Read the forward and introduction. Chapter 5 addresses what adultery is and what it is not. Below is a summary of what I've discovered in that chapter and I quote heavily from it. Please read the entire book for a more complete explanation.
The author explains in great depth that adultery does not merely mean "sex with a another married person," but means rather "to break wedlock," "transfer affections from God", or "to be unfaithfull to covenant vows to God". Adultery involves more than physical promiscuity. To be adultery, it must also violate the integrity of persons involved. The Old Testament adultery required an intent (a "covet") to deprive the husband of his wife as property. The desire to take what belongs to another is a sin. So, it is not permissable for a man to desire to deprive another man of his wife.
Most of our paranoia about adultery comes not from scriptural teaching, but from incorrect information handed down to us for generations. In modern times, adultery has been defined as "sex with someone other than our mate." This definition of "adultery" is false for two reasons.
(1) It is not the true meaning of either the Greek or the Hebrew word;
(2) It does not meet the test of agreement with Biblical examples.
Both adultery and prositition are considered in scripture to be governed by property rights rather than by sexual purity codes. Adultery is committed by a woman who rebels against her husband in going after sex with another man, or in other ways giving her resources to another man and depending on him. (Prov 7:7-11, Jer 2:20). A man commits adultery by taking from the married woman what her husband has claimed as his sole privilege. It is this traditional "property rights" issue that defines adultery. Strictly speaking, adultery is not a sex issue. It is taking what belongs to someone else, rebelling against one's spouse, and transferring affections to another mate. And a sex act itself is not adulterous unless it violatetes the claim of exclusive ownership by one's spouse. In other words, if exclusive rights to a wife's sexual favors is not claimed by a husband, then if his wife has sex with another person, she has not thereby committed adultery. There is no rebellion in her act and she has in no way been unfaithful. She has not "broken the bands" of her marriage.
Historically, adultery was not limited to sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery was a matter of being unfaithful to the marraige covenant. A man's wife was not permitted to move in with another man even if she did not have sex with the other man -- this too was adultery. Since she belonged to her husband, to leave and go to another man was to participate in marital theft. Adultery was, and is, breaking a marriage or destroying the marriage bond. There are more ways to do this than mere sexual unfaithfulness.
Most marriages in our socity are formed around vows whereby a man swears before God and witnesses that he will "love, cherish, and honor" his wife and promises to "protect and provide" for her. Any breach of these vows is adultery. Hence, today, many are guilty of adultery. But suppose that neither of the pair vowed to grant the other exclusive rights to their sexuality, then to have sex with someone else would not constitute a breach of the marriage covenant and it would not be adultery. This concept of adultery is strange to the modern world only because we have adopted concepts that suit our own cultural setting which flow from an incorrect doctrinal inheritance.
Modern socieity believes that adultery is sexual activity outside the marraige by either spouse, but Old Testament teaching proves that the sex-act alone does not breach marital status and is not adultery. Jesus goes on to expand adultery to the man by stating that the woman owns her husband just as he owns her (1 Cor 7:3,4). So, unlike in old testament times, his freedom is no greater than hers.
With Jesus and other New Testament authors, intention becomes a primary focus. But, even in the "looking at a woman" to lust after her, it is not the "looking" that is adultery, but it is the intention to take away the spouse and have her as his own; to break up the marraige and take the woman whom he covets. Having sex with other partners does not automatically threaten the marriage bond.
The Savior taught that neither the husband nor wife is free to divorce their mate in order to pursue other mates. To protect both husband and wife, Jesus prohibited divorce for either spouse except on the grounds of covenantal unfaithfulness. If vows were made concerning sexual exclusivity, those vows must be kept. But since such vows were made, not by God’s requirement but by man’s invention, they can be altered by mutual consent. If the couple eliminates the demands for sexual exclusivity, then sexual non-exclusivity cannot break marriage, and cannot be the basis of either divorce or adultery.
Jesus said if a man divorces his wife except for cause of unfaithfulness he “makes her commit adultery." (Matt 5:32) Obviously, the word adultery does not means having sex with someone else. The woman is innocent. How can she be guilty? The Greek word here is moixeuthenai. The form of this word is intriguing in that the passive voice puts the woman, not in a position of doing something, but of something being done to her. What is said here is that the woman in this case has been forcibly made a participant, not in a sex act, but in a "marraige breaking." Beck's translation says, "makes her a partner in adultery." Tyndale's translation says, "causeth her to break matrimony." This makes the matter plain. Adultery is the act of breaking marriage. The case cited by Jesus forces the woman against her will to become a party to marriage breaking. She is not a party to illicit sex.
Jesus defines adultery as "divorcing one's spouse without legitimate reason." If the marriage bond is not broken or threatended, then "adultery" has not occurred regardless of what sex act has been particiapted in. If sexual activity has been enjoyed with a man other than this woman's husband, yet there was no intention to break the marriage, the the sex act was not adulery.
Intention is the important issue in the Gospel. It is not the act itself that is the sin so much as the motive that drives it. In the statement "he that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart" (Matt 5:27, 28), the sin is neither the looking nor the sexual desire. The sin is "to lust after," or to be "covertousness." This is, looking with the intention to posess what belongs to someone else. This infers that where sexual thoughts and even sexual actions are exercised without the intention of taking another's spouse, then neither the sexual thoughts nor the sexual act itself is adultery since the intent to deprive another is not there. And, as with other possessions, a man may “lend” his tools, car, boat, etc. to other people with perfect propriety. Borrowing is not stealing and it does not deprive the owner of his property. But if a man enters his neighbor’s garage at night and takes his tools against his will, it is theft.
If both mates agreed that a wife was free to copulate with someone other than her husband, then doing so would not be adultery. If there was no intention to possess the woman for oneself and take her away from her husband it would not be adultery even if they have sexual intercourse. A woman may set her eyes on another man and plan a way to take him away from his wife and have him for herself. This is adultery even in the thought. But if the desire is only for sexual pleasure then it does not qualify as adultery.
The same principle is true of both men and women in marriage. They each possess the other’s body. They have equal rights. Husband may have intercourse with another woman if his wife permits it. Likewise for the wife. Outrageous? No, it is Biblical. Just go back again to the Old Testament and read the hundreds of examples. One may suggest that something is lost if one’s mate has sex with another person. The reality is otherwise. There remains as much sexual pleasure available to the mate as before. Nothing is diminished or lost. It is nothing more than sexual pleasure, the same as it was enjoyed by Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, Solomon, etc.
relationship we havepersonal rights, their property, and their marriage. God requires only that husbands and wives do not sever their marriage ties in order to pursue sex with other partners. If the commitment to marriage ties remain strong there is no prohibition against, nor limit to each spouse enjoying the sexual favors of others. It was so for men in the Old Testament. It is so for us now., it is pleasure. It would be more truthful to refer to it as"having pleasure,” “enjoying sex,” or whatever, and thereby eliminate the thought that to engage in sex with a person means we “love” that person. There is no more reason to equate love and sex, than to equate a back-rub and love; eating together and love; etc. Certainly, sex with one we love intensifies the enjoyment and emotion of sex, but in the same way eating a meal with one we love makes the meal more enjoyable than eating with relative strangers. The same principle is true of both men and women in marriage. They each possess the other’s body. They have equal rights. Husband may have intercourse with another woman if his wife permits it. Likewise for the wife. Outrageous? No, it is Biblical. Just go back again to the Old Testament and read the hundreds of examples. One may suggest that something is lost if one’s mate has sex with another person. The reality is otherwise. There remains as much sexual pleasure available to the mate as before. Nothing is diminished or lost. It is nothing more than sexual pleasure, the same as it was enjoyed by Abraham, Jacob, Judah, Gideon, Samson, David, Solomon, etc.
The sex act itself is not an issue with God. What God protects is the relationship with others. He demands that we respect their
Spouses should not feel threatened by the desire of their partner to have sex with another person. It is literally as natural and common as the desire for water. Such a desire is not a lack of love for one’s mate. It is nothing more than a desire for additional sexual pleasure. When David added wives to his harem it in no way implied a loss of love for his previous wife/wives. Neither partner should feel threatened by their spouse’s desire for sexual variety.
That a spouse desires sexual pleasure with others does not mean he/she loves their mate any less. The love and the marriage bond of life-long commitment is still as strong as ever. But they have opened themselves up to pleasure that God has thousands of years. We would do well to cease referring to sexual activity as “making love” because truthfully, it has nothing to do with love
Marriages that are founded on sex rather than love will not endure beyond the physical limitations of our bodies and our physical capacity for sex. Marriage founded on love will remain strong despite whatever else comes along. We can and should make the effort required to rid ourselves of the junk that fills our minds because of misinformation heaped upon us “by them of old time.” We can give our partners a wonderful gift by giving them the freedom to use their sexual liberty in ways that will enhance their joy of living and increase their fulfillment.
These things being said, it may now be apparent to wives, that when their husband “checks out” a beautiful woman he is not somehow being “mentally unfaithful” to her, or wishing he had married someone else, or no longer thinks she is beautiful, or no longer loves her. Surely no one believes that when a couple marry then suddenly all other women become unattractive to the husband and all other men become unattractive to the wife. Possessing a beautiful house does not suddenly cause all other houses to become ugly. Husbands do not suddenly become blind to beautiful women when they marry and wives do not suddenly become blind to handsome men when they marry. Once married, husbands and wives do not cease to have any sort of sexual response to other attractive people. It is unrealistic for married people to expect their mates to never again take a second look at an attractive person of the opposite sex. And it is not necessary for married people to feel they must choke off sexual urges and desires that simply they must “protect my property at all cost,” and thereby deny the one they love some sexual adventure and pleasure that is legitimate for them. And those who desire to take advantage of their sexual liberty should not feel guilty or ashamed or condemned because they have that desire.exist. They do not need to feel that love his wife and refuse to allow her to fully experience natural, legitimate emotions? If a man’s wife looks at other men and acts in a way so as to suggest she might be having sexual thoughts about other men he should not feel the least bit threatened by it.
If a married couple can overcome the mountainous hurdle that has been placed before them in the opinions, traditions and cultural standards of society and an ignorant church; if they can transcend the fallacy that sex with anyone other than their spouse is utterly forbidden, they are poised to begin exciting adventures together heretofore unimaginable. They can go places together, do things together, watch things together, talk about things together that will enhance their enjoyment of life, of other people, and of each other. If they have committed together to remain married no matter what and then grant the gift of sexual freedom to their mate, they can do nothing else that is so unselfish and so full of love and trust.
A man should not feel the least bit threatened if his wife looks a second time at a handsome, well-built man. There is absolutely no excuse for jealousy in such a situation. If she comments on how good-looking he is the man should be able to agree and be glad his wife is not cowed and in bondage to unrealistic opinions and expectations. What a wonderful thing it would be if all men would allow their wives to open their eyes and enjoy the normal delight of looking appreciatively at the other sex. How can a man truly
Interesting thoughts. The only problem with your hypothesis regarding "intent" vs. "action" and God's views on "intimacy" vs. "adultery" is that you already DID covenant to keep the Law of Chastity. Which explicitly states commands to "not have sexual relations with anyone except with your (spouse) to whom you are legally and lawfully married."
ReplyDeleteHe will hold you accountable for covenants you have made.
Please reconsider your lifestyle choice.
Please repent.
Justification is like masturbation.
You are just screwing yourself.
OOPS. Clarification on my mis-quoting of the Law of Chastity Temple covenants from last night:
ReplyDeletePre-1990 Law of Chastity covenant: “We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity. This I will explain. To the sisters, it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your husband to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded. To the brethren it is that no one of you will have sexual intercourse except with your wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”
Post-1990 Law of Chastity Covenant: “We are instructed to give unto you the law of chastity, which is that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”
Having “no sexual relations except with” in English is a double-negative. Just like in multiplication: 2 negatives = positive.
The non-double negative version= “Each of you shall have sexual relations with your husband or wife.”
That sounds a bit forceful, doesn’t it? I think so, too. But we need remember that the commandment is about the Law of Chastity, not the command to “Multiply and Replenish the Earth”, which had been given previously in the Garden of Eden.
So, the Lord wants to be clear about the sacred nature of “becoming one” in purpose, in symbolism, in physical reality. In steps the “Law of Chastity”, wherein, “each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.”
NOT= “having sex near” OR “having sex within proximity to” OR “having sex in the vicinity of”
I realize you are adults and are intelligent and are just trying to find someone that will agree with you to "lull you away into carnal security."
Flaxen cords at the strip club have turned into awful chains now, haven't they?
I don’t want to throw rocks at you. I am actually worried about your kids and your souls.
For someone who is reading a SWINGERS blog sure has a whole lot to say about the Law of Chastity.
ReplyDeleteI was originally looking for a "Mormon Swing Dance Group"... It was like a train wreck..... I couldn't peel my eyes off of the ridiculous notion that these practices are condoned by God....
ReplyDeleteGo study the history of early Mormonism, and you will find women having sex with men who are not their husbands. If Joseph Smith can swing, so can other Mormons (and some will, inevitably). God doesn't seem to do much about it (unless you believe he personally strikes down the guilty, and only the guilty, with STDs: if that is your position, then beware that you are making him condemn a lot of innocent people).
DeleteWow, I'm not even sure where to begin. Frankly, I'm "astonished beyond all measure" (Alma 31:19) at this blog. After hearing a rumor from a brother-in-law that there are LDS swingers, I did a search and surfed by to see, in fact, if it was true. I see now that it's not true at all. Granted, the make-believe characters in this blog ("Joe" and "Kristy/Christy", spelled both ways in here in this blog, LOL) may be self-proclaimed swingers, but they are certainly not Latter-Day Saints. Oh sure, they may have been baptized, and they may even attend their church meetings, etc., but their actions are way out of line. This whole blog is all a bunch of mediocre fiction writing -- two-bit erotica that reads like a cheap Harlequin dime novel. I have to admit, however, that the blog post about adultery, that swapping partners with consent is not adultery because of some book that a pastor wrote and because of an ancient Greek word in the Bible and because you're not breaking the bond, and it's all about the intent, etc., etc., was truly fascinating. That one blog post put every alchemist, ancient and modern, to shame as it turned a big old lump of lead into a sparkling nugget of pure gold. AMAZING!! Also, the notion that morality is genetic?!? Wow! I wish I had the time to write how blatantly wrong all of this is. You two are living a lie, and you both know it. Plain and simple, this is adultery. You can split all the hairs you want or play whatever kind of semantic word game with ancient Greek or Hebrew words that you like, but you'll never get away from the simple fact that you're both tangled up in a sticky web of lies. Wow, I guess it's true that even the very elect will deceived. So let me get this straight -- it's all about the intent -- having sex with someone you aren't married to isn't a sin and it isn't wrong because you're in the same room with your wife while you're having sex with someone you aren't married to, but if you were to do that without your husband or wife knowing about it, then it would be sick and wrong and disgusting, but maybe not even then because you're intent is good....how twisted is all that?!?!? It's like saying that assisted suicide isn't murder because the intentions are good, right?? Look, we are ALL sinners, myself included, and we all have our things to work on, but for crying out loud, don't be so clueless as to think that this is all ok, because it isn't -- you know it, and you know that God knows it. Don't justify yourself in committing a little sin -- you two are smarter than that. Consider this a shout out from a fellow member of the LDS church (if, in fact, you truly are members of the LDS church) to stand up, straighten out, and fly right. Go read and memorize Isaiah 5:20, and come back and report on it. Then read and study your scriptures for a while and prayerfully ask a loving Heavenly Father if what you're doing is sanctioned by Him, etc. "Joe" and "Kristy/Christy", you guys need to get a clue, and here's a hint -- you're not going to find it in some strip club or a sex club.
ReplyDeleteDear SimplyVision, You would do well to stop and collect your thoughts. Clearly you are locked in the cell of spewing forth worn but to some comfortable opinions. If you would stop condemning and carefully read the holy scriptures you would come to the well described conclusions of Philo Theos.
DeleteGreetings from San Antonio TX! We've enjoyed reading the adventures of your blog posts! We are believers ourselves (although not in the LDS), active in our church ministries and even in the administration of our church, pastored by an internationally famous Apostle. Like you, we both grew up in conservative church upbringing. We stepped into the LS late last year, and had little to no qualms about the lifestyle from a Christian perspective, figuring that if it was alright for the Heroes of the Faith then it was alright for us as well. We encountered some pushback within the family when one of our kids, upset at having to follow the rules of the house, snooped around on my wife's computer and outed us to our immediate family. We used this very blog posting, and later the book you recommended, as the basis of our defense.
ReplyDeleteThrough it all, we have come to the conclusion based on all that we interpret from Scripture, that you can be fully committed to God, your church and your spouse, and still be an active swinger. "Divine Sex' only served to solidify our beliefs and resolve on the subject.
We really wish y'all lived closer to TX- we would love to hang out and compare notes on experiences, ups and downs and reactions from those in and out of the church. If you're ever in San Antonio, give us a holler!