Talk:Law of chastity

message: 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)
thread_title: Overall overhaul

message: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Nudism

message: 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)
thread_title: Facts

message: 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 Fizz (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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 Fizz (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Chastity]]? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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 Fizz (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of self-published source

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Fizz (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism about completing college

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism by "many Protestant religions"

message: 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)
replies: text: Pretty good work, thanks for the assist. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede rewording 

message: 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)
thread_title: Kimball, masturbation and homosexuality

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Catholic church

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Homosexuality and the church" synopsis