easy it is to define and quantify the prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom - how they are easily enforced - and how that contributes to them being the focal point of most discussions about it. We talked about how impossible it would be (or how bad it would be) if local leaders had to try to enforce the more ambiguous aspects of meat, fruit, vegetable and grain consumption, for example.

We then talked about the Law of Chastity and how there are some things that clearly are forbidden for everyone, while there are other aspects that are more open to individual interpretation - and how local leaders often view and enforce the more subjective aspects differently, especially with respect to teenagers.

We spent most of our time talking about the principle of modesty and what it means in its fullest, purest sense - moderation, in all things. We talked about how we focus almost completely on how we dress when we talk about modesty- and how we focus inordinately on how women dress. Every student, male and female, understood that distinction and thought it was wrong without any need for convincing from me - and their conservative / liberal orientation didn't make any difference in that regard. We talked about how there is almost no way to "measure" modesty of dress universally and have a definition that everyone will accept and upon which they will agree. (As a simple example, I had the shortest and the tallest students stand and asked how long a modest skirt would be that both of them could wear. That caused some serious laughs, but we talked about how even anatomy-focused measurements [like covering the knee] are arbitrary standards that are culturally-based.) We talked about modesty in language - and in house size - and in car purchase - and in cost of clothing - and in any other way that deals with moderation as a principle.

I finished the lesson with a direct statement to all of them. I told them flat-out that we need to quit blaming women (of any age) for the thoughts of men (of any age). I told them that I believe in the principle of modesty, but that I do NOT believe in it as a way for one group to control the thoughts of another group. I told them that if a man lusts after a woman he is not justified in blaming the woman for it, no matter what she wears or how she acts. I told them the way we often talk in the Church seems to blame the women and/or put the responsibility on them to keep the men's thoughts in line - and that such statements are wrong, and the students need to help put a stop to it in their own spheres of influence.

Two of the young women in the group thanked me specifically after the class for that part of the lesson.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: The "What" and "Why" of Commandments; or, Often, We Emphasize the Wrong Thing

Last Sunday was the first lesson about commandments, the topic for this month.  To lay the groundwork for the rest of the month, we focused on two important questions:

What are commandments?

Why do we keep the commandments?  

I told the students that these questions sound like simple, Primary questions but that we were going to go a lot deeper and try to see them in their broadest, most powerful terms.  I then asked everyone to tell me what the word "command" means.  The responses included the following:

direction; order; advice; counsel; guideline; requirement 

I divided the list into two groups and asked them to tell me the difference between the groups:

order; requirement 

direction; advice; counsel; guideline 

They saw immediately that the first group described things that must be done (things that were harsher or might even include an element of force or strong expectation), while the second group described things that were more like suggestions (things that were softer and carried no hint of absolute necessity - things that were much more up to personal choice to accept or ignore).  Given that fundamental difference, the first group ("order; requirement") is the only group that fits "command". 

To emphasize the difference, I explained how "Let there be light" is translated in English and in Japanese (which is translated from German).  In English, as worded above, there is a feeling of almost benevolence and gentleness (of direction; advice; counsel; guideline) - as if God had said, "I will allow there to be light."  In Japanese, the wording is, "Hikare ga are" - which translates as an unyielding command that light exist, as if God had said, "There is going to be light, because I am God and command it to exist."  The follow-up statement that God "saw the light, that it was good" also carries an element of supervision - that God oversaw the process to ensure that the result was what he had commanded. 

I then asked the students who they should follow completely - in whom should they invest the ability to command them and their actions.  They immediately focused on God and understood when asked that obeying anyone else completely as a "commander" is "relying on the arm of flesh" and giving up individual agency.  We talked again, as we have in the past, about Lucifer's plan - about how the ONLY difference in the plan's was the focus on forced obedience vs. individual agency free of coercion (and the consequences of that difference).  That difference is encapsulated in our 11th Article of Faith, which says:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  

I simply pointed out that "all men" means "all people" - and that includes members of the LDS Church, as well.  Yes, we sustain and support our leaders and give deference to them and what they ask of us - but we do NOT obey any mortal leader as if s/he was God.  We always have to rely on our own consciences and ask ourselves, whenever any mortal asks or tells us to do something, whether or not what is being asked of us is in line with or opposed to our own conscience and what we believe God would command.  What mortals ask of us is "direction; advice; counsel; guideline", not "order; requirement; command".  Without that distinction, we risk putting mortals in the place of Lucifer and obeying for no other reason than we are told to obey.  That makes us no different than animals - or, in Mormon-speak, confined to our "natural (wo)man". 

We then focused on the "why" of keeping commandments.   The students gave the following answers to that question:

to be protected; to gain help and strength; to be happy 

I asked the students to name some commandments that protect us, and they mentioned the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity.  Given the complexity of the discussion I wanted to have about why we keep the commandments, I stopped them there, and we focused on those two commandments.  

I took them through a discussion of how those two commandments could be taught: either through a focus on being protected or through a focus on gaining help and strength - and how each approach influences how we talk about being happy. 

With the Word of Wisdom, focusing on protection emphasizes the "don't" statements (strong drinks, tobacco, hot drinks, meat, etc.), while focusing on gaining help and strength emphasizes the "do" statements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruits, meat, etc.).  The "consequences" of obedience are "receiv(ing) health in their navel and marrow to their bones," "find(ing) wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures," "run(ning) and not be(ing) weary," "walk(ing) and not faint(ing)" and, ultimately, being passed over by the destroying angel.  I simply pointed out that there is NO distinction in the revelation between the "don't" and the "do" statements (nothing to indicate one is more important than the other) - and that when we focus solely on what we should not do and skip what we should do we are not keeping this commandment fully.  We focus on the "don't" verses primarily in an attempt to gain protection, but ignoring the "do" verses robs us of an important element of gaining help and strength and being happy. 

With the Law of Chastity, this difference is even more stark.  

We talked about the ways obeying the Law of Chastity protects us (avoiding sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, emotional harm, betrayal, etc.), and then I asked them why that just isn't enough in our modern world.  They didn't get it at first, so I asked them how our world now is different than it was in the past relative to the consequences of sex.  One of them said, simply, "protection" - so we talked about how birth control, contraception, abortion, etc. are so readily available now that many people might blow off the idea of keeping the Law of Chastity as a means of protection.  To avoid the obvious, natural consequences, they can say they are being protected even if they have sex.  (Obviously, that isn't 100% accurate, but people can and do make that claim - especially teenagers and young adults.)  Given that reality, I asked them how keeping the Law of Chastity provides help, strength and happiness.  

We were almost out of time, so we focused the discussion on self-control, trust, emotional stability and, ultimately, how all of those benefits and more help us become like God and become less animalistic or "natural".  We talked about how the Law of Chastity is "unnatural" and, therefore, must include blessings and benefits beyond just physical protection.  

To end the discussion, I pointed out how both the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity can be taught positively (focused on benefits, now and in the future) or negatively (focused on fear and/or punishment, now and in the future).  I told them that people respond to different motivations, so I understand why both a negative and positive approach are used - but, personally, I am motivated much more by the idea of actively gaining strength and help to protect myself than I am by being protected by inaction while living in a cocoon of fear.  I don't like to obey commandments passively (meaning simply not doing things because I'm told not to do things); I prefer to obey commandments actively (meaning doing things for reasons that are important to me).

Sometimes, the Presentation and Attitude Are More Important than the Words

I had an interesting experience in Sacrament Meeting a few years ago, and I have thought about it off and on ever since: 

The first speaker talked about repentance - and, as strongly as feel about how we tend to present only a small, simplistic view of repentance in the Church, I ended up enjoying the talk, mostly. The speaker had a good sense of humor, was self-deprecating and used personal experiences of when he'd screwed up to illustrate his points. "Doctrinally" I had a few issues that could have been bigger - but his approach and attitude overcame those issues.

The second speaker (the High Councilor) talked about the Law of Chastity - and my experience with the first talk was magnified throughout the second talk. There were more aspects for me over which I could have taken issue (and those issues were deeper for me), but, in the end, I was impressed by something that hit me hard - and I mean really, truly HARD:

He obviously was sincere - and trying his best to be compassionate, understanding and empathetic. His delivery method and attitude were humble, even as probably 2/3 of his talk was content I never would have chosen for a talk about that topic - and 1/2 of that content I couldn't have said over the pulpit if I'd tried (like some of his description of pornographic imagery - even not in explicit terms - since I believe that only brings such images into the minds of those who need help the most without actually helping them in any way).

I didn't know either speaker - had never talked at length with either of them. All I had was their words and their presentation of those words - and, in the end, what I FELT about them as I listened outweighed what they actually said. I felt like they were good, sincere people doing the best they could to help others - so the fact that I believed that some of what they said wasn't helpful in the slightest and, in a few cases, actually incorrect, didn't mean as much as that impression. I cut them slack because of what I felt, when I would have been more critical if I had felt differently about them.

It's true that often we overlook things people say if we love them - so I try to learn to love people who see and say things differently than I do. 

A Post about Sex and How We Tend to Deal with It in the LDS Church

I, like nearly all people, am a sexual person, but my view of sex and my view of my own married status channels the expression of my sexuality. I'm fortunate in my situation, being Mormon and marrying my high school sweetheart shortly after my mission (which was perfect for me), since it's much harder for single adult Mormons to have any outlet that is seen by the group as proper. I just don't accept some of the commonly accepted boundaries, meaning I define sexual sin quite differently in some cases than many members do. The point isn't exactly how I define specific things; it's that I define them in the way that makes the most sense to me, based on my own view but not compromising what I see as the spirit of the law in any way. I take responsibility for that view and the results - thus, becoming an "agent unto myself".

In saying that, I uphold the concept and principle of a Law of Chastity - absolutely. I just have my own view of it - one that makes sense to me and works in directing my sexuality and the expression of it.  It is influenced most dramatically by the definition presented in the temple endowment, but it also is influenced by the terrible damage I have seen done by the overly-strict, Victorian definitions I have observed throughout my life. 

Just to clarity a bit:

I believe it's not the sexual feelings in and of themselves that are "bad" or "evil" in any way (with some exceptions, of course). Rather, it's what we do with the feelings that can be bad, evil, good or holy.

I believe it's not technology itself that is bad or evil in any way (with no exceptions). Rather, it's what we do with the technology that can be bad, evil, good or holy. (and we can do lots of things with technology in this day and age to remain close to our loved ones that were unavailable to people only a few decades ago - like texting, voice and video communication, etc.)

I believe it's not sex or sexual activity in and of itself that is bad or evil in any way (with some exceptions, of course). Rather, it's what we do with sex and sexual activity that can be bad, evil, good or holy.

It's determining exactly what is bad, evil, good or holy that is the issue - and I tend to me more . . . expansive . . . in my view of what CAN be good and holy in some cases and situations and less . . . restrictive . . . in my view of what automatically IS bad or evil in all cases and situations.

Just as an example, without getting into any specifics, there are some things I believe one spouse can't do (for whatever reason) within a marriage and other things that that spouse could do but the other spouse can't do. They shouldn't do those things that either of them can't do - again, for whatever reason. However, there also are things one spouse might have no problem doing in a marriage that the other spouse "naturally" or instinctively wouldn't do (perhaps as a result of having been raised in a highly conservative household) - but, after discussing those things, they might come to agree about some of them and not about others. Therefore, what they actually do might change somewhat over the years - not because of any Absolute Truth belief about anything, really, but rather because they both agree that there's nothing bad or evil about those things in and of themselves and for them as a couple.

In a way, what I'm saying is that a couple can embrace part of the "natural (wo)man" feelings they have with regard to sexual activity - in such a way that they can transform those feelings into actions that are fine with both of them but which both of them feel would not be fine outside of marriage - and with which other people might not be fine even in their own marriages - and with which their own parents might not be fine. (I use "might not", because I can't be sure in the case of my own and my wife's parents - and don't want to know, frankly.)

I understand why people tend to take their own temptations and what works for them and extrapolate that to everyone. I understand why leaders tend to take what works for them and create rules that they firmly believe will work for everyone. I also understand that, in many cases, what works for some people and the rules they create actually do work for lots and lots and lots of people. I'm just saying that I personally believe in trying to understand myself and my wife and what works for us.

I believe the concept and principle of the Atonement covers any natural guilt, restraint, "sin", punishment or limitation that might exist without it and frees me to just work on understanding myself (and others) - and progressing and "being" the best "I am" possible for me. It allows me to shed the Victorian attitudes all around me without rushing pell-mell into the hedonistic attitudes all around me - to try to create a proper balance in my life. It allows me to chill out a bit and just focus on me - and not try to force others to see and act exactly like I see and act, even with regard to sexual matters (with some exceptions at the extremes, of course).

Again, I support fully the concept of a Law of Chastity and believe there are certain non-negotiable, universal prohibitions that ought to exist within such a law (such as the creation and dissemination of hard-core pornography, mostly for the abominable abuses and messages that are inherent in its production - an aspect about which I believe we talk far too little in the Church) - but I believe we have built too many hedges about the Law of Chastity and, in some cases, are in danger of losing sight of the pure law itself or altering it so significantly that it ceases to be the powerful force for good that it would be otherwise. 

Teaching the Law of Chastity: We Simply Must Be More Open about How Great Sex Can Be

I love teaching the Law of Chastity in adult classes in the Church - but I'm weird that way. I teach it very, very differently than most people, and I like to see people's reactions.

We had a lesson about the Law of Chastity in High Priests Group a couple of years ago (yeah, with men who generally are grandfathers), and the teacher (whom I love) started the lesson with a joke he heard personally at a conference in Utah for LDS marriage counselors. Vaughn J. Featherstone was the one who told it, so I'm just passing on the words of a General Authority (*grin*):

A man walked up to his wife with his hands cupped in front of him and said, "If you can guess what's in my hands, we'll have sex." She smiled and responded, "an elephant." He opened his hands, revealing nothing there, and said, "Close enough!!"

The teacher then talked about "the elephant in the room" with regard to the Law of Chastity - that almost everyone wants sex, and that it's a WONDERFUL thing. When we focus only on the "bad" use, we end up re-enforcing the idea that sex itself is vulgar or "dirty" or shameful in some way - which feeds right into many pornographic presentations and other harmful depictions.

When homosexuality was discussed, one of the men in the group immediately said, "We have to be VERY careful we don't end up judging people when we talk about this." I mentioned how glad I am that the Church has moved away from the mistaken idea that homosexual attraction is "unnatural" - that we are beginning to realize how complicated human sexuality is and write policy accordingly.

It was a great lesson.

We talked about the Law of Chastity in a High Council training later that week, largely because one of the Stake Presidency members attended the High Priests Group class and was impressed by the lesson. Near the end, when we talked about how to teach the Law of Chastity to our children, youth and young adults, I mentioned that we simply MUST start by making sure they know sex is great (generally) and that we like it. I mentioned that all of my children know my wife and I have sex and that we enjoy it greatly - and it is from that foundation that we teach about it and why we believe in limiting it to marriage. Some of the people there were a bit shocked, I think, that I was so open about it, but not one of them objected in any way - and I was the youngest person there.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Family Proclamation; Part 2

Last Sunday, we talked about the rest of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". This is going to be long, since we went through the all but the first three paragraphs (covered last week) sentence-by-sentence and talked about what each sentence means.

I began the lesson by reminding them that I had skipped the sentence last week dealing with gender, identity and purpose, and I told them that I had thought a lot about how to address that sentence openly and honestly with them. I told them that my own view on those topics is outside the norm for most members - that it is not orthodox - and that I didn't feel comfortable sharing that view with them as their Sunday School teacher. I told them that I would be wiling to discuss it with any of them on an individual basis, as long as their parent(s) approved, but that we simply would skip it in the setting of a Sunday School lesson.

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

We talked about that first commandment - to multiply and replenish the earth. I mentioned that some people can't have kids and others never marry, so this isn't a universal commandment that must be followed, but rather a commandment for those who can multiply within marriage. For example, I told them explicitly that I would rather have someone die single than marry just to marry and end up being miserable and/or abused their entire lives. We also talked about the fact that the LDS Church has NO mandate relative to how many children any couple should have and that there are top leaders who don't have large families - and, in some cases, have no children or are not married.


We talked about how in the temple Adam and Eve report their partaking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden to the Lord - and how, in a very real way, Adam chose to suffer with his wife rather than remain in paradise with God.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

We put it in direct, simple terms: No sex outside of marriage - and I pointed out that there is no prohibition in this wording on intimacy that is not procreative. I mentioned our previous lesson about the actual wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple and how the Church does not take any official stance on what can and cannot be done within marriage.

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."

We put it in direct, simple terms, which started as, "Sex is good." I told them the sentence goes further than that by calling it divinely appointed. I told them that I hate it when I hear any member of the LDS church echo the old Catholic original sin concept and call sex bad, dirty, or in any other way that implies negative connotations.

"We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan."

I asked them what that means and what issues are addressed in it. One of the students said, "No abortion" - so we talked about the Church's official statement about abortion. We talked about how it emphasizes that life is sacred, but it also mentions explicit cases where abortion is not forbidden - like rape, incest, the health of the mother (and I mentioned that the wording includes emotional health, not just physical health). It also says, ultimately, that the decision is up to the parent(s) involved. We talked about how the Church no longer encourages teenage mothers to marry the father in all cases or have the grandparents raise the child - that the counsel is to give birth to the child and allow it to be adopted. We talked about why that is the current counsel - all of the issues related to teenage parenthood and marriage and the effects on the parents and the baby. I told them that we do not see abortion automatically as murder, like many other people do. I told them that the best description I have heard of the statement is that it is BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice - but that, ultimately, it is based on agency and individual accountability.

The next paragraph deals with caring for children and how God will hold people accountable for how they do that. There was a very good talk in Sacrament Meeting about that basic topic given by one of the students in the class, so I endorsed what was said in that talk and we moved on to the next paragraph.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."

I simply reiterated what I said last week about being aware of and sensitive to how we teach that within a group that includes many people who are not part of traditional families.

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

I told them I believe deeply in the "general ideal" being taught in this sentence, but that I am bothered by how badly it is misused by some people. We talked about what "entitled" means (possessing a right), so this sentence is focused on what would be ideal for children - to be raised by a couple who are faithful to each other. I asked them if they would support taking children away from single parents - or putting children into abusive situations simply because the parents were married and monogamous. They all agreed they wouldn't do that, so I emphasized again, like when we talk about interpreting scriptures, that we can't pull something out of context and use it in selective, damaging, uncharitable ways.

The rest of the paragraph deals with happiness in family life and parental responsibilities, and since we have talked about that paragraph in at least two former lessons, we simply emphasized that it is up to each couple to decide how to balance the things they have to do to care for their families. As an example, I mentioned that I know some Mormon couples where the husband stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works - and that such an arrangement is not forbidden in the actual wording of the proclamation. I told them that they have to make those decisions on their own when they get married and that they shouldn't do anything just because most other people do it. They have to take responsibility for how they structure their marriage and family life.

We also talked about what it means to have a marriage and family "founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" - that it does NOT say successful marriages and families have to be Mormon or Christian or anything else. As long as the teachings of Jesus are the foundation, even if Jesus is not known to the people, successful, "ideal" marriages exist - and Mormon or Christian marriages are worse than other marriages if they are not founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the others are.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity (adultery, particularly, since the word "covenant" is used), who abuse spouse or offspring (in any way, not just physical or sexual), or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God."

I told them about the temple recommend question about obligations for children and how someone is not supposed to receive a temple recommend if they are not taking care of their children - like failing to pay child support, for example.

"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I emphasized that this is focused on "disintegration" - NOT general issues all marriages and families face and not occasional divorce or death. I told them how much I am bothered whenever I hear this sentence used to preach against divorce in a broad, general way - again, because it hurts good people doing their best to cope with divorces that are necessary and, in many cases, better than really bad marriages. I also told them about working for years in places where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 90% - and how "calamity" is a good description of what life is like for those communities and many of the children, especially, who are raised in them.

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I told them that there are controversial things we could discuss relative to this sentence, but I stressed instead practical things like parental leave policy differences between Europe and America - how much longer the leave is for parents in Europe and how fathers can take paternity leave as part of that extended leave, if the mother returns to work before it ends. I told them that there are so may "simple things" like that we need to address that it would be a shame to spend all of our effort fighting people and ignoring the things that actually can improve our own marriages and family lives.

Discussing Sex and the Word of Wisdom With Our Children

I am very open about sex with my kids - and I tell them why I believe what I believe. That, to me, is more important than listing do's and don'ts - explaining why I hold the values I hold.

A simple example of something about which I feel passionately and explain to my children very openly:

I don't want any of my children to drink, but I approach it slightly differently with my girls. I tell them directly that they don't know their own limits until they've passed them, and that if a girl passes her limit publicly, she is at the mercy of the boy(s) who are with her. Boys sometimes do horrible things when they are drunk, but girls often have horrible things done to them. (I know the reverse if true, also, but, generally, girls risk more when drunk than boys do.) 

This is NOT a "scare tactic" in my eyes, and I tell them without pulling any punches that public drinking is one of the leading causes of rape. It's just not worth the risk in my mind, so I tell them I associate the Word of Wisdom in that way with the Law of Chastity - especially for girls.

Sex and Bishop's Youth Interviews

[NOTE: In this post, I'm not talking about "confessions" to a bishop; I'm talking about discussions in an interview format about the details of the Law of Chasity.] 

I believe a Bishop should NEVER ask something specific about sexual practices of a minor unless he has permission from the parent(s) or guardian(s) to do so. It is fine to ask the question EXACTLY as it is worded in the Temple Recommend interview. "Do you obey the Law of Chastity?" essentially covers it perfectly.

Just for the record, I am most concerned about the way the conversation should occur. I believe fully it should occur in some cases - and, if parental requests are required to make sure certain questions are not asked, then those parental requests can be made in friendly, non-threatening, supportive and sustaining ways. Personally, I would say something like:

"Bishop, I just want you to know that my wife and I want to be the ones who talk with our children about all sexual matters - about details of the Law of Chastity. I support you in your calling, but PLEASE only ask my child if they are obeying the Law of Chastity. PLEASE don't ask ANY specific questions. That's my responsibility as a parent, and I honor and respect that responsibility highly. I promise you, we will talk with our children about it, so you don't need to do so."

If he objected or insisted, I would ask to be allowed to sit in on the interview and, at the appropriate time, talk with my child about any issues the Bishop felt needed to be asked while the Bishop stepped out of the room. I would ask him to tell me what those issues were prior to the beginning of the interview. I then would reiterate my request to ask only the general question once he returned to the room. How much I said to my child while the Bishop was gone would depend totally on the child - and, with my oldest, it probably would have been something like":

"R_______, Bishop ___________ wants us to talk about some specifics of sex - like ____ and ____________. We've talked about these before, and you can talk with me again at any point, so we've talked about it now. Is there anything you want to discuss? If not, let's talk about other stuff for a few minutes, let him back in and have you answer his question when he asks it. OK?" 

I believe totally that some parents do a lousy job of talking about sex with their kids, but that responsibility should not be the Bishop's.  I understand that many youth don't have parents who will talk with them about sex (or, if they did, it would be in a totally inappropriate way), but I would MUCH rather that discussion be had in a group setting conducted by the Bishop than behind closed doors with just the Bishop and a young man - and especially with just the Bishop and a young woman.  I also would prefer the conversation to be between a youth and a called youth leader of the same sex, if a more private conversation would be better. 

Sexual Sins Are NOT Next to Murder

I think the whole "sexual sins are next to murder" idea is a flawed interpretation of the passage in Alma from which the idea is taken.  I believe sexual sins are serious - and many of them are extremely serious, but, as a general, all-encompassing category or in every particular instance, I believe they are not next to murder as the third most serious sins possible to commit.  (The first is denying the Holy Ghost.) 


This is what Alma 39: 2-5,13 actually says, with my own bolding for emphasis:

2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.
4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
13 . . . that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly . . .

So, Corinaton did all of the following:

A) Boasted in his own strength, thus denying God and God's place in his ministry (seriously not good - of the highest order, almost);

B) Forsook his ministry (seriously not good - right up there in seriousness);

C) Consorted with a harlot - while serving as a missionary (seriously not good - pretty high up on the list of sexual sins, given his calling at the time);

D) Led others away from the Church of his father and caused them to sin and "do wickedly" (seriously not good).

Alma 
Alma said, "THESE things are an abomination" - not "THIS thing".    

[It is important to note that, as far as we know, the "worst" sexual sin Corianton probably committed was "fornication" - since we have no indication that he was married at the time of the mission in question.  He might have been, but that is not specified anywhere in the account.  Further, since all we actually have in the record is that he went after a harlot, we don't even know for sure that he committed fornication.  Also, Jesus is quoted as having taught that the abuse of children is so serious that it would be better for an abuser to have never been born than to commit such a sin.  Finally, in our own day, there is a clear distinction made between the "seriousness" of fornication and of adultery - so it's not even fair to say that Corianton was guilty of the "worst" sexual sin in the account recorded in Alma 39.]  

Remember, this is Alma the Younger - someone who would know exactly how abominable it is to actively lead others away from God.   He was racked with the pains of Hell for three days over very similar actions - at least in his own eyes, I'm sure. 

In fact, as Andy pointed out in one of the comments on this thread, Alma 36:14 explains how Alma felt about his own actions:

Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

I don't believe it was sexual sin that Alma labeled as next to murder; I think it was the entire enormity of the multiple things Corianton had done - that was close to spiritual murder, in a very real way, in his father's eyes.  I believe Alma carried a degree of guilt over his youthful actions to his grave, based on other passages in his writings, and I think it tore him up inside to see one of his sons straying onto the same path he had walked in his youth.  

I think that is critical, and it gets overlooked when most people read the account without parsing the actual words carefully.

We Can't Teach "Abstinence Only"

I am a practical idealist. I want my children to remain sexually inactive prior to marriage, and that is the standard they have been taught since before they could walk. I don't EVER phrase it as "sex is bad and dirty" (since I abhor that belief and phrasing), but they know what I believe - no question about it. 

Having said that, I also teach them that they can come to me and talk about anything - and I mean anything. After my oldest son completed the process to receive his mission call, we had a very open conversation about his future after he returns. It included some advice that would surprise some who read here and assume things about me, and it is indicative of how I would approach a conversation with my daughters AND sons about birth control and pre-marital sex.  

[Post-script note: There was some misunderstanding originally as to the nature of the conversation I mentioned in the above paragraph.  It was NOT about sex and birth control.  I used it simply to illustrate what "type of conversation" I would have if one of my older / adult children came to me to talk about sex and birth control.  It was "indicative of how I would approach" such a conversation.  Thank you, R. Gary and others, who pointed out that misunderstanding of wording that wasn't as clear as it should have been.] 

My short answer:

Yes, I would encourage them to use birth control if they decided they were going to have pre-marital sex.  

They know I don't condone it, and they know I would be disappointed in that choice, but if they are going to make that choice . . . I certainly don't want them getting pregnant or getting an STD or causing that for someone else. They all know that we use birth control and that we used it to plan their own births perfectly, and even my 8-year-old has made comments that lead me to believe she is hearing stuff at school - so I have no hesitancy talking with my kids about sex and birth control. I think it's irresponsible in this day and age not to do so. 

Bottom line:

I want them to be able to talk with me about anything, no matter what their choices are about that anything. I tend to think that openness and honesty and trust and recognition of them as adults and real education is part of true parenthood.

To phrase it differently, I think what works for Mormons is that we don't teach "abstinence only" as the comprehensive answer for chastity. We teach mission and temple marriage and eternal marriage and on and on and on that ground the PURPOSE for pre-marital abstinence in something other than "mere" abstinence. We give it an eternal purpose that is absent in other theologies. It's grounding sex in the context of eternal creativity that makes it unique and literally empowering, in my opinion. If kids "get it" (even if only in simplified, outline form), they are less likely to engage in pre-marital sex; if they don't, they are more likely to engage.

Is Twilight Porn in Print?

I read an interesting review of the Twilight books that went to great lengths to explain why the books should be considered porn in print. The following was my response:

1) Pornography without sex is not pornography, in my opinion. Just as we should avoid restricting our definition of pornography in such a way that we allow soft core porn to go unlabeled, we also need to avoid the Victorian impulse to widen the definition to such a degree that it encompasses nearly everything that arouses sexually - including lingerie and erotic language and other things that are perfectly appropriate within a marriage. It's a fine line, but it's a line that can be as destructive on one side as on the other.

2) Why is "sexless romance" a bad thing for teenagers? These are teenagers! What's the proper alternative for those who feel they love each other?

To deny sexual attraction and tension in teenage relationships is very dangerous and ignorant. I know a young woman who grew up hearing that sex was dirty and horrible (and that "good girls" don't like sex before marriage). When she first felt aroused and realized how good it felt, she automatically labeled herself a bad girl and decided she might as well enjoy it. A teenage pregnancy later . . .

Again, why is sexless romance a bad thing? We live in a sexually arousing world. My teenagers are going to be sexually aroused - my boys AND my girls. Writing about sexual tension and desire that remains unconsummated is a bad thing? What should we do - write things that don't mention sexual desire or write about giving in to it? I only see those three options. Am I missing one?

3) I understand intellectually the concerns others have about the books, especially some of the messages it can send girls, but I like the message it sends to boys. Bella really loves Edward, and, like many young women, she is trusting and vulnerable - and it would be easy for Edward to take advantage of her. He doesn't. He respects her, literally rising above his nature in more ways than one to exercise self-control and help make the relationship work and flourish without sex. Yep, what a lousy example that is for teenagers. Girls certainly shouldn't fall in love with boys who have excellent self-control and don't try to have sex with them.

4) My daughters are huge fans, and they understand the issues everyone highlights. Their response to me when we discuss the books is the same one I hear from nearly all of their friends:

"We have a choice between books that glorify sex (or assume it's no big deal and unavoidable), sappy books that deny sexual attraction altogether or books that admit it up front and say it's OK to not give in - and that says boys are just as responsible for that as girls. Which option is the most realistic? Which one would you rather have us read?"

I understand what they are saying and, given many of the alternatives out there, I can't argue with it.

5) Plus, to reiterate for those of you who haven't read the books or seen the movie, Edward is not a "bad boy". He only looks like a bad boy to those who don't know him - who judge him based on his appearance. There is a huge difference, and it gets botched constantly in reviews by adults I read. Again, the alternative is to look at someone and judge them based on first visual impression. How is that a good thing?

Do I love the books? Not really. I just disagree strongly with many reviews, and calling them "porn" really, really bothers me.

Unrealistic Expectations: Chastity

There was a family near me growing up in which the father preached against immorality in such a way that the message was, "All boys have raging hormones and need to suppress their sinful inclinations." I know for a fact that this father faced this particular temptation (without ever succumbing to it), so it is "understandable" that he would think this way, but his sons ended up seeing their very natural urges as sinful, instead of natural effects of the Fall. Therefore, they were wracked as teenagers with feelings of inadequacy and failure and guilt every time they saw a girl and even thought, "Wow, she's hot!" At least two of them ended up convinced that they could never be good enough - and they couldn't based on their Law of Moses definition of perfection.

Recognizing that having such a thought is not actually a sin - that at its very worst it is a transgression caused by our fallen state and at its best solid evidence of heterosexual tendencies (*grin*) - and turning to the Lord for help to see even beautiful girls and women as He sees them - could have removed a tremendous burden from their shoulders and freed them to focus on something else instead. It would have allowed those boys to realize that they didn't need to beat themselves up for being human. Rather than their painful and impossible efforts to become "less human" - which led to almost giving up completely for one and terrible decisions for the other, they could have accepted their humanity as having been redeemed already and simply focused their efforts on managing their natural inclinations properly.

How Important is the Law of Chastity?

Sexual sins have been labeled as "next to murder" by some who interpret Alma's words to his wayward son as applying to all such actions. There is a long conversation that should occur about the actual nature of Alma's criticism of his son's actions (focusing on exactly which action he labeled as next to murder in seriousness), but I want to tackle the general idea of the importance of the Law of Chastity without the baggage of looking at all sexual transgressions as next to murder. I want to address why we stress it so heavily, when many situations are seen as (and actually might be) quite benign.

It’s important to note that perfectly acceptable definitions of “abominable” include “corrupt” and “abhorrent” and “disgusting”, etc. If we hold certain things to be central to our liberties and responsibilities and theological foundations, then anything that abridges or alters or violates those standards will be within the bounds of “high level abomination”.

Also, if the result of sin should be considered in allocating a level of abomination, the potential wreckage of family life (that can be seen throughout our modern society) also argues for placing sexual sin high on the list of abominations.

One more thing: A command should not be judged by the most benign breaking of it. Two teenagers making out in the backseat of a car without the girl getting pregnant can’t be the basis for the discussion. The objectification of women through pornography and the dehumanizing effects of prostitution are a much better judgment standard - which is more in line with rape and child molestation (and the actual scriptural account in question). Just as the Word of Wisdom should be judged more by the drunk who beats his wife and children and keeps them in poverty than the occasional social drinker, the Law of Chastity should not be judged primarily by teenagers in a car.

Chastity: We Must Focus on the Spiritual, Not the Physical

There are pockets within our society now where the illegitimacy rate is reaching 90%, and sex as an activity divorced from reproduction is just as widespread throughout most of our society. Those who are contributing to that rate (especially men, but also the women who are participating actively by sleeping with and/or bearing multiple children from multiple men) apparently do not place the same degree of value on these things as we do. Until they experience a mighty change of heart that changes their actual behavior, I don’t see that changing - especially if we continue to empower them financially in the name of “taking care of the children.”

As a society, we have trivialized sex to such a degree that we commonly use the term “sexual partner” - which, by its very nature, offers a “legitimate” option to a “wife” or “husband” and reduces “mate” to its biological definition. When “partner” no longer even implies a contract of any kind (but merely contact of a certain kind), I’m afraid the only choices available to change people’s actions are severe social measures (like eliminating welfare payments and/or levying taxes for any children following the first one to someone who was receiving welfare at the time of - or within an established time frame prior to - conception of the additional child) or deep conversion to the Gospel standard of chastity. Given our obsession with enabling illegitimacy and taking care of all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth (a twisted version of compassion, imo), I’m not optimistic that the first will happen; the latter might be the only option - and that is a very difficult thing, as well, since it requires an unyielding call to and acceptance of repentance.

Again, that simply highlights the need to find a way to make an argument that appeals to the spirit, since we are losing the argument with those who are focused on the body. I just don’t see a way to change or “control” sexual behavior if we focus on the physical / political reasons for chastity. We must maintain chastity as a religious principle.

The Religious Foundation of Chastity

I have two sons and four daughters. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to teach chastity that will form a foundation that will last is to highlight the principle that the central goal of mortality is to become complete and whole (perfectly united with another person - physically and emotionally), and that such a goal is only possible as a unified couple. Part of that principle is that, at the most fundamental level, sex is meant to accomplish two objectives: 1) be an integral part of truly becoming one (which is the ultimate objective of marriage) and 2) be the process of replicating yourself.

I teach my children there are very effective ways to circumvent #2, but there is no way to accomplish #1 without sex - and that “full, undivided” unity (physical and emotional) cannot be accomplished if you are sharing yourself with more than one person outside of a committed relationship.

I think, in our modern world, we simply have to remove children from the equation when we discuss chastity. If sex is only (or even primarily) about kids, and not fundamentally about the joining of our entire souls (body and spirit), then we have turned a religious principle into a scientific issue - and we lose in this day and age of readily available birth control.

Some Thoughts on Sexual Activity and Being "Chaste"

Nearly three years ago, a friend told me of a professor who applied the discussion of whoredoms in Jacob 2 to "petting" and kissing. That discussion is relevant to my current resolution of "Being More Chaste in Thought and Deed". In response to that discussion, I wrote the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the professor was wrong on at least one fundamental level - his application of the whoredom discussion in the second chapter of Jacob to petting and kissing. However, I believe he was correct in his statement that the Lord doesn't care if fornication is homo- or hetero-sexual -- that the sin is the same. Let me address that point from two angles.

First, petting and kissing (of any kind) are not condemned in any of the canonized scriptures of which I am aware. Those records condemn the categories of sexual activity known as fornication and adultery. This broad categorization includes pre-marital and extra-marital sexual activity - or activity of a sexual nature.

We do have a written prohibition against these same types of activities in what we accept as the words of modern prophets and apostles - the "For Strength of Youth" pamphlet. Among other things, it says to abstain from petting, "passionate kissing" and any other activity that arouses sexual desire. It doesn't distinguish between hetero- and homo-sexual activity; it prohibits both equally.

Second, I always try to understand the "why" for restrictions. In this case, however, I disagree completely with the "respect" angle. If I love a pedophile, showing "respect" for his or her inclinations might be a justification for facilitating that desire. "Respect" is far too subjective for me.

In this case, I see a very clear and simple "why." Petting, passionate kissing (NOT kissing, but "passionate" kissing) and other similar activities (including, in my mind, anything that simulates intercourse) arouse sexual desire. Sexual desire can be very hard to control once initiated. Hence, the counsel to avoid any activity that might logically lead to a losing battle with escalating desire for more stimulating activity. "You can't finish what you don't start" is a truism.

I see the smoking and drinking prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom in exactly the same light. If I make it a scientific issue, I lose. There is much evidence that alcohol used in moderation has positive results for many people. I just read this week an article that described the positive aspects of caffeine consumption - one of the richest sources of antioxidants. Yet we are asked to abstain. Why?

Because of evil designs of conspiring men. (Which applies perfectly to those who seek to stimulate sexual desire, as well.) These substances are addictive, and the consequences of over-indulgence can be disastrous -- especially for a drunken woman. The article I mentioned in the last paragraph skipped blithely over a statement that heavy coffee drinkers are much more likely to be heavy users of alcohol and cigarettes. It is impossible for each individual to know, with certainty, what his or her limit is prior to reaching it. Because it is not always easy to know those who are weak and prone to misuse, the prohibition has been "adapted to the weakest of the weak who are and can be called saints."

In other words, if I am strong and not likely to have a problem, then it should be easy for me to abstain; if I have a problem abstaining and find myself fighting the restriction, then I probably am weak in that area and benefit from the prohibition more than others might. (That, in and of itself, is a fascinating concept - that the areas where I need repentance and outside guidance the most are exactly the areas where I want it the least and work to justify my rejection of it the most. Often our biggest weaknesses are most apparent by our claims that we are strong enough to not need outside prohibition or counsel.)

As an additional rant, I have a HUGE problem with those who rail against homosexual activity but are quick to forgive and excuse heterosexual fornication and adultery. I have always said that punishing homosexual activity in any way without doing the same thing for heterosexual fornication and adultery is hypocritical and narrow-minded. That's why, although I oppose redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, I have no problem, within the context of our heterosexually lenient society, with creating a legally recognized way to allow homosexual partners to live in a committed relationship without fear of legal punishment. Again, the alternative is hypocrisy.

An Expansive View of "Chastity"

Each month this year as I have focused on a particular characteristic of godliness listed in the Sermon on the Mount, one thing that has become apparent is that developing a characteristic of godliness as the underlying foundation can eliminate multiple sins. For example, developing humility (becoming poor in spirit) reduces pride, which in turn can lessen or eliminate a natural tendency to take offense, lose one's temper, say or do harmful things to others, etc. This month's resolution was taken from the injunction in Matthew 5:27-28, particularly the statement: "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

I decided to make my resolution for the month "Become More Chaste in Thought and Deed" specifically because I believe the godly characteristic of chastity is the one highlighted in this passage. Rather than being hyper-sensitive to any and all possibilities for sexual stimulation and avoiding all such exposure, I believe the godly way to avoid the type of temptation embodied in "looking upon a woman to lust after her" is found in an expansive definition of "chastity" - one that goes beyond the more limited definition of avoiding sexual activity.

One definition for "chaste" that fits this construct is:

Pure in thought and act; innocent; free from lewdness and obscenity, or indecency in act or speech; modest (as, a chaste mind; chaste eyes).

The interesting association in this definition is the use of the word "modest" - which in context is defined as: "limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc." In other words, taking both of these definitions in the context of the admonition in Matthew, the underlying characteristic that Jesus appears to be addressing is "moderation" - being able to see and appreciate physical beauty without going to any extreme, without including "lewdness, obscenity, indecency, lust, etc." This is a much more comprehensive and fundamentally empowering / liberating view of "chastity" than a simple abstinence from proscribed activities. Also, and this is critical, the definition highlights being "chaste" as something primarily within the individual.

I am reminded of a story I heard once. I don't know if it is historically accurate, but it illustrates this characteristic in a very simple and direct way. According to this story, a woman notorious for traveling in the nude (Lady Godiva, perhaps) was passing a group of religious leaders (the Pope and some Cardinals, perhaps). One of the Cardinals told everyone to cover their eyes and look away, but the Pope did not do so. The woman saw the reaction her passing had created, including the fact that the Pope did not look away - and she asked him why he did not do so. His response was something like:

You are a daughter of God, and he has blessed you with great beauty. I appreciate that gift God has given and praise him for his gracious gift.

I believe it is important to remember that Adam and Eve covered their nakedness only after Satan pointed out that they were naked and that others would see it. I mention this simply to stress that the typical restrictions we employ as a part of this mortal existence are in place NOT because physicality and sexuality are bad things, but because we do not want to place undue temptation and stimulation in the path of others. However, if all were "chaste" in their thoughts and deeds, such restrictions would not be necessary. In other words, we seek "modesty" (moderation) in dress as an attempt to strike a proper balance between the ideal and the practical - between where we wish we were and where we are.

True "chastity," therefore, includes not only conforming to the societal constraints intended to avoid placing temptation in the path of others but also having our hearts changed to not be tempted no matter our surroundings - to not "lust after her" even when "looking upon a woman" cannot be avoided. I don't have a simple solution or suggestion for each person. I know it is neither the extreme conservatism of the Taliban in Afghanistan nor the extreme liberalism of South Beach, Florida - but I know that I must be able to walk in either world and be free of "lust" in order to fulfill the standard Jesus holds up in these verses.

In summary, my being chaste in thought and deed is MY responsibility. I can't blame the environment around me - or those whose appearance "naturally" might tempt me - or claim the devil made me do it. I must change myself ultimately, even as I change my exposure and environment and actions until I reach the point where they no longer matter. I can't dive into tempting situations in order to test my control, but rather I can change my thoughts and actions until I can face such situations without temptation. If I never reach that ultimate objective, I must continue to structure my environment to reduce temptation, but eliminating all possible temptation can never be the default. In the passage being discussed, the woman is NOT at fault for her beauty; the man is at fault for how he reacts to it. At its most fundamental level, "chastity" is NOT imposed externally; it is developed internally.

The Taliban is not correct in its interpretation of chastity; Jesus is.

Becoming More Chaste in Thought and Deed

Of all the characteristics I have tackled this year as part of my New Year's Resolution, this is one that is addressed directly and explicitly in my Patriarchal Blessing. (I will address that aspect in my post next weekend, when I address why "chastity" is the focus of my resolution.) The exact wording from the resolution is:

"Become more chaste in thought and deed." It is taken from Matthew 5:27-28, which read thus:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I shortened my resolution and worded it as "becoming more chaste in thought AND deed" due to the framing in these verses of "adultery" as something that can be committed both physically AND mentally - and because of the underlying foundation of chastity inherent in avoiding adultery.

As I contemplate these verses, the first thing that jumps out at me is that Jesus appears to be doing two things in this statement. First, he is reinforcing the general prohibition against adultery included in the ancient Ten Commandments. Second, however, he is laying out the concept that we (as "living souls" - Moses 6:9) truly are a combination of body and spirit - that something that affects one has a corresponding effect on the other. For those who think of our spirit as something incorporeal and formless, this might be confusing, but for those who envision our spirits as possessing real form and substance (of being "material" in some way) it makes sense to speak of influences on our spirits in the same manner that we understand influences on our physical bodies. It makes sense to speak of addictions to our spirit in the same way we speak of addictions to our physical bodies. Likewise, it makes sense to think of there being a real effect of "visualizing sexual activity", just as there is a real effect of being involved "physically" with sexual activity.

In fact, I believe these verses go beyond a simple "analogy" or "comparison" between the two. I believe that Jesus is teaching in this passage the core concept that "spiritual activity" is actual "physical activity" - again, since our spirits are comprised of "real, actual" matter that simply is too "fine" to be discerned by our mortal eyes. (See D&C 131:7) I believe that Jesus is doing more than merely saying, "Don't even look with lust, because that might lead to adultery in the flesh." Rather, he is saying, "There is adultery of the flesh, and there is adultery of the spirit. BOTH are adultery in a truly "physical" way; both have real, physical effects; don't commit either."

There are three main ways in which I could "look upon a woman to lust after her" in this day and age. The first is in my own direct interactions with those I meet in person. The second is through representations outside my direct interactions, comprised through and presented by visual media of various sorts. The third is one that is not considered nearly as often, but one that is just as important - through the envisioning or replaying of lustful activities within my own mind, independent of exterior stimuli. Each is a challenge for many, but the second is much more easily available in our modern day and society - and the third is common throughout all eras, regardless of available technology. (I will deal more specifically with that aspect and its implications in an upcoming post.)

So, my initial focus with regard to this resolution will be to:

1)become more aware of any situation in my own direct interactions where I might be likely to be tempted to lust - and avoid that temptation in some constructive and intentional way;
2) avoid visual representations (like, at the extreme, pornography) that would do the same thing;
3) either focus all images like those in question in my mind on my wife (with whom "adultery" is impossible for me) or stop such images by substituting something else.

Again, I will post more on each of these focal points in subsequent posts, after dealing with the core concept of chastity.