The Crossroads of My Dreams and Destiny


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree, you are indeed being profoundly uncharitable to the OP. For shame. The OP is doing exactly what you say: Investigating whether this baggage is something he can or is willing to take on. That's his choice, not yours. Your shaming of him for asking a perfectly reasonable question and doing some real soul-searching is far beyond the pale.

The vast majority of cases I've phased things speaking in the general case. If somebody x then y, that shouldn't bother anybody unless their conscience pricks them to recognize it applies to them.  My remarks have been focused on the rule far more than on the OP.  I'm happy that he seems to have taken some things I said to heart.  I hope my being direct and honest with him was helpful.  Society is obsessed with avoiding 'shaming' and 'triggers' but for a person to repent and change they need to feel shame/regret for their sinful state and if somebody helps trigger that in them in the right way, it is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

No, you come home, report to the High Council / Stake Presidency and are released.  When you are called it is for a period of 2 years or 18 months, says so right in the letter.

Nope. You are released from full-time missionary service. You are never released from being a missionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the unfortunate facets of LDS culture, I think (and it probably derives from the Victorian culture in which Mormonism originated) is that we look at chastity/virginity as a gift we give to our spouses.

If that paradigm works for you--okay, then.  But in my view chastity is, in point of fact, a gift we give to God.  If I'm looking at our own past compliance with the LoC primarily as an ordeal, rather than as a sacrifice that brought tangible and enumerable blessings; then I really haven't caught the vision of it, and that may suggest that my interest in my (future) spouse's chastity is based more in some kind of sense of proprietary entitlement over her "virginity" than in some deeply spiritual commitment and shared blessing.  Obviously, I need to know about any kids or STDs or emotional issues resulting from past sexual history; because those may present ongoing challenges through the marriage that directly affect me.  But is my wife's status before God, not the status of her hymen, that concerns me most.  Ideally I should have a testimony of the Law of Chastity (and be able to impart that testimony to my children) independently of what my wife has or hasn't done  

(And, by the way--for what it's worth, when Just_A_Girl and I got married, she had just had the Depro Provera birth control shot.  One side effect of it, for her, was that she menstruated continually for the first two years of our marriage.  So, don't over-emphasize the sex thing; because you really don't know what factors might completely upend your expectations.)

Like others have said, I think it's awesome that she's been this candid with you; and I think you've presented some very commendable insights here.  I don't think less of you if you can't get beyond her past; and you shouldn't feel guilted into continuing with a relationship you know you aren't up to.  There is no "right" or "wrong" in setting standards for a marital partner (you think you want to marry a redhead, or someone who's 5'10", or who has a PhD, or whose legs aren't hairier than yours?  Knock yourself out!).  There is only realistic and unrealistic--or, as BYU economics professor James Kearl liked to (jokingly) say to his students, your chances of finding someone better if you walk away from the marital prospect currently before you.

 And I agree with you that she has a right to a spouse who can move past this issue.  On the other hand--bear in mind, she chose you.  So it strikes me that the question before you is whether you're willing to try to work through this; and whether she's willing to be patient with you as you do.  Frankly, from what you said in your OP--it sounds like she might be worth it?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Read what I said more carefully please.  I said there is nothing wrong with preferring a wife who hasn't broken the LoC in the past, but making it a requirement is wrong.  She has repented and is forgiven so she is pure and virtuous, if he can't see that, then yes he has some issues he needs to work out before he will be a suitable match for her.

Why?

Why is it okay......nay ENCOURAGED for girls to make marrying an RM a requirement, but wrong and evil for someone to make not breaking the LoC?

I'm not saying someone should make that a requirement, that's really up to the individual and God, but there's a clear double-standard in the church when it comes to the marriage decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand a couple of you getting your noses bent out of shape like you are. No one said that sleeping around is A-OK, or that girls should do it and guys should be okay with it. The only thing anyone has said is that if the OP is going to have a problem with it even though she has repented, it would be better to let her find someone who can see her as someone who has been washed clean through the power of the Savior's atonement, and not someone who has deprived him of something. 

If you're going to say our culture approves of being unchaste, you're going to have to back that up with something. 

I swear there's a subset of people here constantly with their dukes up, ready to swing at anyone who dares get in striking distance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One of the unfortunate facets of LDS culture, I think (and it probably derives from the Victorian culture in which Mormonism originated) is that we look at chastity/virginity as a gift we give to our spouses.

If that paradigm works for you--okay, then.  But in my view chastity is, in point of fact, a gift we give to God.

Why not look at it as a gift to God, yourself, your spouse and your marriage.

Gift to God - he delights in the chastity of women.

Gift to yourself - knowing you have that level of self control, avoiding the painful process of repenting, avoiding the possibility of out of wedlock pregnancy or STDs, never have to make a unhappy confession to someone you hope to marry, having your spouse be your one and only

Gift to your spouse - has a spouse without baggage/scars of past sexual relationships, easier to extend full trust to their spouse, having the honor that they get to be their spouse's one and only, comfort knowing that all your spouse's intimate moments and memories will be with you as their partner

Gift to the marriage - start the marriage with conditions better suited for the marriage to work.

I don't want those who have marriages where they both didn't start off as virgins to feel that there is some level of marital bliss that is not available to them because of their past, that isn't the case.  But is best to do it as God would want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tcage said:

Why?

Why is it okay......nay ENCOURAGED for girls to make marrying an RM a requirement, but wrong and evil for someone to make not breaking the LoC?

I'm not saying someone should make that a requirement, that's really up to the individual and God, but there's a clear double-standard in the church when it comes to the marriage decision. 

First, not serving a mission is not the moral equivalent of breaking the LoC, so I don't think a comparison is valid.  Except for recently, serving a mission was consider a duty, not just an option, so somebody who didn't server a mission would be assume to have been unworthy, or lacking in devotion.

Second, the LDS blogosphere has a fair bit in it pushing back against the 'only marry an RM' idea, and rightly so.

The GA's have never said to only marry a virgin, or only marry an RM.

Edited by Latter-Day Marriage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

First, not serving a mission is not the moral equivalent of breaking the LoC, so I don't think a comparison is valid.

The comparison works against your thesis that a man should not care if his potential fiancée has broken the law of chastity some time in the past. Demanding that a man be an RM is, in fact, a far more spurious requirement than demanding that a woman be chaste and virginal.

I've actually appreciated much that you have had to say in the past, LDM. But I'm not sure how you justify yourself in taking a young man to task because of his concern that his potential fiancée broke the law of chastity. I somehow doubt you would have nearly as much to say against a woman who, for example, questioned whether she should marry a young man who had been convicted of burglary in his past. Frankly, the double standard rankles.

How about this: Let the OP decide whom he wants to marry and why he wants to marry her, and leave it at that. Sound reasonable?

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Why not look at it as a gift to God, yourself, your spouse and your marriage.

Gift to God - he delights in the chastity of women.

Gift to yourself - knowing you have that level of self control, avoiding the painful process of repenting, avoiding the possibility of out of wedlock pregnancy or STDs, never have to make a unhappy confession to someone you hope to marry, having your spouse be your one and only

Gift to your spouse - has a spouse without baggage/scars of past sexual relationships, easier to extend full trust to their spouse, having the honor that they get to be their spouse's one and only, comfort knowing that all your spouse's intimate moments and memories will be with you as their partner

Gift to the marriage - start the marriage with conditions better suited for the marriage to work.

I don't want those who have marriages where they both didn't start off as virgins to feel that there is some level of marital bliss that is not available to them because of their past, that isn't the case.  But is best to do it as God would want.

@Just_A_Guy, @Latter-Day Marriage, there is also the fact that it's a gift to your children. It's not really a factor in this context, it's a much bigger factor in the context of staying chaste after marriage. Let's see what unchastity after marriage can do , according to the Book of Mormon: (from Jacob 2). "Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Why not look at it as a gift to God, yourself, your spouse and your marriage.

Gift to God - he delights in the chastity of women.

Gift to yourself - knowing you have that level of self control, avoiding the painful process of repenting, avoiding the possibility of out of wedlock pregnancy or STDs, never have to make a unhappy confession to someone you hope to marry, having your spouse be your one and only

Gift to your spouse - has a spouse without baggage/scars of past sexual relationships, easier to extend full trust to their spouse, having the honor that they get to be their spouse's one and only, comfort knowing that all your spouse's intimate moments and memories will be with you as their partner

Gift to the marriage - start the marriage with conditions better suited for the marriage to work.

I don't want those who have marriages where they both didn't start off as virgins to feel that there is some level of marital bliss that is not available to them because of their past, that isn't the case.  But is best to do it as God would want.

I'm good with that; so long as we aren't using it as an excuse to speak of human beings in a self-entitled, proprietary manner.

What concerns me a little--at least, it seems mutually contradictory to me--is when someone says "I wish I had been more promiscuous in my youth", but then says "and by thunder, my wife had *better* be a virgin!"  Those sentiments smack of the same sort of virgin fetish that result in young girls commanding a higher price in human trafficking markets; terrorists blowing themselves up for the promise of seventy-two virgins in the afterlife; and Chairman Mao's quest to fulfill the old Chinese legend that an emperor who de-flowered a thousand virgins would become immortal.  That degree of preoccupation with one's partner's virginity has very little to do with chastity, innocence, shared exploration, or spiritual connection.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I swear there's a subset of people here constantly with their dukes up, ready to swing at anyone who dares get in striking distance. 

PREACH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

First, not serving a mission is not the moral equivalent of breaking the LoC, so I don't think a comparison is valid.  Except for recently, serving a mission was consider a duty, not just an option, so somebody who didn't server a mission would be assume to have been unworthy, or lacking in devotion.

Second, the LDS blogosphere has a fair bit in it pushing back against the 'only marry an RM' idea, and rightly so.

The GA's have never said to only marry a virgin, or only marry an RM.

You are right, it's not the moral equivalent. Breaking the LoC is a choice someone makes, not serving a mission is for the most part not a choice (especially when you apply and are rejected medically, but are still considered "unworthy").

It doesn't matter if a prophet hasn't specifically said it, it has been implied ("all worthy young men should serve missions", the ensigns and conf talks that all end with "and so and so ended up marrying a return missionary"), it is regularly preached in YW and YSA.... why is it okay, but yet not okay for someone to desire a spouse equally yoked with them sexually?

Again, not saying they should....just they aren't "lesser in worthiness" if they have that standard. For me, the Law of Chastity goes well beyond "cause Jesus said so" (well before I was even a member), and maybe this is triggering me a little because when you are older in the church you are told you can't have these things anymore....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

The comparison works against your thesis that a man should not care if his potential fiancée has broken the law of chastity some time in the past. Demanding that a man be an RM is, in fact, a far more spurious requirement than demanding that a woman be chaste and virginal.

I've actually appreciated much that you have had to say in the past, LDM. But I'm not sure how you justify yourself in taking a young man to task because of his concern that his potential fiancée broke the law of chastity. I somehow doubt you would have nearly as much to say against a woman who, for example, questioned whether she should marry a young man who had been convicted of burglary in his past. Frankly, the double standard rankles.

How about this: Let the OP decide whom he wants to marry and why he wants to marry her, and leave it at that. Sound reasonable?

I fully agree that a girl making it a requirement that some guy be an RM is wrong too.  It's just presenting it in this context implies a moral equivalency that isn't there.

And I would be the same with the hypothetical woman and former burgler.  If he has repented of his ways (and paid his debt to society) and is no longer the kind of person who would do something like that, so what. 

I'm not saying the OP has to marry this girl, I'm just saying that what she is forgiven of should not be held against her.  God doens't hold it against her, her Bishop doens't hold it against her, he shouldn't either.  If there are other reasons to end the relationship, so be it, but he can't both hold it against her and forgive her at the same time, and if he can't forgive her the scriptures say the greater sin in is him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the problem the OP has isn't so much her past sins, (for I believe he can put that behind him if she has repented), but the fear of being compared to her past lover(s).  This is a legitimate concern. I know this by experience. I married a divorced man.  Unfortunately, no matter how much my husband would like to forget his past experiences with his ex, it is part of his history. He cannot forget.  And, it has had a negative impact on our marriage. We have been married over 36 years. It still has an impact. We are able to overcome the consequences, but it has put a strain on our marriage that has nearly ruined the joy we have in each other as a couple.

If this is a concern for the OP, then DO NOT marry her.  It has nothing to do about forgiveness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tcage said:

It doesn't matter if a prophet hasn't specifically said it, it has been implied ("all worthy young men should serve missions", the ensigns and conf talks that all end with "and so and so ended up marrying a return missionary"), it is regularly preached in YW and YSA.... why is it okay, but yet not okay for someone to desire a spouse equally yoked with them sexually?

I don't think either are OK.  It used to be that serving a mission was expected rather than optional and coming home early was rare and assumed to be due to rebellion, even if the real reason was medical.  Not serving was the LDS equivalent to dodging the draft.  It would be assume that the person was not worthy (and also assumed they were not worthy due to LoC violations) or that the person was not devoted and doesn't honor his priesthood.  It wasn't right, but that is how people looked at it.

Things are different now, young men are not obligated to serve a mission.  Encouraged yes, but not obligated.  The stigma attached to not going/returning early has lifted a bit, but it still has a ways to go.  YW leaders today by and large grew up in an age where that stigma was very present so it lingers.   I don't see anything wrong with counting it as plus to marry a virgin or a RM, only with making it a hard and fast requirement that ignores everything else about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Things are different now, young men are not obligated to serve a mission.  Encouraged yes, but not obligated.

This is untrue. Young men are just as obligated to serve a mission now as at any time in the past. Not sure where you got the idea otherwise, but you're mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is untrue. Young men are just as obligated to serve a mission now as at any time in the past. Not sure where you got the idea otherwise, but you're mistaken.

Specifically I'm referring to the December 11, 2002 First Presidency letter that says

“Full-time missionary service is a privilege for those who are called through inspiration by the President of the Church. Bishops and stake presidents have the serious responsibility to identify worthy, qualified members who are spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared for this sacred service and who can be recommended without reservation. Those individuals not able to meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of full-time missionary work are honorably excused and should not be recommended. They may be called to serve in other rewarding capacities.”

(as quoted in https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/raising-the-bar?lang=eng )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is untrue. Young men are just as obligated to serve a mission now as at any time in the past. Not sure where you got the idea otherwise, but you're mistaken.

Yeap.  I'd like to know where the obligation for YM to serve missions has ever been rescinded.

My point is not so much that one should expect to marry a virgin-if someone wants to set that expectation that is fine, I don't think it is a wrong expectation or a right one.  It is probably generally a good thing for a young man to not marry someone who has been divorced.  Different ages have different stages and expectations out of marriage.  Someone who is 40 isn't probably going to marry a virgin-they are probably going to marry a widow or a divorcee (I'd still recommend against a divorcee). For someone who is youngish (20s), it is perfectly reasonable for them to want to marry someone who is a virgin.  Making that desire out to be an unChristlike attribute is IMO wrong.

This isn't someone who was raped, or molested or who was divorced or a widow.  Those are all different cases then what is being discussed here.  

This young lady was endowed, served a mission, knew full well the Law of Chastity, it's importance etc.  She knew full well what she was doing when she broke the LoC.  I understand that she has fully repented and that she has been forgiven.  But choosing a spouse isn't about choosing the person who has repented the most or who has been forgiven the most. Choosing a spouse goes beyond the prettiest, the most spiritual, the most perfect, or whatever other "requirement".  Choosing a spouse is about selecting an individual who is a good fit, who's character and the sum total of who they currently and of who they potentially may become is a good fit for that individual.  And by the same token, is that true for each party.

Breaking the LoC after being endowed can potentially reveal a significant character flaw.  It's not about forgiveness, it's about understanding who the person is.  There is already a documented instance where this person did not live up to a commitment and covenant.  Is there a pattern of that (not in the big things-but in the small things in life). If there is, is that the type of person you want to be marriage to? Someone who has a hard time living up to hard commitments?  Are there other things that this individual has done that lead to questions of judgement?  Certainly breaking the LoC after being endowed is a severe lapse in judgment?  Are there other severe lapses in judgement?  And do you want to live with that.

I don't blame anyone or think they are less worthy or less righteous if they just have a simple rule that they won't marry anyone who has broken the LoC.  Because quite frankly, knowing that your potential spouse broke the LoC after attending the temple and after going on a mission-it should cause you to question if they are the right person-b/c it is deeply revealing about the person.  Now, one might have all these questions answered, maybe it was 10 years ago, maybe there is no larger issue about judgement or commitment or anything else and everything is answered satisfactorily.  Everyone can move on and all is good.  Or maybe they aren't answered well and other issues about judgement or character come up and things need to be broken off.

Again it's not about forgiveness, it's about understanding the other person's character and breaking the LoC after a mission and after the temple is deeply revealing about one's character.  Regardless about whether this sister felt lonely or felt she was never going to get married or whatever other reason as to why.  Plenty of other women live their whole lives in complete chastity never able to marry-it is not an unreasonable expectation.  

I'm not advocating for or against marrying someone who broke the LoC-only that a re-evaluation of whether one wants to marry someone who previously broke the LoC is not an unChristlike thing, it's not a moral sin, it's not a "you're so horrible b/c you are doing that", it's a very natural thing that quite frankly probably should happen.  The answer as to whether the marriage should happen or not happen we decide and then take it to the Lord for Him to confirm or deny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Specifically I'm referring to the December 11, 2002 First Presidency letter that says

“Full-time missionary service is a privilege for those who are called through inspiration by the President of the Church. Bishops and stake presidents have the serious responsibility to identify worthy, qualified members who are spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared for this sacred service and who can be recommended without reservation. Those individuals not able to meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of full-time missionary work are honorably excused and should not be recommended. They may be called to serve in other rewarding capacities.”

(as quoted in https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/raising-the-bar?lang=eng )

???  Still not what you said

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/prepare-to-be-a-missionary?lang=eng

“First, to young men of the Aaronic Priesthood and to you young men who are becoming elders: I repeat what prophets have long taught—that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission. Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much."

No recession.  All worthy able young men are to serve missions.  If they aren't worthy-they are to get worthy.  Able-means those who are physically, mentally and emotionally able.  No difference now vs. 20 years ago-only a little more strict now on what "able" means.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Specifically I'm referring to the December 11, 2002 First Presidency letter that says

“Full-time missionary service is a privilege for those who are called through inspiration by the President of the Church. Bishops and stake presidents have the serious responsibility to identify worthy, qualified members who are spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared for this sacred service and who can be recommended without reservation. Those individuals not able to meet the physical, mental, and emotional demands of full-time missionary work are honorably excused and should not be recommended. They may be called to serve in other rewarding capacities.”

(as quoted in https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/raising-the-bar?lang=eng )

How do you see this is a rescission, LDM? You underlined "privilege"; do you think that calling something a privilege means it's not an obligation?

Full-time missionary service is indeed an obligation of our young men, unless and until the young man is excused from that service. Calling it a privilege -- which it is -- does not change its nature as an obligation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

???  Still not what you said

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/prepare-to-be-a-missionary?lang=eng

“First, to young men of the Aaronic Priesthood and to you young men who are becoming elders: I repeat what prophets have long taught—that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission. Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much."

No recession.  All worthy able young men are to serve missions.  If they aren't worthy-they are to get worthy.  Able-means those who are physically, mentally and emotionally able.  No difference now vs. 20 years ago-only a little more strict now on what "able" means.

 

That is how I took it at the time and I remember there being something said even more clear about it in another GC not too far off.  The info on your link is more recent so it doesn't matter if I'm taking it wrong or not.  Thanks.  It still is more generous towards those who don't serve a mission then in the past at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Breaking the LoC after being endowed can potentially reveal a significant character flaw.

Yes but it is not proof positive that the person currently has a significant character flaw, especially after they have completed the repentance process.  In the case the OP seems to have known her for some time and has not prior this revelation seen anything that concerns him.  Awareness and caution, fine, breaking it off as a reactionary judgment, not cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Yes but it is not proof positive that the person currently has a significant character flaw, especially after they have completed the repentance process.  In the case the OP seems to have known her for some time and has not prior this revelation seen anything that concerns him.  Awareness and caution, fine, breaking it off as a reactionary judgment, not cool.

You seem to be moving a little bit so that is fine.  You are right it is not positive that there is currently a flaw-but there may be. Awareness caution and potentially breaking it off over this is all perfectly fine.  I would hope that when considering a potential spouse that nothing is done in reactionary/heat of the moment judgement-this goes for getting married or not getting married-whether it is this issue or another.  These things should be considered seriously.  If one has previously made a decision in their mind to not get married to someone who has previously broken the LoC-that is their decision and I don't make a judgement on it good or bad.

For this particular instance the OP knows her, but I certainly question how well one can really get to know someone when they live in a different country.  I know I'm old-fashioned but every time I think about long-distance relationships with someone over the internet I always think of:

 

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share