Lesson 11 in the Old Testament manual employs several stories from Genesis 34-39 to develop the theme of sexual morality. Joseph’s actions embody the “Lord’s standards” for morality and are contrasted with the actions of Shechem, Reuben, and Judah. You may notice that the featured characters in the lesson are all male. What shall a woman do with a lesson like this? I think the idea is for women to identify with Joseph — to be virtuous when facing temptation. But Joseph is a man, his responses are male-oriented, and intentionally or not this approach will tend to render the women in your Sunday School classroom invisible.  Consideration of the female archetypes found within these chapters may yield some surprising insights.

As feminists might point out, a patriarchal “virgin/whore” stereotype divides and traps women on one side or the other.  Yet this is how our lesson is developed with regard to the female characters.  Joseph’s encounter with the wife of Potiphar introduces us to “The Whore.”  This nameless woman casts her eyes upon Joseph, and day after day entreats him to lie with her.  In a final, dramatic scene, she grabs his clothing and tears it from his body as he pulls away from her and runs off.  Then she lies and accuses him of trying to rape her.

In the next scriptural passage the lesson covers, we meet Dinah, “The Virgin.”  As with most archetypal women figures, Dinah is shadowed and one-dimensional.  She is described as a daughter and a sister to be protected and avenged by her father and brothers. She is “defiled” by Shechem, a young man of highborn status from a neighboring town.  We are not told how she feels about this lover, whose “soul clave unto [her]” and who desired to marry her.  The lesson material tells us that Shechem did not truly love Dinah, or else he would not have defiled her.  However, Genesis 34 describes his offer to pay any amount for a dowry, and his willingness to join with her people, submit to circumcision, and convince all of the men in his town to do the same. In my eyes he is a tragic and romantic figure.  I wish there was more information available about Dinah’s response to this man. But the lack of detail is necessary to preserve the asexual, archetypal element of the deflowered virgin in the story.

Perhaps it is an unconscious arrangement for the writers of this lesson to have placed these two bilateral female archetypes side by side in the lesson material, but if so, it is all the more significant.  Archetypes are elementary ideas stemming from the unconscious.  The danger in including only these two women in the lesson is that they are both powerless.  Dinah the virgin is a victim of a powerful male, and Mrs. Potiphar the whore is also rendered powerless by the virtuous Joseph who rejects her advances.  Males in the stories are shown as individuals with the ability and strength to choose and control their sexual and moral options.

One might feel constrained by the material on women available in the scriptures, however, there exists within these passages a third woman who might prove to be a foil to our figurative virgin and whore.  Let us examine the lessons taught by the actions of Tamar in Genesis 38.  Tamar is conspicuously left out of the lesson manual, though this chapter is included as part of the scripture block. Judah’s actions are briefly contrasted with the faithfulness of Joseph.  Going back to the scripture passage, we read that Judah chose Tamar to be the wife of his eldest son, Er.  When Er died, custom dictated that the next son, Onan would marry her and provide her with children.  Onan’s refusal to properly execute his responsibility resulted in his death, and the next son, Shelah, was not old enough to marry.  Judah told Tamar to go and live with her parents until Shelah was grown, and then promptly forgot or ignored the family’s responsibilities to the widow.  Several years later, Tamar conceived a plan to remind Judah of these things.

Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 shows that the law was on her side, and Tamar could have reported Judah to the authorities, legally loosened Judah’s shoe, and spit in his face.  But she was smarter than that.  In contrast to the other women acknowledged in the lesson, Tamar deliberately used her sexuality to affect her destiny.  Despite the fact that she lived in a culture where women had little power or choice over their own circumstances, she seized her opportunities and was rewarded for so doing.  If we reduce this gospel lesson down to following or not following a strict standard of sexual morality, we miss the potent, powerful, and purposeful choice of Tamar to initiate sex with her father-in-law.  This choice is presented in the scriptures as a faithful action.  The nuance and meaning of the word “righteous” as Judah uses it to describe Tamar is very significant in understanding whether her actions were justified. The Hebrew word used is tsadaq, “to be just or righteous.” This word and its derivatives are used hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament. It is used to describe the righteousness of Noah (Gen. 7:1), the Law (Deu. 4:8), David (1 Sam. 24:17), and even Jehovah (2 Chr. 12:6). The meaning is thus: correct, right before God, or justified, in a very strong sense of the word righteous. Tamar was a woman of integrity who struck out in a creative though unorthodox way to fulfill her duty to herself and her family.  Her exploit resulted in twin sons, one of whom would continue the chosen lineage and become the progenitor of the Messiah.  Tamar is a complex human being and one of the few women in the scriptural record who is described in such a rich and nuanced manner.

What is more, the story of Tamar can be nicely dovetailed with a secondary message of Lesson 11, that class members “learn how to make all experiences and circumstances work together for their good.”  Surely Tamar deserves a prominent place in Lesson 11, wherever female members form part of the class population!  Don’t you agree?

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

The reason I highlight this is because there are certain callings within the Church that make it impossible, or at least very unlikely, for you to have if you have been involved in certain activities.  I am sure that these people do not seek for these types of callings.  I highlight this as an apparent ‘inconsistency’ between scripture and practice.  For example, over the years there has been some flip-flopping on the issue of Divorce and being a Bishop.  It seems that with current levels of divorce so high that the Church can no longer not have those people as possible candidates, when in the past they have made that restriction.

Any records of Church disciplinary councils are kept at Church headquarters (they are destroyed after a short-time in the local areas) presumably so that callings that need to be ratified by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve can check to see if there are any issues.  Further if an individual commits some sins then these become annotated permantly on your membership record.  An example here is being involved in child abuse or pornography.  This means that you cannot have callings with children.

How far then does forgiveness go?

Are there cases when this type of policy is justifiable?  If so which?

If we believe in true repentance why does the Church need to check their past, presumably because they want to see if they are likely to do something again in the future?  Is this faulty reasoning?

When her children were smaller she had some good friends, a married couple, who had come to her with an offer of a polygamous marriage in the next life, if she wanted it.  They assured her that this would not involve any physical relationship in this life.  However, this couple would support her financially by paying her mortgage and offering other parental help, if she ever desired it.  Because this couple were good friends of this woman she was not offended but did feel a little uncomfortable and therefore politely turned them down. 

This reminded me of another conversation I had with a friend who had a girlfriend who was a significant influence on his life and lead him to serve a mission for the LDS Church.  She died shortly after he arrived in the mission field.  He felt that he wanted to marry this girl in the life to come so that he could offer her the highest blessings of the Celestial Kingdom.  He was so convinced of this that he felt that he would expect any future wife to understand and accept this before they were married.  He is currently married although I am unsure of how he feels about this now.

I offer these examples not as illustrations of Church wide practices but as a move to understand how this ‘doctrine’ still permeates LDS thought and practice, despite President Hinckley saying this practice was not doctrinal. 

These stories have something in common; I think they are both rooted in the commonly held misconception that polygamy was practiced as a means of financially supporting single women.  This seems to me as though it could be a form of ‘benevolent polygamy’. 

My initial response was surprise.  In the first story I am surprised at the faith of this couple and their concern for the eternal welfare of this woman and her children.  Secondly I feel a sense of wonder and interest in the ways that polygamy may be still being practiced celebately and in private.  She honestly did not feel that there was any physical motive behind the offer, and that interests me.  I am certainly not advocating this, or any other form of polygamy, but am more interested in people’s impressions about this. 

My questions are these:

What are your intial reactions to these variations of polygamy?

Would such people be subject to Church Discipline, if discovered?

Is this practical (in the first example)?  How would the woman break the marriage if she met someone?  Would this lead to some physical expectation down the line?

In the second story, there is a strong sense to me that this would be barrier in his current relationship; how do other people feel about this idea?  Is this a reasonable request?

This post isn’t about marriage. It isn’t about sex.

It’s about love:  something that we all desire, crave, yearn, seek, and strive for. I have, and so have you.

Love comes in different forms: the kind that we have for a friend, a brother or sister, our parents, or for a fellow human being — which can develop into the very pinnacle of love; namely romantic love.

Romantic love is not sex. Neither does it necessarily involve or lead to marriage or sex. It’s that feeling of being captivated by another human being and caring for them, as well as expressing our emotions for them verbally or physically, often in a non-sexual manner such as holding hands, embracing, caressing, and innocent kissing: behaviour that is appropriate, according to LDS tradition, even between a couple that is not yet married. In other words, it’s not like loving your mom.

It’s not unheard of for people to live their entire lives and, if they never enter into marriage, never go beyond the non-sexual displays of affection that I just mentioned. Contrary to what some may think, most human beings are capable of living and functioning without sex, without suffering any “damage.” I’m not sure, however, that the same would be true for all who desire and yearn for romantic love, but are denied that opportunity. Can you imagine life without love? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, you probably have it as a hope or are always on the lookout for an opportunity, even subconsciously. Right?

I’ve tried to think of an example of love that would be considered evil or immoral, unless it’s incestuous or between an adult and minor. When it comes to two consenting adults, I can’t really think of any examples of “immoral love” that aren’t somehow based on sex or deceit (such as an extramarital affair). A sexual relationship between two unmarried adults is immoral. Sex is, in this case, sinful. But is their love also a sin?

Look at the picture above. If the two people were of the same sex, how would you feel about it? Would you feel differently about it? Would you see their behaviour as immoral and something to be avoided? Why or why not?

This “compromise,” if you want to call it that, will not satisfy all. It will not satisfy those who demand no less than equal marriage status within the Church, heterosexual or homosexual, as well as Church-sanctioned homosexual relations; neither will it satisfy those who believe that two members of the same sex who even sit together like that couple in the picture are treading down a wicked path. The term “compromise” is, actually, misleading in my opinion, because the way I see it, the Church would not be compromising anything in regards to the doctrines or policies related to marriage, families, or the Law of Chastity. The only thing that would change would be that heterosexual and homosexual members of the Church would truly be held to the same standards of chastity and morality outside of marriage. That would mean that a couple, such as depicted in the photo, sitting on a bench on BYU campus or outside the Tabernacle, would face no disciplinary action for their innocent display of romantic affection — whether heterosexual or homosexual.

We know that we have a problem in the Church with homosexuals feeling alone, ostracized, without real purpose, and some even resorting to suicide.

Would acceptance of non-sexual same-sex relationships within the Church help to ease the burden of those who struggle and help them to remain in the Church?

What if gay members of the Church were truly held to the same standards of the Law of Chastity when it comes to expression of love and dating relationships?

What, if anything, would the Church be sacrificing or compromising on in order for gay members to be able to date openly in the same way as heterosexual couples without facing discipline?

Why is/isn’t this a good idea?

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Rather than debate that statement, although I am open to discussing it here, I want to focus on an underlying issue within something to which we refer frequently as the “Law of Chastity”.  My primary focus is on the injunction regarding eliminating “lust” – and particularly how it can be avoided no matter one’s surroundings and exposure. This a result partly of the long, interesting discussion we had recently about “naturism” – but I don’t want to rehash that discussion here.  Rather, I want to focus on one of the underlying currents that seemed to flow beneath the discussion.

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, “sexual” images or sexuality that too many people assume.

First, “lust” is used in this passage as a verb – so, in this verse”to lust” appears to mean:

to express or feel uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; to have have an excessive craving for

Conversely, the definition for “chaste” that opposes this construct best 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” or “control” – 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 – which manifests itself generally as a negative and constricting principle. Also, and this is critical, the definition highlights being “chaste” as something primarily existing 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, so why would I look away?

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 – we do not want them to “look upon a (wo)man to lust after her (him)” due to our actions.

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 of chastity we desire and the practical state of lustfulness by which we are surrounded – between where we wish we were (as individuals and/or a society) and where we actually are.

True “chastity,” therefore, includes not only conforming to reasonable 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 all – or even for any particular individual. 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 if I first must change my exposure and environment until I reach the point where they no longer matter. I shouldn’t dive into tempting situations recklessly, simply 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.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

In this passage, the woman is NOT at fault for her beauty or her “seuxality” or anything else; the man is at fault for how he reacts. While I believe in modesty in dress, at the most fundamental level the one being viewed is not “guilty” of causing the viewer’s reaction.  There are cases where s/he certainly bears some responsibility when acting in reckless disregard to the sensibilities of others, but at the most basic level the primary responsibility (at the very least) rests with the one “looking” to not “lust”.

At its most fundamental level, I believe “chastity” is NOT a restriction imposed externally; it is a characteristic developed internally.

Thoughts?

Mormon Matters Motto is Exploring Mormon culture in a balanced way- so bare with me on this one (excuse the pun).

Recently we have read that Utah has the highest rate of pornography per capita compared to all other states here

There has been a great deal of speculation about this on the bloggernacle. Could it be that Mormons have this penned up curiosity busting to get out (excuse the pun again). The internet has made pornography just a click away, not like in the days when you had to ask a grocery clerk to pull a magazine out from underneath the counter.

I sometimes wonder with all the emphasis on staying away from drugs, alcohol, pornography if it is causing a worse problem by bringing it to the fore front constantly to members minds.

For example don’t think of Christi Brinkley in a red dress, don’t think about hot percolated coffee, or an ice-cold beer. Could it be the more we constantly emphasize something the more good people who have been living a life of restricted behaviour all their lives start to feel they can’t do that forever without blowing up, then they cave in or take it underground?

Another view is of inoculation especially when it comes to nakedness or nudity. Christian nudist views are “Sexual decadence such as pornography and pedophilia (paedophilia) is the direct result of a lack of exposure to nudity in childhood (particularly of the same approximate age). This is most likely to occur when combined with other factors such as extreme parental attitudes (e.g. body shame) and social isolation. They believe that those that are raised their entire lives within Christian naturism should not have any temptation to engage in such behaviour “such as pornography.

Their experience and testimony is that complete nakedness does not incite individuals to lustful thoughts, unlike for example, a revealing skimpy top that exposes a good deal of a woman’s cleavage or a very short mini-skirt. When naked, all body parts are seen as equal and non-sexualised. When clothed, the focus is on the private parts that are partly revealed and thus objectified and sexualised

Everything you wanted to ask LDS Naturists but were afraid to ask?

Are there really Mormon Nudists?

How many active nudists are also active Mormons?

Where do you find other LDS members that have an interest in naturism?

Are there LDS naturist groups, clubs or organized activities that we can participate in?

How can you be a nudist and respect your Temple garments at the same time?

I know there are no scriptures or specific doctrine against it, but public nudity is just plain wrong – isn’t it?

Isn’t public nudity illegal?

Why get together with other LDS members?

Are Christian Naturists an anomalous group – acting ignorantly or in open defiance to their own doctrine against nudity?

Does “Body-Acceptance” place the flesh above the Spirit?

The church has given very clear council on modesty of dress – wouldn’t nudism be in conflict with that admonition?

Doesn’t being naked in close-company provide an excessive opportunity for temptation?

Click here for the rest of the questions and answers

A Utah Valley, Utah man writes about his first naturist experience…here

LDS Skinny Dipper Home Page here

Please leave a brief reply (sorry couldn’t help it)

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

• Double Standards:  Breast vs. Bottle.  Is breastfeeding shameful or obscene?  Should breastfed babies be neither seen nor heard at least in “the act”?  Perhaps bottle-fed babies should also be closeted away in fairness or stuffed under a hot blanket for cover.  Who is to blame:  the baby or the mother?
• Double Standards:  Sexism.  Does the female nipple have special powers not housed in the male nipple?  After all, males are capable of both lactation and breast cancer.  Is this bias strictly because men are more visually stimulated by women than women are by men?  Other examples of female nipple prudery:
  • “topless” models at BYU must wear bathing suit tops
  • Barbie has no nipples.  Except the ones we poked into her with a pin.  Ouch!
  • Thanks to TiVO, Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” had 125% viewership, meaning people who were watching TV watched it on average 1.25 times.  That would not have happened if 1) she had actually had a wardrobe malfunction (and it had stayed intact) and 2) access to nipple imagery was commonplace and 3) it had been an exposed male nipple.
• Double Standards:  Racism.  And why are only native people portrayed topless with their nipples brushed out (or never brushed in)?  Could they have instead done the Mike Myers thing where they hold up various potted plants or small woodland animals to hide the naughty bits?
• Extreme prudery.  If men’s visible nipples are perfectly acceptable in polite society (including YM/YW pool parties–you can’t airbrush actual nipples off an actual chest), why are they too obscene for Mormon BOM vids and temple murals featuring topless native people?  Other examples of male nipple prudery:
  • Rodin’s statue “The Kiss” was deemed too racy.
  • ZCMI attempted to censor be-nippled male mannequins and Tarzan comics.
  • The famed copy of David in the British Museum comes with a detachable fig leaf that could be used to cover his naughty bits when Victorian ladies came to the exhibit.  Nips were okay, though.  It takes a lot of prudery to out-prude the Victorians!
  • Chad Hardy’s calendar of shirtless missionaries could be added here, although the objection was more due to brand image rather than the male nipple per se.

Here are a few thoughts on the topic from various ends of the spectrum:

“While it wouldn’t be hard to come up with examples of Mormon literature that convey a sense of repressed or frustrated sexuality, rarely do we find Mormon artists and writers willing to celebrate the beauty of the naked body.”  Hugo Olaiz

“Michaelangelo’s David is a prototype of pornography.”  Orem high school sophomore at a Scorn Porn rally

““Don’t be paralyzed by prudery. Don’t fall into the opposite excess of pornography.”  Levi Peterson

Is this (pardon the expression) making a mountain out of a molehill or does the mere site of male nips send you into a frenzy of sin?  Discuss.

Is Pornography Adultery?

Coincidently, the following is excerpted from a post I wrote independent of the above article on my own blog two weeks ago (September 6), entitled “Becoming More Chaste in Thought and Deed“.

“Become more chaste in thought and deed” 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.

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” – Genesis 2:7, 1 Thess. 5:23) 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.”

What do you think? Is pornography adultery? If so, why? If not, why not – and what is it in relation to “sexual activity”?