Question
Gramps,
I realize that we are to remain completely chaste before marriage, but what about cohabiting with single persons of the opposite sex in a completely platonic arrangement? Does church policy have a specific stance? If circumstances require that living arrangements be coed, and the law of chastity is not being broken, it seems to me that this shouldn’t be a problem.
Sheldon
Answer
Sheldon,
One of the core teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is regarding sexuality and relationships, called the Law of Chastity. This commandment calls for complete abstinence from sexual relations before marriage and total fidelity within marriage. But the Law of Chastity is not limited to specific acts; it encompasses thoughts, actions, and living situations that may lead to temptation or the perception of moral compromise.
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, a senior leader in the Church, powerfully taught about the sacredness of intimate relationships and the necessity of expressing this intimacy solely within the bounds of marriage:
Human intimacy is reserved for a married couple because it is the ultimate symbol of total union, a totality and a union ordained and defined by God…” He then added, “Such a total union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with solemn promises and the pledge of all they possess—their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams.
Shared living spaces between unmarried men and women—even if intended to be purely platonic—can challenge adherence to the Law of Chastity and place individuals in situations that may erode the boundaries they wish to maintain. Many relationships that begin as strictly platonic can develop into something more, putting both individuals at risk of violating their values, even unintentionally.
When it comes to cohabitation between unmarried couples in a romantic relationship, the stance of The Church is clear. Living together before marriage is discouraged not merely because it increases the risk of sexual transgression (though it certainly does), but also because it undermines the level of commitment necessary for a strong marital foundation.
Research and experience show that couples who cohabit before marriage are, statistically, less likely to possess the lasting commitment integral to a stable marriage. In the words of one counselor responding to a concerned parent of a cohabiting son:
…cohabitation is both morally wrong and it increases the likelihood of break-up or divorce (85% of these relationships end within 5 years whether they get married later or not, according to the research we did).
This data reflects the experience that the stability of marriage is most secure when both parties are willing to make formal, binding commitments to one another before beginning life together. The Church teaches that marriage is not ‘just a piece of paper,’ but rather the sacred, public, and legal declaration of mutual commitment—a prerequisite for both the romantic and practical foundations of family life.
Some members, especially young single adults or college students, may wonder about purely platonic living arrangements with someone of the opposite sex. On this issue, the guidance is less about explicit rules and more about principles and wisdom. I’ve said in the past:
I’m not aware of any specific Church policy prohibiting the practice, but in general, platonic cohabitation strikes me as a most unwise arrangement both because it courts temptation and because it presents the appearance of evil, which we are taught to avoid.
This counsel emphasizes two critical concerns:
1. Human nature and experience show that boundaries can blur over time.
2. Even if no breach of chastity occurs, others may perceive impropriety. The Apostle Paul taught, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22).
In summary, while there may not be a direct prohibition against platonic cohabitation between single church members, the recommendation is strong against it due to the risks to one’s reputation, example to others, and emotional and spiritual well-being.
The emphasis on avoiding the “appearance of evil” is not just a matter of individual morality; it is a concern for the community. Members of The Church are taught to be “examples of the believers,” mindful that actions, however innocent in intention, may influence those with weaker faith or outside observers considering joining the faith.
President James E. Faust once said:
Staying away from the edge is an individual responsibility… Our moral agency requires us to know good from evil and choose the good. If we are trying to avoid, not only evil, but the very appearance of evil, we will act for ourselves and not be acted upon.
These principles are especially crucial given the Church’s high priority on family, youth, and missionary efforts. The example set by members in their everyday lives often speaks as powerfully as sermons or lessons.
Gramps
