Crisis of Faith - Dear John Letters

[Backroads]

3 minutes ago, NightSG said:

There's not a good way to handle it, but letters certainly allow for honest discussion well in advance of the missionary's return

Why is the missionary discussing marriage plans instead of focusing on his mission?

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Forgiveness is not an issue. The matter in question happened 2 years ago and last time I checked he was doing fine. I've moved away since then so I don't really talk to him much though.

My problem is the fact that this is so widespread. That my friends story is just a drop in an ocean of pain we are causing each other. As we all come to this church to be more Christ-like and love one another more, we are hurting eachother in just about the worst ways a person can. And looking for loopholes to justify it. That it is so engrained in our culture that it is almost a benchmark of the missionary experience.

But how we go about it isn't. Ending a relationship is not a sin. How we end it can be. I don't care if a person is a stranger on the street or my best friend. Callousness towards the hurt we cause someone is a sin.

Stop blaming the church because people are idiots.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Forgiveness is not an issue. The matter in question happened 2 years ago and last time I checked he was doing fine. I've moved away since then so I don't really talk to him much though.

My problem is the fact that this is so widespread. That my friends story is just a drop in an ocean of pain we are causing each other. As we all come to this church to be more Christ-like and love one another more, we are hurting eachother in just about the worst ways a person can. And looking for loopholes to justify it. That it is so engrained in our culture that it is almost a benchmark of the missionary experience.

It totally is...  You missed the part about turning it over to the Lord as being necessary to forgive.  We know this did not happen because you are here not trusting in the Lord to handle it but trying to fix things yourself.

As for a benchmark of the missionary experience what a bunch of bullcrap.  Dear Johns happen yes... but it is not a universal experience and its not always the missionary being the one getting dumped... Sometimes they do the dumping.  And when it is the non-missionary, it is not always because they secretly played the field and found someone better.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Stop blaming the church because people are idiots.

One of the best pieces of advice I've read on this board.

[Lostboy289]

Why isn't the church in any way discouraging it?

Seems like this is the only form of dishonesty that we kind of turn a blind eye to, while every other aspect of our lives we are encouraged to be Christlike (perfect) about.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Lostboy289

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

One of the best pieces of advice I've read on this board.

Thanks.

I see so many posts on problems with the church's "culture". As if people are not the same selfish idiots all over. True, the gospel should, theoretically, make people less idiotic. And I would dare say it does, overall. But it cannot cure idiocy. Mortal beings are fallible.

Seriously @Lostboy289, outside the church the only reason you don't see the problem is because people don't bother to commit or go on missions. They just sleep with whoever's drunk enough at the moment and move on (as one example, there are many more). The only part of the church culture that effects this issue is that commitment is a thing in the gospel.

So everyone in the church must be perfect or you'll lose your faith?

Really?

Be a little bit forgiving. You certainly will have your idiocy things just like I do and just like everyone does. We're imperfect mortals, all.

Stop judging because others sin differently than you.

And what does any of this have to do with your faith?

Edited April 18, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Why isn't the church in any way discouraging it?

The fact that you believe they aren't speaks volumes.

[estradling75]

Please note that one of these statements directly contradicts the other

 

59 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Devastating someone to their core, maybe to the point where they cannot trust someone for years? I know I still cannot fully trust people after mine.

And this is more than just the boy/girl who broke the promise. What about the third party here? Often it is a friend, a former companion, or even a family member of the hurt party. Heck, I would feel scummy doing this even if they had already broken up, let alone betraying them to move in on someone that was taken. Is betrayal of your fellow Brother or Sister because you saw something you wanted really not serious?

In my mind the seriousness of a sin is directly tied to the level of hurt is causes in others. The limits of our own conscience are not the benchmark here.

Even if he/she came to that conclusion after messing around with someone else? Even after you promised someone something, regardless of how eternal that promise was? I thought lying was a sin at all levels? Betrayal too?

 

Either he is in a hurt state and cannot trust someone for years... or he is doing fine and has forgiven and moved on.

You can not have both be true.

 

17 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Why isn't the church in any way discouraging it?

Seems like this is the only form of dishonesty that we kind of turn a blind eye to, while every other aspect of our lives we are encouraged to be Christlike (perfect) about.

And we have already talked about sin..  You demand we treat it like a sin.  When it is pointed out that we do treat it as sin you ignore that point.  Only to rant on how bad you think this one is.  And frankly you are not going to convince anyone to treat the breaking off of an engagement as being on the same level of fornication, adultery and murder

Edited April 18, 2017 by estradling75

[Lostboy289]

Quote

Stop judging because others sin differently than you.

And what does any of this have to do with your faith?

It bothers me because in this church we set an incredibly high benchmark for ourselves in how we live our lives.

Not a single drop of alcohol can touch or lips, not a single curse spoken on our tongue, every penny paid in tithing, never knowing the touch of anyone else besides our spouse.

Many non-Mormons argue that even these standards for anyone, let alone youth is unrealistic. Yet here we are living it and encouraging others to do so.

I don't get why in this case, where we are in a position to have such an influence on another, the integrity which we deal with others suddenly  goes out the window and anything is fair game. Cheating on your boyfriend? Just fine. Seducing your best friend's/companion's/brother's girl? Go for it. No one will have anything to say but a congratulations and a slap on the back once that announcement comes out.

Sinning is one thing, but an widespread sinning epidemic being brushed aside by a community with a "nobody's perfect" mentality, when that is never, ever an attitude we would take towards any other sin we need to repent from.

My crisis of faith is not in God but in the church. How someone can do this to another human, get a temple recommend from the bishop a week later, and go on with their lives. And how vast that problem can be. What was that study saying only 10% of Missionary relationships work out. That sounds pretty horrible to me.

Quote

The fact that you believe they aren't speaks volumes.

The only words ive heard or read talk about not being in a relationship when you go on your mission. Not a single word about what to do when you are already there.

Except for all those talks about honesty and integrity which apparently don't apply in the case of how we deal with romantic partners.

 

Quote

Either he is in a hurt state and cannot trust someone for years... or he is doing fine and has forgiven and moved on.

You can not have both be true.

He was in a hurt state but years later he is fine. He got over it, but that doesn't make the devastation he felt at the time any less real.

I am the one that got my own variation of a Dear John phonecall and still have trouble trusting people.

Quote

And frankly you are not going to convince anyone to treat the breaking off of an engagement as being on the same level of fornication, adultery and murder

And its never going to be a real discussion when you keep saying straw man garbage like that.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Lostboy289

[NightSG]

32 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Why is the missionary discussing marriage plans instead of focusing on his mission?

Because it's a lot better to have a reasonable and mature discussion of the situation than an emotional breakdown and potential early return when he gets a completely unexpected engagement announcement instead.

22 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Why isn't the church in any way discouraging it?

If I knew that one, I'd have a bestselling book.

Quote

Seems like this is the only form of dishonesty that we kind of turn a blind eye to, while every other aspect of our lives we are encouraged to be Christlike (perfect) about.

Oh, it's far from the only form of dishonesty that's allowed to slide; how many of the most highly respected people in any given ward are in sales?  Have you ever heard a 100% totally honest sales pitch?  I mean completely honest, not just technically avoiding outright falsehood.

I had a single woman who worked in sales chatting online.  I made some comment about how I really didn't have any way of knowing that she's even really who she says she is, so she sent me a pic of her (freshly renewed) TR as proof.  We met a couple weeks later at a cafe.  She ordered coffee, and proceeded over the next 3-4 hours to admit that (in spite of being 40, never married, raised in the Church and having had a TR since she was in her 20s) had two DUIs, got cranky and desperate if she went more than a couple months without sex, (and making it clear that she was due for some) and plenty of other things.  I asked her how she got through the TR interview and the answer was "I lie for a living, might as well use it for good stuff too."

And of course, I know there are people n this board who will be far more hung up on the coffee than the rest of that. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by NightSG

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Cheating on your boyfriend? Just fine. Seducing your best friend's/companion's/brother's girl? Go for it. No one will have anything to say but a congratulations and a slap on the back once that announcement comes out.

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that, in the UK LDS community, sex with someone other than your boyfriend or with your best friend's/companion's/brother's girl is considered okay? Or do "cheating on" and "seducing" have other meanings I'm not aware of?

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Lostboy289 said:

 

Except for all those talks about honesty and integrity which apparently don't apply in the case of how we deal with romantic partners.

Except they totally do...  Always and forever.  The fact that people struggle with it in various ways and shapes and forms does not mean the church does not teach it... does not mean that the church does not mean it.

As a flawed mortal I am sure you have had your moments of lack of honesty and integrity... what did the church do to you... a vile sinner that showed a lack of honesty and integrity?

[Lostboy289]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that, in the UK LDS community, sex with someone other than your boyfriend or with your best friend's/companion's/brother's girl is considered okay? Or do "cheating on" and "seducing" have other meanings I'm not aware of?

UK? I'm not British.....

Seducing or cheating doesn't have to be sexual, it can still remain within the bounds of the law of chastity while still being cheating. For example making out.

As a flawed mortal I am sure you have had your moments of lack of honesty and integrity... what did the church do to you... a vile sinner that showed a lack of honesty and integrity?

I'm not saying I'm perfect. I'm not, and have hurt people in the past (just never romantically). But i've prayed about it and made it right with the person.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that, in the UK LDS community, sex with someone other than your boyfriend or with your best friend's/companion's/brother's girl is considered okay? Or do "cheating on" and "seducing" have other meanings I'm not aware of?

I have the same question. Earlier LostBoy accused of people "screwing around" with people after their missionaries leave and that has a very specific meaning in my head. Are we have a translation issue? 

Yes, having sexual relations outside of marriage is very bad whether you have a missionary out or not, but LostBoy seems to be intending something softer than that by his phrases.

Clarification please, @Lostboy289?

 

ETA: Never mind, mutual posting. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Backroads

[NightSG]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying that, in the UK LDS community, sex with someone other than your boyfriend or with your best friend's/companion's/brother's girl is considered okay?

Don't Church standards apply worldwide?  'Cause if that's the same here, my weekend plans just got seriously upgraded.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Why isn't the church in any way discouraging it?

 

They are. They are telling the youth not to get serious when they're too young for it.

[Vort]

Just now, Lostboy289 said:

UK? I'm not British.....

Sorry, my bad. Confused two threads.

Just now, Lostboy289 said:

Seducing or cheating doesn't have to be sexual, it can still remain within the bounds of the law of chastity while still being cheating. Making out for one...

I have never heard "seducing" or "cheating" used with respect to relationships without it being sexual in nature, except perhaps a few obviously figurative usages. Your usage seemed very literal, not figurative.

In any case, the Church teaches integrity. Church members attempt to learn and live integrity. We also counsel our youth not to get involved with romance at a young age. Some do anyway. But if you are not married, you have no covenant. So that's really the bottom line. Getting engaged does not morally obligate you to follow through and get married.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

I'm not saying I'm perfect. I'm not, and have hurt people in the past (just never romantically). But i've prayed about it and made it right with the person.

Way to evade the question...  What did the Church do to you because of your sins?

[Lostboy289]

Quote

Church members attempt to learn and live integrity. We also counsel our youth not to get involved with romance at a young age. Some do anyway. But if you are not married, you have no covenant. So that's really the bottom line. Getting engaged does not morally obligate you to follow through and get married.

 But you do have not only an obligation to stay faithful to that person until the relationship has ended.

And the level of commitment that relationship had should reflect the care taken with the other person's feelings when ending it.

Quote

I have never heard "seducing" or "cheating" used with respect to relationships without it being sexual in nature, except perhaps a few obviously figurative usages. Your usage seemed very literal, not figurative.

I ask this for future reference not to be arguementative but because I'm truly curious, if you had a boyfriend who made out with another girl, would "cheating" not be a word you would use? What would be more appropriate?

Quote

Way to evade the question...  What did the Church do to you because of your sins?

Way to not make this a civil conversation. And sorry, I thought I was answering your question.

I mean its hard to say because iv'e repented for a few things during my 3 years in the church and each one of them is different. In a couple cases I lost my temple recommend for a few months. And il admit I haven't talked to the Bishop in every case, since some I didn't feel was necessary to. But in every case I can tell you that I prayed about it, found a way to atone, and if a person was hurt, always find a way to make it right with that person. Ive never just moved on when another person's feelings were involved.

It wasn't that the church had to go out and "attack" me personally. But there was a culture created where I felt accountable for my actions and because of my relationship with the lord, felt obligated to go repent.

However I feel that the social stigma would have been more apparent if I had done anything that was in full public display of the ward. Like for example cheating on my girlfriend in front of everyone.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

Just now, Lostboy289 said:

Look a couple posts above mine.

First of all, I have no clue why people think I'm from the UK.

Secondly, it doesn't necessarily need to be sexual.

No, but for shades of meaning in a discussion we ought to all be on the same page and the same definitions. 

[NightSG]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

They are. They are telling the youth not to get serious when they're too young for it.

Which still dodges the integrity issue.  It's like raising taxes on cars to reduce drunk driving.

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have never heard "seducing" or "cheating" used with respect to relationships without it being sexual in nature, except perhaps a few obviously figurative usages. Your usage seemed very literal, not figurative.

Not an English major, but I have spoken it for most of my life, (less a year or so of complete gibberish) and "seduce" can be used in a non-sexual context, as well as a reduced-to-almost-non-sexual context, such as cuddling or making out.

5 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

First of all, I have no clue why people think I'm from the UK.

Well, if you reek of boiled cabbage, that could explain both the assumptions and your lack of a wife.

Edited April 18, 2017 by NightSG

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

It bothers me because in this church we set an incredibly high benchmark for ourselves in how we live our lives.

"We" do not. God does.

12 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Many non-Mormons argue that even these standards for anyone, let alone youth is unrealistic. Yet here we are living it and encouraging others to do so.

Are you suggesting that arguing against God is a good idea?

13 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Not a single word about what to do when you are already there.

This is rubbish. We have been clearly told to not go into missions with serious relationships, and to not think about such things while serving, etc.

As to the rest of your post... If people are going to be huge babies about break-ups that's on them. I suspect it's part of the snowflake culture we live in. But good grief. Who hasn't had their heart broken? Grownups deal with it and move on. It's not a big cultural problem. And it's not evil. People break up. Sometime's it's messy. Sheesh.

It strikes me that you're angry and lashing out accordingly, and posting here to get others to lash out with you. But that's your problem, not the church's or other people's or even the person who broke up with whoever.

Just because one person thinks another has wronged them doesn't mean they have.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Which still dodges the integrity issue.  It's like raising taxes on cars to reduce drunk driving.

 

So you want to harp on the integrity issue as well... so be it. same question.  What has the church done to you when you have lied and shown a lack of integrity?

Because if the church did nothing to you in this sin... it is very hypocritical of you to complain how the church did not take action against someone else.

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by estradling75

[Backroads]

4 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

 But you do have not only an obligation to stay faithful to that person until the relationship has ended.

And the level of commitment that relationship had  should reflect the care taken when ending it.

I think that's fair, but is it right to force someone to participate in a non-marriage relationship longer than they feel emotionally connected?

A mission is a considerably long time. 2 years, generally taken at the time where young adults are going through changes: college, jobs, exploring the world. And we no longer live in a world where most of the womenfolk sit down and crochet and churn butter until the menfolk return. "Waiting for a missionary" is an unrealistic and unfair demand that seems outside of a relationship. 

I completely agree that a surprise "Dear John" is callous bad form. However, a heartfelt letter stating more or less "I'm moving on, I'm sorry and thanks for our time together" should be a reasonable option. 

[Backroads]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is rubbish. We have been clearly told to not go into missions with serious relationships, and to not think about such things while serving, etc.

If more missionaries and their sweethearts followed this counsel, we could cut down on the "what to do about the shattering relationship" by quite a lot.

An ounce of prevention and all that.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Backroads