Comments on: Being a 30-something Single in the Church: Part V, the Law of Chastity http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 05:00:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Elnoa http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-61090 Elnoa Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:10:06 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-61090 It is hard being single, especially when you are feeling alone, fragile, and weak needing someone to love you and wanting someone to love this is when the law of chasity becomes more enticing to break. But God loves us and never lets us take on more than we can bear be a witness to confused souls out there do not become them help to rescue them don't go astray help to lead those who have gone astray it is the only true, diginfied and honest way. It is hard being single, especially when you are feeling alone, fragile, and weak needing someone to love you and wanting someone to love this is when the law of chasity becomes more enticing to break. But God loves us and never lets us take on more than we can bear be a witness to confused souls out there do not become them help to rescue them don’t go astray help to lead those who have gone astray it is the only true, diginfied and honest way.

]]> By: Elnoa http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-61089 Elnoa Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:07:38 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-61089 It is hard being single, especially when you are feeling alone, fragile, and weak needing someone to love you and wanting someone to love this is when the law of chasity becomes more enticing to break. But God loves us and never lets us take on more than we can bear be a witness to confused souls out there do not become them help to rescue them don't go astray help to lead the those who have gone astray it is only true, diginfied and honest way. It is hard being single, especially when you are feeling alone, fragile, and weak needing someone to love you and wanting someone to love this is when the law of chasity becomes more enticing to break. But God loves us and never lets us take on more than we can bear be a witness to confused souls out there do not become them help to rescue them don’t go astray help to lead the those who have gone astray it is only true, diginfied and honest way.

]]> By: Senile Old Fart http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-60975 Senile Old Fart Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:02:48 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-60975 Very late in this conversation, but it is clear (at least, to me) that life is complicated. And fraught with nuance. Sexual expression and exploration can be difficult enough for old married folk - and moreso for adult singles. Yet, I believe that sex is part of our creation - and not just something to avoid completely. Very late in this conversation, but it is clear (at least, to me) that life is complicated. And fraught with nuance. Sexual expression and exploration can be difficult enough for old married folk – and moreso for adult singles. Yet, I believe that sex is part of our creation – and not just something to avoid completely.

]]> By: alicia http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-60457 alicia Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:33:09 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-60457 Interesting topic - hope it's ok to still post months later! I think it's worth thinking about - since we have a lot of open minded people posting here - that a very large percentage of the world (at least Hindus and Muslims, so maybe 2 billion plus people) still believe in arranged marriages, including abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterward. It's actually a very interesting and workable model, with a much lower divorce rate than the western model, so it's worth thinking about. The eastern concept (if i may generalize it) is marriage first, love/sex second. If you're kept away from the opposite sex until marriage, that's a pretty good guarantee that you will find sexual attraction with your mate within marriage. Not saying that bad things don't still happen within this system, but certainly no worse than the chaos in ours. Under this system, few would remain single, as the parents and other relatives would seek high and low to secure an appropriate mate, and make the match even as possible - including material compensation in the case of uneven socioeconomic circumstances, age, beauty or whatever. BTW, this was, of course, the practice in both the old and new testament times, and as such, would still be completely compatible with LDS understanding of the Law of Chastity and the temple covenants, in fact more compatible than the western system, as is evidenced by the posts on this board. Easy for me to say, having chosen for myself (25 years ago) a mate that my parents would probably have never picked for me had it been their choice - but still, if you think about it, it's a pretty sweet way of doing things. I guess the next best thing is to seek the Lord's help as matchmaker. :) Interesting topic – hope it’s ok to still post months later! I think it’s worth thinking about – since we have a lot of open minded people posting here – that a very large percentage of the world (at least Hindus and Muslims, so maybe 2 billion plus people) still believe in arranged marriages, including abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterward.

It’s actually a very interesting and workable model, with a much lower divorce rate than the western model, so it’s worth thinking about. The eastern concept (if i may generalize it) is marriage first, love/sex second. If you’re kept away from the opposite sex until marriage, that’s a pretty good guarantee that you will find sexual attraction with your mate within marriage. Not saying that bad things don’t still happen within this system, but certainly no worse than the chaos in ours. Under this system, few would remain single, as the parents and other relatives would seek high and low to secure an appropriate mate, and make the match even as possible – including material compensation in the case of uneven socioeconomic circumstances, age, beauty or whatever.

BTW, this was, of course, the practice in both the old and new testament times, and as such, would still be completely compatible with LDS understanding of the Law of Chastity and the temple covenants, in fact more compatible than the western system, as is evidenced by the posts on this board.

Easy for me to say, having chosen for myself (25 years ago) a mate that my parents would probably have never picked for me had it been their choice – but still, if you think about it, it’s a pretty sweet way of doing things. I guess the next best thing is to seek the Lord’s help as matchmaker. :)

]]> By: chrisalmond http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-58735 chrisalmond Sun, 16 May 2010 01:42:42 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-58735 In my second to last sentence I meant 'enjoyable' rather than 'unemployable' although that would have been a funny thing to say. In my second to last sentence I meant ‘enjoyable’ rather than ‘unemployable’ although that would have been a funny thing to say.

]]> By: Ann http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-58734 Ann Sat, 15 May 2010 23:22:09 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-58734 Differing levels of sexual need / libido can very often be a physiological thing. Fortunately for us, during our twelve years of marriage, Left Field's libido and mine have remained exactly the same. Differing levels of sexual need / libido can very often be a physiological thing. Fortunately for us, during our twelve years of marriage, Left Field’s libido and mine have remained exactly the same.

]]> By: Chrisalmond http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-58733 Chrisalmond Sat, 15 May 2010 17:52:28 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-58733 Left, When people use the word 'physiological' they are generally referring to things related to the body. Being physiologically compatible could refer to not only being sexually attracted to each other, but sexually compatible on a physical level. Compatibility doesn't need to be an all or nothing thing as you seem to suggest. Being physiological incompatible in this context doesn't mean being completely incapable of sex. If you have dated more than one person, I'm sure you've experienced some people where physical affection just doesn't..work well. Not because you aren't visually attracted to each other or have different psychological needs, but on a sexual level things just don't physically click. Sexual interactions with that person are, for some reason, physically unemployable. This is how I would interpret physiological compatibility. Left,
When people use the word ‘physiological’ they are generally referring to things related to the body. Being physiologically compatible could refer to not only being sexually attracted to each other, but sexually compatible on a physical level. Compatibility doesn’t need to be an all or nothing thing as you seem to suggest. Being physiological incompatible in this context doesn’t mean being completely incapable of sex.
If you have dated more than one person, I’m sure you’ve experienced some people where physical affection just doesn’t..work well. Not because you aren’t visually attracted to each other or have different psychological needs, but on a sexual level things just don’t physically click. Sexual interactions with that person are, for some reason, physically unemployable. This is how I would interpret physiological compatibility.

]]> By: Left Field http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-58732 Left Field Sat, 15 May 2010 03:15:44 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-58732 But none of those things can be called "physiological." Perhaps Richol meant to say "psychological"? But none of those things can be called “physiological.” Perhaps Richol meant to say “psychological”?

]]> By: Ann http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-58731 Ann Sat, 15 May 2010 03:11:02 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-58731 Left, it would be my guess that Richol is referring to incompatible levels of sexual need; cluelessness about how to make sex pleasurable for your partner; and lack of consideration for your partner's needs, with the idea being that practice before marriage will help someone work through these things. I don't happen to agree, but I do think there's more to sexual compatibility than if the parts fit together. Left, it would be my guess that Richol is referring to incompatible levels of sexual need; cluelessness about how to make sex pleasurable for your partner; and lack of consideration for your partner’s needs, with the idea being that practice before marriage will help someone work through these things. I don’t happen to agree, but I do think there’s more to sexual compatibility than if the parts fit together.

]]> By: Left Field http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2010/02/11/being-a-30-something-single-in-the-church-part-v-the-law-of-chastity/#comment-58729 Left Field Sat, 15 May 2010 01:43:33 +0000 http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/?p=3601#comment-58729 Since this just discussion just came back to the top, I read something that I had missed the first time around. <blockquote>Physiological compatibility (and you all know what I mean by that)… all of these can be negative factors in the relationship and should at least be discussed prior to the ceremony. </blockquote> Richol, I don't know if you're still hanging around here, but actually, no I don't have even the slightest idea what you're referring to. I seriously would appreciate it if you could spell it out for me. This was a topic that came up on <a href="http://www.mormonmentality.org/2008/08/31/the-sexual-compatibility-argument.htm" rel="nofollow"> Mormon Mentality</a> awhile ago. There are of course medical conditions that preclude any sexual activity, but I am not aware of any which make a person "compatable" (however that may be defined) with one partner but not with another. I don't really know, but I guess there might be some sorts of fertility problems specific to a particular couple, but you don't seem to be referencing fertility here. By definition (see "biological species concept") if humans are all one species (and we are), we should all be physiologically compatable with other members of our species. Exactly what sort of physiological incompatability are you referring to here? Since this just discussion just came back to the top, I read something that I had missed the first time around.

Physiological compatibility (and you all know what I mean by that)… all of these can be negative factors in the relationship and should at least be discussed prior to the ceremony.

Richol, I don’t know if you’re still hanging around here, but actually, no I don’t have even the slightest idea what you’re referring to. I seriously would appreciate it if you could spell it out for me. This was a topic that came up on Mormon Mentality awhile ago. There are of course medical conditions that preclude any sexual activity, but I am not aware of any which make a person “compatable” (however that may be defined) with one partner but not with another. I don’t really know, but I guess there might be some sorts of fertility problems specific to a particular couple, but you don’t seem to be referencing fertility here.

By definition (see “biological species concept”) if humans are all one species (and we are), we should all be physiologically compatable with other members of our species. Exactly what sort of physiological incompatability are you referring to here?

]]>