"High Moral Conduct"

Post by **_Coggins7** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:33 am

So, premarital sex is not immoral 'cause God says so... yet, it just is immoral. I don't understand!

If sexual relations are a necessary part of the plan of salvation, (because marriage, family, and posterity are) and if lawful marriage is necessary for the legitimacy of those relations, and if our eternal happiness and potential are threatened by divergence from that pattern, then any relationship which impedes, retards, or destroys our movement toward those goals is immoral, as it becomes, once it is known to be so, an act that we enter into knowing beforehand will cause harm, sorrow, and even misery to the other, let alone ourselves.

If morality is the structural integrity of relationship, then sexual relations beyond the boundaries of the Lord's Gospel lacks integrity, as it is destructive to our happiness and our ultimate joy in the deeper purposes of human sexuality.

Why didn't God make it otherwise? You will have to ask him, but it is our task to come to a knowledge of these things for ourselves, even as we cannot understand them in a strictly intellectual manner. There are many things that have this property, many of which are not directly related to religion , so no problems here.

Post by **_Coca Cola** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:27 am

beastie wrote:Are you actually denying that Mormons feel morally superior to "gentiles" who engage in such activities as smoking, drinking, fornication and masturbation?????

Are you seriously saying this with a straight face????

And calling ME a liar???

Hitting the bottle again, by any chance?

I bear testimony of the fact that (most) Mormons generally feel superior to "gentiles" and other less-committed Mormons for engaging in these activities and even less -- such as tattoos, piercings.

And even less: not reading the Book of Mormon enough, not praying enough, not holding family home evening, etc. etc. etc.

Moral superiority and self-righteous judgment of others is par for the course.

For someone who has spent a lifetime in the church to say differently is "lying for the Lord," or being extremely disingenous.

Post by **_Scottie** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:06 pm

Moniker wrote:
Scottie wrote:I gotta ask here...

What is so horribly wrong about teaching chastity?? There is so much risk of life long repercussion for indulging in premarital sex. I sure plan on teaching my kids to save it until marriage, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't know where this idea came from that if you don't express your sexuality in your late teens/early 20's, you're going to be locked into some kind of sexually repressed state forever. If nothing else, people are hearing this BS and saying to themselves, "Hey!!! I didn't experiment in my 20's!! I was repressed!!"

Now, masturbation...that's a whole other story...

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting your kids to be chaste. I want my children to be in loving relationships and learn about their sexuality with a caring partner. Yet, I don't necessarily think they MUST get married. Especially my daughters. Should I tell my daughters they must wait to have sex until marriage? Why? That's me telling them they MUST marry -- I'm not doing that.

I wonder what risks you're talking about with premarital sex? That you have a baby that you're not prepared for? Well, look about you in any ward and it's full of people MARRIED and not prepared for children. STD's? Well, you can get that in marriage too and you better hope to "God" your spouse doesn't stray -- oh, and by the way there are CONDOMS.

I don't think it's necessary to be active in your teens or 20's. Yet, the guilt placed upon people for WANTING to be active is quite different than someone deciding they'd rather wait. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm single now, Scottie. Should I never have sex again 'cause I don't plan on marrying again? I'm telling you right now I'm not going to refrain from sex when I find a man that I adore and I want to experience a sexual relationship with. I'm not going to feel a bit of guilt over it either. :)

The question is -- what makes it immoral?

I don't know. Should you?

Are you prepared to be one of the .01% that gets pregnant even on birth control? If so, then by all means, go for it.

I don't think that a girl in her 20's that is "sowing her oats" is ready to get pregnant. She is taking an AWFUL risk by having sex with boyfriends. The commitment level just isn't there, and if she were to get pregnant, the odds of the boy sticking around are very slim.

Although, I will say you are right about kids getting married and having babies before they are ready. But, there are levels of acceptable ready-ness. Would you condone your daughter sleeping with a boy she's known for a week because she KNOWS she's in love? Might this be a bit different than a couple that has known each other for some time and has made a serious commitment?

I don't necessarily even care if they are married or not. So long as the commitment is there.

Post by **_Moniker** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:22 pm

Scottie wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Scottie wrote:I gotta ask here...

What is so horribly wrong about teaching chastity?? There is so much risk of life long repercussion for indulging in premarital sex. I sure plan on teaching my kids to save it until marriage, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't know where this idea came from that if you don't express your sexuality in your late teens/early 20's, you're going to be locked into some kind of sexually repressed state forever. If nothing else, people are hearing this BS and saying to themselves, "Hey!!! I didn't experiment in my 20's!! I was repressed!!"

Now, masturbation...that's a whole other story...

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting your kids to be chaste. I want my children to be in loving relationships and learn about their sexuality with a caring partner. Yet, I don't necessarily think they MUST get married. Especially my daughters. Should I tell my daughters they must wait to have sex until marriage? Why? That's me telling them they MUST marry -- I'm not doing that.

I wonder what risks you're talking about with premarital sex? That you have a baby that you're not prepared for? Well, look about you in any ward and it's full of people MARRIED and not prepared for children. STD's? Well, you can get that in marriage too and you better hope to "God" your spouse doesn't stray -- oh, and by the way there are CONDOMS.

I don't think it's necessary to be active in your teens or 20's. Yet, the guilt placed upon people for WANTING to be active is quite different than someone deciding they'd rather wait. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm single now, Scottie. Should I never have sex again 'cause I don't plan on marrying again? I'm telling you right now I'm not going to refrain from sex when I find a man that I adore and I want to experience a sexual relationship with. I'm not going to feel a bit of guilt over it either. :)

The question is -- what makes it immoral?

I don't know. Should you?

Are you prepared to be one of the .01% that gets pregnant even on birth control? If so, then by all means, go for it.

It would be a miracle since I had a tubal litigation. Is it still okay to you if a 30 something year old woman has sex outside marriage? Sheesh.

I don't think that a girl in her 20's that is "sowing her oats" is ready to get pregnant. She is taking an AWFUL risk by having sex with boyfriends. The commitment level just isn't there, and if she were to get pregnant, the odds of the boy sticking around are very slim.

I think women should take precautions to not get pregnant. The question I posed is why is it IMMORAL to have sex outside marriage. Can you answer it? For instance if I had sex why it it IMMORAL -- I'm not going to get pregnant, I know how to protect myself from STD's -- so, outside of the "harm" factors what makes it immoral?

Although, I will say you are right about kids getting married and having babies before they are ready. But, there are levels of acceptable ready-ness. Would you condone your daughter sleeping with a boy she's known for a week because she KNOWS she's in love? Might this be a bit different than a couple that has known each other for some time and has made a serious commitment?

No, I wouldn't condone that behavior in my daughter. If she's an adult it wouldn't be up to me and I'd tell her to be careful.

Is it immoral for a couple that has known each other for a while to have sex outside of marriage? Or is it only immoral for a couple that have known each other a week to have sex outside of marriage?

Post by **_Scottie** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:43 pm

I don't attach morality and sex with marriage.

I DO warn against the dangers of having casual sex.

Abstinence (well, and I guess removal/blockage of reproductive organs) is still the only 100% effective birth control.

What I am talking about is this idea that you are somehow damaged and unfulfilled if you don't have casual sex in your 20's. That you are going to reach your 30's/40's and feel this uncontrollable restlessness because you abstained from having sex with multiple partners earlier in life.

There seems to be a mindset out there that teaching abstinence is a horrible thing. That we should ONLY teach our kids to be careful. Personally, I plan to attempt to teach my kids both. It is best to be abstinent, but you are adult and can choose for yourselves. If you choose to engage in sex, PLEASE be careful!!

I disagree with this, because no matter how careful you are, the risk is still there. And it's not like it's a risk similar to speeding. These are life changing risks we're talking about here!

It has nothing to do with whether premarital sex is moral or immoral. And, I agree that the church instilling unending guilt about sex is wrong. You can teach abstinence without guilt.

Post by **_Moniker** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:07 pm

Scottie wrote:I don't attach morality and sex with marriage.

I DO warn against the dangers of having casual sex.

Abstinence (well, and I guess removal/blockage of reproductive organs) is still the only 100% effective birth control.

What I am talking about is this idea that you are somehow damaged and unfulfilled if you don't have casual sex in your 20's. That you are going to reach your 30's/40's and feel this uncontrollable restlessness because you abstained from having sex with multiple partners earlier in life.

Well, I certainly don't think that. Who is proposing that idea?

There seems to be a mindset out there that teaching abstinence is a horrible thing. That we should ONLY teach our kids to be careful. Personally, I plan to attempt to teach my kids both. It is best to be abstinent, but you are adult and can choose for yourselves. If you choose to engage in sex, PLEASE be careful!!

I agree with you. I plan to teach my kids both, and do in fact. But, not save themselves for marriage. I personally don't care if my kids ever get married, to tell you the truth. It's not my life -- it's theirs. If they choose to I'll applaud them, if they choose not to I'll applaud that, as well.

I disagree with this, because no matter how careful you are, the risk is still there. And it's not like it's a risk similar to speeding. These are life changing risks we're talking about here!

Well, of course, Scottie -- getting pregnant is a pretty significant thing. Yet, I don't expect my children to be monks or nuns if they choose not to get married.

It has nothing to do with whether premarital sex is moral or immoral. And, I agree that the church instilling unending guilt about sex is wrong. You can teach abstinence without guilt.

Well, the topic of this thread was the morality of the LDS Church. I wasn't really that interested in sex education to tell you the truth. What is the "high moral" conduct that those that are LDS suppose for themselves was the question. But, thanks for your input.