Talk:Law of chastity

Overall overhaul

I cleaned this up both grammatically and doctrinally. It still needs to more overtly say that the Law of Chastity is a concept and not a semantic policy somewhere. Mrcolj 16:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

I am removing the "like a plague" as if trying to avoid pornography is unusual for a religion to teach

It's a phrase used by Hinkley, the former recently dead prophet that a member should 'avoid pornography like the plague' however, without a good link and presented as a quote i agree with your judgment in removing itSanitycult (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nudism

I've requested a citation for the dubious statement that nudism is prohibited by the law of chastity. If none is forthcoming, it may be deleted. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 07:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to the edit summary, I am an endowed member, and marital nudity is definitely not prohibited, nor has it ever been. Decades ago it was often advised against, but there was never any official doctrine or policy about it. There is no penalty, nor temple recommend interview question, nor anything similar, related to being naked. --Masamage ♫ 08:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "do you wear the temple garment day and night, as instructed..." etc. ? To me, that seems to impliedly reject it.

Also note that the statement in question was placed in the subsection called "Broader law of chastity as taught by church leaders". It's possible a church leader has taught against it and a citation exists. That doesn't necessarily mean it is an "official doctrine" or one to which a penalty attaches. And if it has been taught, but only in the past, that may be nonetheless worth mentioning. That being said, I would only give the editor a day or so to provide a citation since I've notified him/her directly on the user talk page. You can remove the statement soon if you wish and I won't object. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 08:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with waiting a very short amount of time. And yes, there is a question about the garment itself, but that "as instructed" now includes permission to remove it occasionally (such as for showers, for swimming, for sex, etc), although this wasn't always the case. No details are now given on exactly when it's appropriate to remove it, and I, at least, was told that nobody is allowed to say anything more specific than this; that it's completely between the individual and God. It is true that people used to wear their garments literally always, but statements to that effect would need to be in their hisotrical context, not stated as if they are presently true. Except I think it's already discussed in the Garment article. --Masamage ♫ 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, yes. I just thought "nudism" suggested that you are naked close to 100% of the time. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that a person could legitimately feel they were wearing the garment "as instructed" "day and night" if they are almost always naked. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, that is true--I was reading it as the more general 'nudity'. Stating this in terms of lifestyle-nudism seems really confusing and roundabout, though; it'd be much more informative to talk about the garment rule itself. (Anyway, the word 'prohibited' makes it sound like anti-nudism is an explicit rule.) --Masamage ♫ 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I see what you are saying now. I was interpreting it as a lifestyle choice as discussed in Nudism. But no, if it's a mere suggestion that a person can't be nude, I find that ridiculous and definitely not part of the LDS law of chastity. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 21:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Being mormon and obeying the law of castity, one couldn't also be a nudist, I think most people would understand that this doesn't mean mormons can never be nude.Sanitycult (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Facts

There are a number of facts (marked and unmarked) that need substantiation. A number of them offer an apparent wp:POV that without support need to be modified. For example, to assert that "chastity is considered by many... to be more important than a person's life" based on the non-doctrinal statement by a prophet is certainly not factual nor supported. In another instance, to say that the "stress of avoiding sexuality, pornography and unchaste thoughts has resulted in several Mormon youths getting married after very brief courtships and sometimes no courtships at all" without substantiation offers a unsupported POV. These and other facts need to be edited so they are less absolute and more representative, or just removed completely. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Chastity?

Is the material covered here so very different from what is or should be covered in Chastity#In Abrahamic religions? If this article is to stay, it should at least link to the more generic chastity article, and probably deserves a mention on the chastity (disambiguation) page. I don't want to opinionate just yet on the possible merge, but I do want to get a little conversation going to see what people think about it. At the moment I do slightly lean towards a merge. --...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 06:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between chastity as a christian idea and the Law of Chastity as proscribed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is the difference between a general guideline and a detailed instruction procedure that expands the general guideline radically. "The Law of Chastity" is not something average protestants would understand unless they just took it to mean chastity in general. Maturbation, for example, is not usually discussed when talking about "chastity" in general, but the LDS church discusses this exaustively, it is one of the major tenants of The Law of Chastity. I don't know how clear I can be about this, arguing about it feels like arguing about "truth", "beautiy", "evidence" or even trying to convince a Buddhist that life isn't all suffering.Sanitycult (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Against The Law of Chastity is a specific doctrine of a single church and merits a stand-alone article. Burying it within another article would negate the notability of the LDS Church's singular doctrine. Chastity within the LDS Church is very distinctive from that of other Protestant churches. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the topic of "chastity" is specific and substantial enough when taken in the context of the LDS Church. With Wikipedia's potential in mind, I have removed the templates from the chastity article as well as from this article. But I would like to see the article develop a little more clearly the points that both of you have brought up. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Law of Chastity and Proposition 8

It's a stretch to include information about criticism of the LDS Church's stand on chastity and link this to California's Proposition 8. The tone and unsourced statements found in that section of content suggests someone with an overt POV. The phrase "Legal critics are concerned by the LDS stance against homosexuality and their open advocation of Proposition 8 in California" is unsubstantiated and unless a source can be found, should be removed. The quote afterward is specifically about Proposition 8 and not chastity and does not belong. Unless someone can offer substantive reasons not to make these changes, I will do so in a few days. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, its a criticism section. These are criticisms, it is up to the reader to realize that some of the facts and research is subjectively motivated, but the ACLU is a credible sourse and their opinion carries enogugh weight to be included- i beleive - but am willing if most people agree, to clean it up or remove it. The Law Of Castity as a mormon concept an not a general Christian concept (many protestants have no qualms with homosexuality nor do they wish to "define" marriage) has a direct link to the Church unusual move into California politics (witch is not typical of the LDS church - there are republican and democrats who identify as mormon and the LDS church has usually been silent on elections) that changes the constitution. I think its relevant for people to know why, if they want to know, the law of chastity is more important to mormons than the general protestant concept of "chastity."Sanitycult (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP standards assume that readers are supposed to filter facts and research to determine which are subjectively motivated. As you probably know better than me, even critical facts are supposed to be supported and verifiable by reliable sources. Verifiability and a neutral POV are two of the three legs that hold up the stool named Wikipedia.

If the Law of Chastity and its doctrines—which I will stipulate are not generally accepted Christian precepts—were the basis for the LDS Church's advocacy on behalf of Proposition 8, then the article should include sources supporting that idea, otherwise that idea is an individual's point of view and would quality as original research.

I was specifically referring to the prefatory phase, "Legal critics are concerned..." Note the plural. This is followed a single quote from the ACLU. If the ACLU quote from a blog were valid, then the sentence ought to read, "The ACLU is concerned..." However, ACLU or not, "personal and group blogs" are not generally accepted as reliable sources. Blogs hosted by newspapers and written by professionals may be acceptable, but the ACLU is not a newspaper, and is more akin to a group, specifically a professional advocacy organization. If an ACLU blog has previously approved as a reliable source, then I could not find it after a few minutes search on WP.

True, the LDS Church's work to pass Proposition 8 is unusual. But I think the connection to the Law of Chastity is thin and not very relevant here. If a member of the church leadership had said something that connected the two, it could see the connection. But I don't see it yet. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be a few concerns here...I'll try to address what I see, from how I see it. Firstly, (is firstly a word? Firefox spell check says yes) it is not our place to decide whether or not the criticism itself is legitimate, but whether the criticism actually exists. Since it does exist and seems to be notable, it does indeed (in my opinion) belong on Wikipedia in a "criticism" section. However, whether or not it has a place here on the Law of Chastity page is less clear. I would venture to say yes, but it isn't clear in my head exactly why it should go here and not be confined to some other article more closely related to marriage (the Celestial marriage article, for example), or on the general article about LDS beliefs (aka Beliefs and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). I rather dislike how the article currently says "the ACLU..." but we seem to be lacking on sources that mention similar criticism from other places, though I'm fairly sure the sources are out there somewhere. I do believe that the ACLU citation is useful to include, because we are not using it to back an attempted factual statement such as "the church's implementation of the law of chastity is detrimental to civil freedom." Rather we are using it to say "so-and-so finds the church's implementation of the law of chastity to be detrimental to civil freedom", which is indeed factulal, that so-and-so said that.

In summary of my rambling: keep the citation and criticism. Find more sources to back up the notability of the criticism; whether or not it is "valid" or "correct" criticism, it is relevant to the article. Unless it's OBVIOUSLY off-the-wall fringe-esque criticism, which this does not seem to be. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 00:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of self-published source

The statement "Medically the church has been criticized for its intolerance of masturbation and its use of incorrect information to advocate such intolerance" is sourced using a site that is first, a self-published site, like a blog, which does not meet WP standards, to wit:

"...self-published media, whether ... personal websites ... are largely not acceptable."

Second, a quick scan of the content found on the source web site shows that the author is obviously anti-LDS and not objective, again violating WP standards.

"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Since the source does not meet WP standards, both it and the statement about the church's "intolerance of masturbation" should be removed. I will do so in a few days unless someone can provide another source. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see two main problems with the statement that you have mentioned, and have apparently removed already (which is good). First, it uses a passive voice: saying "the church has been criticized", which masks WHO exactly is doing the criticizing. I would suggest using the who tag when that sort of material exists but is not begging immediate removal. Second, the church's "intolerance of masturbation" and "use of incorrect information..." is vague and misleading, and does seem to require more solid sources. It's the same as saying "the church has used incorrect information..." which is clearly POV unless we provide both the specific information allegedly used and some conclusive information disproving it. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism about completing college

The quote about fewer brides and grooms finishing college was concluded by the statement, "They imply that 'Mormon norms' are responsible for this trouble with college completion." However, the authors draw no such conclusion. The exact context is:

"Of the sixteen reporting states in 1976, Utah had the highest proportions of brides and grooms who had completed some college education prior to marriage. But of those Utah brides and grooms who had started college prior to marriage, smaller percentages completed four years of college than in most other states. The presence of Brigham Young University in Utah probably explains much of this pattern. Virtually all of the 24,000 full-time students at BYU are members of the Mormon Church. Nearly three-fourths are single..."

Because they did not make any connection between any Mormon norms (i.e., the Law of Chastity), except that Mormon youth use BYU as a dating scene and tend to marry early, the statement that the authors implied a connection between graduation rates and chastity becomes original research, which violates WP standards. I have removed the statement and the source as being unsubstantiated. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you've done. This kind of information might belong in an article about LDS Marriage, but seems rather off-topic for an article focusing on the Law of Chastity. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism by "many Protestant religions"

The article contains a statement that needs to be substantiated or removed:

"However many Protestant religions are harshly critical of the LDS concept of marriage. "The difference, of course," according to Nichol's book Prostitution, Polygamy and Power, "lay in the Latter Day Saint's concept of "eternal" or "celestial marriage," defined in the 19th century as plural marriage."

The "many Protestant religions" who "are harshly critical" are unidentified. If they are in fact "harshly critical," then there certainly ought to be some published sources. At this point the criticism is speculative and unsourced, resulting in original research.

The next statement about plural marriage from Nichol's book apparently attempts to identify polygamy as the key source for the Protestant religions' criticism. In context, this quote (page 10 of the book) is referring to the early settlement of the Salt Lake Valley.

So while this difference may have been true in the 19th century, I don't see what it has to do with any criticism of the Law of Chastity today. Can anyone explain? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Membership and "sexually inappropriate thoughts"

The following quote in the lead paragraph states:

"In order to be a member of the LDS church in good standing one must refrain from adultery, fornication, masturbation or sexually inappropriate thoughts."

First, I have certainly seen and can readily find support for denial of church membership or fellowship based on acts of adultery or fornication, but am unable to find any reports of instances where individuals were disciplined for "masturbation or sexually inappropriate thoughts." Can anyone help here? Otherwise I think the statement should be amended to exclude "masturbation or sexually inappropriate thoughts."

Secondly, the phrase "in good standing" is ambiguous. By what standard is this evaluated? Who is evaluating the individual's behavior? I think this ought to be rephrased, perhaps as, "Individuals who engage in <specific acts> are subject to formal church discipline, which may result in disfellowshipping or excommunication."

-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Young males (called Deacons in the Church) are "punished" for their masturbation habits (A high crime in mormon dogma) if they confess during a Bishop Interview (Masturbation is always asked about - especially of young girls [there are no male Bishops, by the way and this is another huge concern seeing as many Bishops have been accused of sex abuse and inapropriateness with young female Mormons who must do these face-to-face interviews about their masturbation habits, sexual thoughts, any fornicative action such as heavy petting or groping or not be able to do Baptism for the dead at the temple and general mormon acceptance, once a year interviews are strictly enforced]and even if one does not confess to masturbative habits one is asked about sexual innapropriate thoughts (witch if one is not married is appearantly ALL sexual thought) Usually sex thoughts of unmarried people are not "punnished" per-se but there is harsh criticizm in many cases depending on bishop and the old requirement of read more LDS literature, pray more, fast more, ect until theses thoughts "dissapear" or something. Masturbation IS punnished, and often, one is no longer allowed to partake or bless the sacrement if one confesses to masturbation. There is an article where an ex-mormon girl complains that her bishop kept insisting she confess any and all thoughts on her sexual desires, witch she refused to do until he guilt tripped her to the point she admitted that she liked a boy on television and somehow ended up telling him (through pressure no doubt) that she thought about him while "grinding" her body lightly against the side of the couch- she was adamant however on never acheiving an orgasm (witch as she was 13 years old is not surprising). She was told not to partake of the sacrement for a month and she was teased about being a filthy girl by other girls in the church for it. The punnishment is severe, not as bad as adultery/homosexuality but its pretty bad. I'll look for sources some time but most of them are x-mormons who are synonymous with "anti-mormons" acording to the LDS despite many of them not actually "against" the church. It might be hard to find secular disinterested literature that cooberates, but if all else fails finding the official mormons stance given to bishops for their interviews will probably suffice.Sanitycult (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have changed the wording of the intro paragraph significantly. I hope that you both agree that it communicates a clear and understandable sense of what the law of chastity is. While intro paragraphs generally avoid using sources (trusting the rest of the article to cover everything mentioned with greater detail and citation) I do feel that the temple recommend source is good to have. As for whether or not the church discourages masturbation and sexually inappropriate thoughts, we can probably agree that it does. Whether or not one is in "good standing" while doing such things is a gray area and it may be best for us to simply not address the issue. Says I. And I have been known to be wrong on (rare?) occasion, so take things I say with a grain of salt and don't be afraid to tell me I'm wrong if I am. =] ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 01:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The LDS church discourages masturbation, and we should (ought) to be able to find sources for that. tedder (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to read the article about the ex-mormon girl. I have been a member of the LDS Church for 16 years. In my experience, any counseling and subsequent discipline invoked by a bishop is personal. There is no way a third party--other youth--would know the reason a person is not taking the sacrament unless the person revealed it. I have served sacrament and seen individuals bypass taking the sacrament. I would personally never inquire as to why someone does not do so, and in my experience that is common practice. I personally cannot imagine a 13 year old LDS girl telling other LDS girls that she was grinding against the couch.

I think you mistyped when you say there are no "male Bishops" -- did you mean no "female Bishops"? You say that "many Bishops have been accused of sex abuse and inapropriateness with young female Mormons." I would like to see any sources you have for this. I have personally read a few reports of individual men who have been identified and arrested for incidents like this, but I have not read of any Bishops being arrested. Considering how the press latches on to reports about charges against Catholic Priests molesting children, I assume they would be equally zealous about Mormon Bishops.

And I'm also sure there are bishops who over-zealously interrorgate members of all ages about possible transgressions, seeking to identify and root out evil at its earliest stages. If I learned that my bishop were heavy-handed in pressing my sons to confess some minor transgression, I would attend the next interview and invite said bishop to a personal interview with me. I can and do handle these kinds of things within my family and don't need the overwhelming hand of the Bishop turning minor transgressions into some magnificent evil.

When I was single, and since I have been married, I have had interviews with the Bishop and have never been asked about my sexual thoughts or masturbation.

BTW, for accuracy purposes, teen males are either Teachers, Deacons, or Priests. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

lede rewording

In general, I like the changes to the lede section. However, it is fairly circular, and could use some balance. Just noting it here, in case anyone feels like discussing. tedder (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good work, thanks for the assist. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section and Other Problems

This is not to say my interest in this and other articles focusing on the LDS church is waning, but I have no intention to "influence" the article any further. My additions to the article were only to thicken the relevance as there was a moment when it was suggested a merge with the general protestant or religious idea of chastity, witch the Law of Chastity is not. The unfortunate reality of wikipedia articles and information on the church in general is that there are only three interested parties, four if you distinguish between secular and religious anti-mormons witch I do not. Namely LDS members, ex-mormons/people being urged to join by Missionaries, and Anti-mormons. All of these parties with exception of SOME ex-mormons/people being urged to join are intensely biased about any LDS information. For example, facts about the temple ceremony are offensive to LDS members and are often removed, subverted or distorted by the LDS church members while facts about the population of the church and history of LDS prosecution are often attacked by Anit-mormons or given new, fringe theory spins. In general ex-mormons and people being encouraged to join have very little information besides personal experiences and are little help. Beyond Mark Twain and a few other semi-interested but not actively engaged people, the LDS religion is both too outlandish and too mundane to get anyone outside the bubble of its insistant importance to care about it. So in my opinion, it is best to "agree to disagree". There is a conflict of interest of course, Anit-mormons want no positive mention in any of these articles and want a lot of non-topic information to paint the general picture of a mind/money cult. LDS leaders and some members would perfer as little information as possible in any mormon articles except for what is considered important as an indoctrination concept (In this article for example there seems to be a lot of downplay about the LDS war against masturbation witch seems fine to mention within the church but is innapropriate to tell people interested in the church about this until they are well on their way to membership.) Both the LDS and the Anti-mormons are being disingenuous of course, the first are cutting all information they deem antagonistic to their prostelyting efforts regardless of the validity and how these conceps are actually presented within the church, and the former are trying to broaden the scope of every article to include rediculous fringe theories and outlandish accusations. One to make the church look good and one to make the chuch look bad. But beyond what the LDS church is (be it the one true church or a dangerous theocratic cult) first it exists. That is there are facts about it that while may not make the church seem "normal" enough for the LDS and at the same time make the church sound too "normal" for the Anti-mormons, are still facts none the less. I propose, especially for this particular article as I do not wish to be a watchdog on it anymore, that we stick to the facts. Specifically, what warrants the difference between chastity as a Christian concept and the Law of Chastity as an important concept to one specific Christian religion. How does the Law affect LDS members (children, adults, LDS leaders) and the rest of the world (Civil Rights, Women, Homosexuals) differently from the general protestant idea of chastity. Finally, what are the criticisms and praise for the LDS effort to enforce the law of chastity within and without the church? My proposal (feel free to agree/disagree)

1. The Law of Chastity is seperate from the idea of chastity even according to the LDS church. Sermons in the Ensign and at conferences make this distinciton. Chastity is simply protecting one's body as best one can, the Law of Chastity is a responsibility of perfection in order to be worthy of the Lord's gifts. This law is extensive and detailed and has specific punishments and requirements for forgiveness within LDS dogma. So far, the article vaguely explains this and there is a lot of disorganized attemts to convey it, but I feel (correct me if I'm wrong) that both LDS members and Anti-mormons would equally like this defined. As long as it is based in the world of objective fact this is the first thing we should do about this article. Clarity, organization of the principal and distinction from general chastity as a concept.

2. How does the Law effect its members, what is it like to be an LDS member, growing up in the church focused on teaching this Law. How does the church do this? (Primary to Young Men Young Women)What are the details of the Law. The church's stance on homosexuality, masturbation, adultery, fornication, petting, groping, pornography, ect. How has this effected the secular world (This will be difficult without a POV, but can be done) the church's efforts to keep its members seperate from the outside world and any and all pre-conceptions mormons have to deal with [there is little to no information in the article about how LDS are perceived by the outside world, although it is common to think of them being clean cut (a major part of the Law is a dress code witch has yet to be included) celibate (youth) and difficult to date/marry if not LDS.] There is of course, no room for positive or negative comments in here, however.

3. There is little criticism and the praise for the LDS Law of Chastity is weak at best peppered infrequently. Obviously the Law has consequences and these consequences are both opinioned as "good" and "bad". There needs to be far more critizism and praise in the article. I suggest ending every section that deals with issue #1 and issue #2, beyond the introduction of course, with some positive statement about how the Law effects LDS life and how the secular world has applauded them. The criticisms need to be in their own section so as to not belabor the issues. These critizisms need to be clearly stated as someone's (the sourse) opinion. And have good refferences, and be relevant. (Critisizms on the church's stance on homosexuality, masturbation, political pressure from the church based on their moral code [prop 8] are relevant, sex abuse by Bishops, the yearly interview dreaded by young mormon girls, encouragement to marry, encouragement to have many children might be legit criticism but are not relevant. Praise on LDS attitudes, sexual education program for the youth, and chances for forgiveness in the LDS world are fair, but insisting that LDS are "more" chaste than other religions or less likely to participate in infidelity or get divorced has nothing to do with the law of chastity and more to do with the concept of "eternal marriage".

If anything I really want to point out that the unique views on homosexuality and masturbation (most churches do not encourage homosexuals to even be members and most protestant religions have no opinion on masturbation) the LDS have and a keeping of the criticizm section. No more "nuking" the crit sections because it personally offends. The critics have to have legitimiacy of course, have to be sourced, but I strongly feel there should be a crit section. This is not the LDS church's private soapbox. This is a source for supposedly NPOV information. Critics do have specific things to say about the Law of Chastity, it has been adressed and it is important to them. Blanking the section is just taking advantage of the general disintrest of people when it comes to LDS dogma. I hope somehow that LDS editors can at least see that people seeking to understand the church need information such as this. That is all I have to say, sorry for spelling errors. I will probably no longer participate in this article, but I hope that fairness can shape it into something better in time.(Not logged in, but I'm Sanitycult) 173.28.190.80 (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I previously stated that I am a member of the LDS Church and hope that my edits and suggestions are NPOV and in keeping with WP policy--if not, please do point out my errors to me. I am completely willing to support a section on criticism of the church. The LDS Church is not perfect. Just as with any article, all content must be well-sourced. Criticism or not, if it does not meet WP standards, then it should be fixed or removed. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This statement in the section about Homosexuality and masturbation is potentially controversial:

"...masturbation causes homosexuality witch goes against all medical and psychological evidence"

The citation links to a book which does not, as far as I can determine, make the claim that masturbation causes homesexuality, not does it quote anyone making that claim. Perhaps you can find a quote from a church leader stating that masturbation leads to homosexuality and cite that.

In the same statement, the phrase "all medical and psychological evidence" is an extremely broad, sweeping statement that should be substantiated. I searched the cited book and could find no instances of "medical evidence" or "psychological evidence." Perhaps you can provide a direct quote from the book or a page number for the context. Please remember that WP states that content is not necessarily based on what is "true" according to any one point of view, but what is verifiable. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kimball, masturbation and homosexuality

This section previously had more content on masturbation, which was removed because it was unsourced. I'm going to change the title. Additionally, the quote attributed to Spencer Kimball says that individuals should "force himself to return to normal pursuits and actions and friendships with the opposite sex." He did not specifically say marriage and to say so is to put words in his mouth. His comments can reasonably stand by themselves without stretching their meaning into new realms. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

ACLU source

As I wrote about the "Law of Chastity and Proposition 8" above,

"If the Law of Chastity and its doctrines—which I will stipulate are not generally accepted Christian precepts—were the basis for the LDS Church's advocacy on behalf of Proposition 8, then the article should include sources supporting that idea, otherwise that idea is an individual's point of view and would quality as original research."

To amplify, the source cited for the quote about criticism by the ACLU is a personal blog, which although published on the ACLU domain, does not appear to meet WP standards, to wit:

"...self-published media, whether ... blogs ... are largely not acceptable."

The WP standard for blogs includes an exception for newspapers who publish "interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." The ACLU obviously does not qualify as a newspaper.

Second, a quick scan of the content found on the source blog shows that the author is obviously not an objective third-party source, again violating WP standards:

"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

The emphasis is on citing reliable sources for facts, not personal opinion, which a blog certainly is. Since the source does not meet WP standards, both it and the statement about the quote about Proposition 8 should be removed.

The thread connecting the blog author's opinion on Proposition 8 and Mormons/Knights of Columbus and the law of chasity is non-existant. Neither the quote from the ACLU blog nor the entire entry make any connection to the Law of Chastity or any "moral code" or anything like unto it. To insert this quote about Proposition 8 from a blog into this article on the law of chastity requires one to fabricate a connection, which constitutes original research.

Finally, the section on the ACLU quote is finished with the following statement:

Most of the Law of Chastity is for the protection of marriage, along with the LDS official stance on law such as Proposition 8.

This statement is obviously someone's point of view, when the statement should be neutral. The statement then becomes original research

I'm sure there is valid criticism of the law of chastity, but this particular criticism does not meet WP's standards for sources, standards, or POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btphelps (talk • contribs) 11:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Browser crashed when I was near the end of my reply. Sorry if this is more terse- it's entirely fair to ask me to explain my thoughts further.

As far as self-published sources and WP:V is concerned, my understanding is that it primarily applies to establishing notability of the article itself. Indeed, especially with religion, it's important to balance different views.

As far as WP:SYNTH between the ACLU blog entry and the mormon Law of Chastity, that is a valid point. The section probably needs rewriting to ensure it is talking about the church's stance on homosexuality- there's no need for them to explicitly mention the LoC, just to remove the synth.

However, the best way to handle this may be to have a small ==Section== on homosexuality that balances the major points of view, but use {{main}} to point to Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. tedder (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about self-published sources and WP:V applying to the "article itself." In my reading, the standards apply directly to the sources cited as establishing the validity of the content. From what I gather, the ACLU blog does not qualify as a source, therefore the quote becomes unsubstantiated and must be removed. The ACLU blog does not refer to the law of chastity. On its own, without the concluding opinion, the quote about Proposition 8 doesn't make any sense within an article about the law of chastity.

If you want to add a info on homosexuality, I suggest it be included in the section currently titled "Law includes broader transgressions" and then add a {{see}} reference to Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic church

This really belonged in it's own new section, instead of being added deep into an otherwise 2 year old discussion, so I moved it here.

The phrase/statement about a "law" of chastity has been so termed by the Catholic church as well (as per here, and certainly other places). This article could, and should be broadened and not necessarily so single-church specific, imo. Zanlok (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording is only used in the title for that online article, without being used as a proper name/title in the text of that article. Do you have a sources for this claim which are closer to Rome than a website of the Vicariate Apostolic of Arabia? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Homosexuality and the church" synopsis

Re: the synopsis of the church's views on homosexuality at the bottom of the article, the church's official stance on homosexuals is quite obviously relevant in an article on the Law of Chastity, a creed/document that specifically governs Mormon beliefs on homosexuality. Presumably, any change in official church policy re: homosexuality is governed by a new interpretation of the church's sacred texts--the Law of Chastity being chief among them on this particular topic. If there is going to be a section on homosexuality in this article at all, and if church officials are accepted as being the most accurate source of official policy in the Mormon church, a properly balanced presentation of facts should include the most recent statements from church officials on this topic.

User:ChristensenMJ has removed these updated facts re: official church policy several times and insists on citing to a pamphlet published in 2007 to explain the church's opinions on homosexuality. However, not only is it self-evident that a official statement announced in 2015 supersedes an unofficial pamphlet published in 2007, but his/her continued removal of the most current policy statements seems designed to promote a PR-friendly-yet-inaccurate pro-church image of inclusion for homosexuals which clearly no longer exists (if it ever did).

These statements are well-sourced given that church officials unequivocally affirmed their official opinion of homosexuality in public statements made in 2015. The statements may also be verified by cross-referencing the LDS Handbook as updated in November 2015.

Proposed additional text:

In 2015, the church officially announced that it views those engaging in homosexual relationships as "apostates." [20] In addition to classifying same-sex couples as “apostates,” the church’s new policy bars children of those couples—either adopted or biological—from being baptized, confirmed, ordained and participating in mission service without the permission of church leaders.[21] Upon reaching age 18, the children of same-sex couples may only become full members of the church if they "specifically disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage" and "[do] not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage." [22]

Proposed edited (existing) text:

LGBT members of the church are expected to obey the same laws as heterosexual members, including controlling thoughts and not arousing sexual feelings outside of marriage. However, the church actively opposes the extension of the traditional definition of marriage to also include same-sex couples.[23] In 2007, the church produced "God Loveth His Children", a pamphlet whose stated purpose is to help LGBT members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.144.42 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. There are some major problems with the proposed edits. First, it is not accurate (or at least woefully incomplete) to say that the church "views those engaging in homosexual relationships as 'apostates.'" This policy specifically applies only to members who "are in a same-gender marriage" (Handbook 1, § 6.7.3). Engaging in a homosexual relationship short of marriage does not qualify. Second, these policies are only indirectly connected to the law of chastity. Children of sam-sex couples to whom these principles apply are not violating the law of chastity, and the implementation is not on account of the law of chastity violation. As far as the law of chastity goes, the treatment of homosexual relations by the church is much more straightforward: all homosexual relations violate the law of chastity, and violations of the law of chastity may lead to church discipline. These peripheral issues of marriage and the children of the marriage are much better addressed in the article Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I therefore oppose the proposed changes to this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Good Olfactory fully acknowledges that "all homosexual relations violate the law of chastity, and violations of the law of chastity may lead to church discipline," and that the church considers those in homosexual marriages "apostates," yet wishes to keep language stating that "The church has stated its view that a person having same-gender attraction is not sinful and no one should be blamed for it,[20] and that LGBT members can have a good standing in the church." The former positions are in direct opposition with the latter, and the latter is therefore inaccurate. It's entirely disingenuous to state only that "LGBT members can have a good standing in the church" while ignoring the fact that homosexual members cannot live sexually-fulfilling lives according to the LoC, i.e., they cannot engage in monogamous sex within a married relationship because they cannot be married and still remain members in good standing. I maintain that if you're going to mention homosexual relationships vis-à-vis the LoC at all in this article, it is only fair that a full statement of the church's official stance be made as well. Anything less reeks of willful ignorance at best and purposeful misinformation at worst. Admittedly, the statements re: children of homosexual marriages could be better stated in another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.144.42 (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that the article does basically address this, though it's not discussed in the level of detail as at Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Current_theology_and_policy. The point the church makes is that there is a difference between inclinations or attraction (not sinful) and actions (potentially sinful). I think that a sentence or two could be added for clarity to state that sexual relations within a same-sex marriage are regarded as a violation of the law of chastity. But I find this edit unacceptable—it makes it sound like the church has changed its position between 2007 and 2015. It hasn't really; the perceived difference in approach is simply a consequence of the attraction/actions distinction that the church began drawing in the early 1990s.
  • On an incidental note, some of you edit summaries have been somewhat inflammatory and appear to lack a presumption of good faith. For instance, this one. Here you have suggested that an editor's edits "clearly demonstrates pro-church bias & desire to obfuscate facts negative to church". I would be very careful in ascribing desires and intents to other users. On Wikipedia, we assume good faith, and that is a fundamental principle. When users don't, it makes collaboration difficult and needlessly combative. Some people like being combative about religious topics, but WP is not the place to play this out. Those inclinations might be better released on another internet forum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

References