The Crossroads of My Dreams and Destiny

[mdfxdb]

I for one am curious to see how this all plays out.  I think the OP should ditch the girl.  She is not up to his standards.  She has to go.  This requirement is not unlike many other requirements people have of their potential mates.  There are some burdens of baggage that one must determine if they are willing to take on or not.  If previous promiscuity is one of those pieces of baggage, then don't take it on.  She wont appreciate the OP for accepting her as damaged goods, and the OP will ultimately resent her, and judge her against all of his other potential virginal candidates.  

It is unfair to judge someone because they have a virginity expectation of their wife.  It would also be unfair for the OP to lead this girl on, as if he was in some way going to continue to have a relationship with her.  If this was a deal breaker, then he should let her loose.  

Given what I have read here, if OP hasn't broken up with this girl then he may be the bigger sinner overall.  

Edited May 30, 2017 by mdfxdb

[Guest]

I keep wondering of the crossroads of Dreams and Destiny is anywhere near the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.  

[Guest MormonGator]

40 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I keep wondering of the crossroads of Dreams and Destiny is anywhere near the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.  

LG and I were just talking about that album this weekend. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, mdfxdb said:

I for one am curious to see how this all plays out.  I think the OP should ditch the girl.  She is not up to his standards.

I think his decision should be based on the person she is now, not who she used to be. She seems to be somebody very different than who she used to be.

[mdfxdb]

14 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I think his decision should be based on the person she is now, not who she used to be. She seems to be somebody very different than who she used to be.

Recovered alcoholics, cancer survivors, abuse victims, previously fat people, are all different people than who they used to be.  I would never marry one.  The only mistake I see being made here is the OP leading this girl on...

Edited May 31, 2017 by mdfxdb

[workingonit]

41 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

Recovered alcoholics, cancer survivors, abuse victims, previously fat people, are all different people than who they used to be.  I would never marry one.  The only mistake I see being made here is the OP leading this girl on...

I agree...There is nothing worse than people that are changing for the better.  They are out there making all the lazy, ignorant people look bad. 

[mdfxdb]

1 hour ago, workingonit said:

I agree...There is nothing worse than people that are changing for the better.  They are out there making all the lazy, ignorant people look bad. 

People that are changing for the better are great.  In fact I encourage it.  I just wouldn't marry them.  There is nothing wrong with having a requirement / high bar for those to whom you are committing the rest of eternity, your children, livelihood, etc, etc,etc......

[workingonit]

5 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

People that are changing for the better are great.  In fact I encourage it.  I just wouldn't marry them.  There is nothing wrong with having a requirement / high bar for those to whom you are committing the rest of eternity, your children, livelihood, etc, etc,etc......

I can see what you are saying but that category should include every one of us.   It was once said by a GA ( I can't remember which one), "if you are searching for the perfect spouse, why would she want anything to do with you?" 

[zil]

11 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

People that are changing for the better are great.  In fact I encourage it.  I just wouldn't marry them.  There is nothing wrong with having a requirement / high bar for those to whom you are committing the rest of eternity, your children, livelihood, etc, etc,etc......

I think you might need a few caveats, parenthetical notations, and maybe a footnote or two here, because what you are literally saying is:

1) I would not marry someone who is changing for the better.

and

2) High bar = not changing for the better  (A contradiction if ever there was one.)

I'm pretty (ok, entirely) sure that's not what you mean, nonetheless, it is exactly what you're saying.  (FWIW, which is probably less than nothing, I appreciate your contribution to my day's amusement.)

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

People that are changing for the better are great.  In fact I encourage it.  I just wouldn't marry them.  There is nothing wrong with having a requirement / high bar for those to whom you are committing the rest of eternity, your children, livelihood, etc, etc,etc......

What you are saying is technically true.  We should carefully choose our spouse because of the effect they will have upon our destiny.

However, I offer the forum a cautionary tale about strict checklists regarding choosing a wife.

I knew a man once many years ago who had a checklist for the ideal wife.  He said he would absolutely never marry a girl who was overweight, too short, too tall, too this, too that, or had any baggage whatsoever.  Never mind the fact that this guy was not particularly handsome or charming, he felt like he deserved the perfect wife.  Several girls in the singles ward were interested in dating him, and over and over he trampled on their feelings, rejecting them because they weren't fit enough, or weren't this, or weren't that.  

Well, this guy never found his ideal trophy wife.  He is now 40 years old, still single and still alone, and now much less attractive than he once was.  I am not sure he has ever been in a serious relationship.

I know his choice of wife is no one's business but his own.  However, I can't help but to feel sorry for the guy - he kind of blew it.  His foolish pride was his own downfall.

So, while I would admonish everyone to be careful about who they marry, I would warn away from pride.  Instead, I would advise people to be kind, be charitable, be (reasonably) open minded, and put decisions such as who to marry in the hands of the Lord (and follow whatever the Lord would direct).

 

Edited May 31, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[mdfxdb]

Obviously the requirements in choosing a spouse should be tempered with common sense.  

You shouldn't be so exclusionary as to exclude all but the most prominent pillar of virtue.  Those girls are taken, or may not even exist.  

Everyone has problems/warts/bad habits.  The dating process is the refining fire for our future spouses, there should be a high level of scrutiny and concern for the decision of who to marry.  

It is OK to set a high standard.  It is OK to be willing to not accept a persons past.  What is not OK is to lead someone on if they do not meet that criteria.  

President Gordon B. Hinckley

“This will be the most important decision of your life, the individual whom you marry. …

“… Marry the right person in the right place at the right time” (“Life’s Obligations,” Ensign, Feb. 1999, 2).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie

“The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority; and 2. To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony” (Mormon Doctrine, 118).

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

What you are saying is technically true.  We should carefully choose our spouse because of the effect they will have upon our destiny.

However, I offer the forum a cautionary tale about strict checklists regarding choosing a wife.

I knew a man once many years ago who had a checklist for the ideal wife.  He said he would absolutely never marry a girl who was overweight, too short, too tall, too this, too that, or had any baggage whatsoever.  Never mind the fact that this guy was not particularly handsome or charming, he felt like he deserved the perfect wife.  Several girls in the singles ward were interested in dating him, and over and over he trampled on their feelings, rejecting them because they weren't fit enough, or weren't this, or weren't that.  

Well, this guy never found his ideal trophy wife.  He is now 40 years old, still single and still alone, and now much less attractive than he once was.  I am not sure he has ever been in a serious relationship.

I know his choice of wife is no one's business but his own.  However, I can't help but to feel sorry for the guy - he kind of blew it.  His foolish pride was his own downfall.

So, while I would admonish everyone to be careful about who they marry, I would warn away from pride.  Instead, I would advise people to be kind, be charitable, be (reasonably) open minded, and put decisions such as who to marry in the hands of the Lord (and follow whatever the Lord would direct).

 

I wonder if we were in the same YSA ward, or if there was a guy like this in every one.

Were his initials "MB"? 

[Sunday21]

10 hours ago, workingonit said:

I agree...There is nothing worse than people that are changing for the better.  They are out there making all the lazy, ignorant people look bad. 

Especially the formerly fat! Ewww! Keep away from me!

[Sunday21]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

I wonder if we were in the same YSA ward, or if there was a guy like this in every one.

Were his initials "MB"? 

We have this person in our ward!

[Latter-Day Marriage]

4 hours ago, mdfxdb said:

Obviously the requirements in choosing a spouse should be tempered with common sense.  

You shouldn't be so exclusionary as to exclude all but the most prominent pillar of virtue.  Those girls are taken, or may not even exist.  

Everyone has problems/warts/bad habits.  The dating process is the refining fire for our future spouses, there should be a high level of scrutiny and concern for the decision of who to marry.  

It is OK to set a high standard.  It is OK to be willing to not accept a persons past.  What is not OK is to lead someone on if they do not meet that criteria.  

President Gordon B. Hinckley

“This will be the most important decision of your life, the individual whom you marry. …

“… Marry the right person in the right place at the right time” (“Life’s Obligations,” Ensign, Feb. 1999, 2).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie

“The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, in the right place, by the right authority; and 2. To keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony” (Mormon Doctrine, 118).

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie

“The right person is someone for whom the natural and wholesome and normal affection that should exist does exist. It is the person who is living so that he or she can go to the temple of God and make the covenants that we there make” (in Conference Report, Sept.–Oct. 1955, 13).

Elder Richard G. Scott

“As you seek an eternal companion, look for someone who is developing the essential attributes that bring happiness: a deep love of the Lord and of His commandments, a determination to live them, one that is kindly understanding, forgiving of others, and willing to give of self, with the desire to have a family crowned with beautiful children and a commitment to teach them the principles of truth in the home.

“An essential priority of a prospective wife is the desire to be a wife and mother. She should be developing the sacred qualities that God has given His daughters to excel as a wife and mother: patience, kindliness, a love of children, and a desire to care for them rather than seeking professional pursuits. She should be acquiring a good education to prepare for the demands of motherhood.

“A prospective husband should also honor his priesthood and use it in service to others. Seek a man who accepts his role as provider of the necessities of life, has the capacity to do it, and is making concerted efforts to prepare himself to fulfill those responsibilities.

“I suggest that you not ignore many possible candidates who are still developing these attributes, seeking the one who is perfected in them. You will likely not find that perfect person, and if you did, there would certainly be no interest in you. These attributes are best polished together as husband and wife” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1999, 31; or Ensign, May 1999, 26).

----------

Nowhere will you find any GA saying that being the 'right person' means somebody who never broken the LoC.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

11 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

We have this person in our ward!

I'm sure there are many such guys all over.  Question is, is it really pride, or a plan to avoid marriage without looking like you are avoiding marriage?

I don't think I ever went as far as writing it down, but I had a list of things I would like in a wife, but none of them were hard and fast requirements other than marrying in the temple. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Latter-Day Marriage

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I wonder if we were in the same YSA ward, or if there was a guy like this in every one.

Were his initials "MB"? 

Michael Buble?

Maybe in his own mind . . . 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

Michael Buble?

Maybe in his own mind . . . 

[Guest]

or  

 

[mdfxdb]

14 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

----------

Nowhere will you find any GA saying that being the 'right person' means somebody who never broken the LoC.

Agree, and nowhere will you find any GA saying anything that being the "right person" means somebody who never was a recovered drug addict/porn addict/abuser/fat/ugly/lazy.  

That doesn't mean we should marry those people.  

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, mdfxdb said:

Agree, and nowhere will you find any GA saying anything that being the "right person" means somebody who never was a recovered drug addict/porn addict/abuser/fat/ugly/lazy.  

That doesn't mean we should marry those people.  

And doesn't mean you should write them off, you have to look at who they are in the present, and yes, that includes looking at whatever consequences of their past are in effect now, but it should the current state of things, not the forgiven past, that determines the outcome.

[mdfxdb]

3 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

And doesn't mean you should write them off, you have to look at who they are in the present, and yes, that includes looking at whatever consequences of their past are in effect now, but it should the current state of things, not the forgiven past, that determines the outcome.

Unfortunately there is almost no way of knowing the lasting effects of a previous abusive relationship, bad relationships with family, prior drug use, previous promiscuity.  If we could somehow know that these things would not rear their ugly heads 5, 10, or even 20 years from the "in love" phase of relationships, then we could make more informed decisions.  However, we do not know and we must make decisions with what we have right now in front of us.  This may sound mean, but we need to think of our future lives, how we want to live, and where we want to go / end up.  

Marrying into potential baggage doesn't make sense.  

 

[Gazing at essence]

I have been doing a lot of deep thinking recently and have read all of the responses now. 

I really appreciate all of the comments and advice from you guys. @Vort@Just_A_Guy@mdfxdb I just now read your comments and all of them helped me a lot. 

After going through the temple and supplicating the Lord for direction, I have been filled with a reassurance that there is not a right or wrong decision in this case. However, the guidance I have received is that if I am to pursue an even more serious relationship with her, I need to let go of her past completely. I am still trying to work through a few things and figure out what is best for the both of us. 

@yjacketI noticed that you mentioned the severity of the situation increases when we consider the fact that many of her sexual sins were committed after her mission. I have to say, more than anything I am worried that she and I have different attitudes towards the covenants that we made with the Lord. I am not sure I understand what the word even means to her. 

There is still more to figure out but I will update the forum when a final decision is made. Thanks to everyone for the care and support. God bless.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

19 hours ago, mdfxdb said:

Marrying into potential baggage doesn't make sense. 

Then nobody should ever marry anybody.  Everyone has baggage of one kind or another.  It's a questions of do you love them enough to help carry their baggage with them.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Latter-Day Marriage

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Then nobody should ever marry anybody.  Everyone has baggage of one kind or another.  It's a questions of do you love them enough to help carry their baggage with them.

I think individuals have a right to say "this is not the sort of baggage I am able/willing to carry".

I wonder how this discussion would be different if the gender roles were reversed.  Would we tell a young LDS woman that she had a moral obligation to seriously consider marriage to a young temple-worthy man who, in a past life, had--say--worked in the porn industry?  Or, had done five years in prison for gang-related manslaughter?