How to answer/address a comment made by my Daughter-in-law

[Fether]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So what then is still required for repentance?

What more can they do?

You want them to feel guilt?

You are the bishop. Do you sign the reccomend or not?

If I asked “do you live the law of chastity” and they say “yes”, I say “Dope, you good to go”.

If, instead, they spoke what their heart believed and said “I don’t believe the LOC to be important, I think it is fine to have premarital sex” then I would say “nope, you ain’t good to go”

[Fether]

48 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

The way I see this, if they did not feel guilty about having sexual relations without being married, they would have felt totally comfortable staying unmarried while having sexual relations.  The fact that they were later married, because they felt they should be married, tells me they wanted to improve their situation in life, from doing something they weren't totally comfortable with to doing what they felt was the best situation for them to be in. Otherwise they easily could have remained unmarried forever.

And this would require further discussion with them.

It seems to me that because she feels her premarital sexual relations were fine and not sinful, she is not ready for further covenants.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

but I have also been told I am wrong for thinking that since "all our experiences are for our good" so we should not wish anything to be different.

If this is the attitude she has, then perhaps nothing is wrong. This is a sense of gratitude for one’s experience and not a denial of basic commandments

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would you be surprised?  The OP asked the same question:  Can someone gain a temple recommend if they are not repentant for past sins. 

I'm surprised that a former bishop would think that the answer to such a question is irrelevant.  Even though Eve's choice was ultimately for good, she still repented of it.  Repentance is a blessing for us, as a change of heart is necessary when working to become like Christ.  Without repentance we can't progress.   

Totally twisting what I said.

Your question was whether there was ENOUGH repentance, which cannot be accessed on an internet board and so the question itself becomes irrelevant.

I NEVER said repentance was not necessary.  Why did they marry at all? That alone proves there was some kind of change of heart, which is is the very essence of repentance.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by mfbukowski

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, Fether said:

If I asked “do you live the law of chastity” and they say “yes”, I say “Dope, you good to go”.

If, instead, they spoke what their heart believed and said “I don’t believe the LOC to be important, I think it is fine to have premarital sex” then I would say “nope, you ain’t good to go”

If I believe that other things aren't sins (but I'm following all the rules myself) - would that be reason to withhold a recommend? If I am heterosexual but don't see gay marriage as a sin, should I be allowed in the temple?  ( I am, btw) -(and, is this a good comparison?)

If I think coffee and tea are not sinful beverages, but I don't drink them, am I not ready for the temple?

 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

She got married didn't she? Maybe it was a good choice for her.  Had you repented of every "wrong" doing before you want to the temple.  What is the difference between a big sin or little sin if allegedly any sin keeps you out of the presence of God?  It seems there is a great deal of shame creation built into the LDS repentance system.  My guess is this is a big reason why especially many younger people are not willing to participate.  The carrot and stick method is not as effective with them.

I'm not exactly sure where the anger in your post is coming from.  I'm not trying to be judgemental or self righteous with this sister.  It's a serious doctrinal issue that is largely grounded in the concept of mercy and I don't see how it's wrong to discuss.

Is someone--who is not at all repentant of a past serious sin--ready to make covenants in the temple that require a level of obedience and sacrifice above and beyond what had already been asked of them--which they had previously seen no reason to obey?   Would doing that be beneficial to that person, or is it more likely to be harmful?  

All important questions to consider, if we actually care about the person involved.  If someone doesn't think it's important to learn how to swim, it's not a 'stick' to refuse them access to the deep end of the pool.  

Repentance is a blessing.  Anyone who has ever needed to repent of anything significant knows what a true and utter mercy it is to have a way to lay past choices at the feet of the Savior and have Him help you move forward on a different path.  Sins don't keep us out of the presence of God, separating ourselves from the saving power of Christ does that.  If we don't recognize that we need to change and need His help to do it (which is what repentance is), then that stops our progress.

We don't always recognize our sins right away (and I think that's a blessing too as we must progress line upon line or we would be incredibly overwhelmed) but when it comes to making covenants, there are minimum thresholds we need to be willing to meet before adding more responsibilities.  This is for our own good, not some kind of punishment for not jumping through the right hoops. 

[Olmec Donald]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"carrying guilt" for sins taken away by the atonement is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ 

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Self flagellation not required 

 

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You want them to feel guilt?

God is no respecter of persons, right?  So the woman caught in the act of adultery, as a member of Jewish society, she certainly knew better.  BUT if God is "no respecter of persons" then she DID NOT get a "freebie". 

So Jesus did three things:  1) He rescued her from those who condemned her; 2) He explicitly did not condemn her; and 3) He gave her correction ("go and sin no more"). 

No time for anything remotely approaching the classic repentance process, no mention of her needing to feel guilty, no requirement to establish a track record of wholesome living.  Boom.  The Christ does not condemn you, now Go and sin no more. 

New wine, for which old bottles are not ready.

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are the bishop. Do you sign the recommend or not?

I sign it, and if I have erred, well that's on my head.

(Easy for me to say, because I am in zero danger of ever being a bishop.)

[Olmec Donald]

Just to be clear, mfbukowski, I'm agreeing with you.  Sometimes I fail to convey that.

[Teancum]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not exactly sure where the anger in your post is coming from.  I'm not trying to be judgemental or self righteous with this sister.  It's a serious doctrinal issue that is largely grounded in the concept of mercy and I don't see how it's wrong to discuss.

I am not  angry. I am just sharing my thoughts on the topic.

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is someone--who is not at all repentant of a past serious sin--ready to make covenants in the temple that require a level of obedience and sacrifice above and beyond what had already been asked of them--which they had previously seen no reason to obey?   Would doing that be beneficial to that person, or is it more likely to be harmful?  

Based on the teachings of the scripture any sin keeps you from God and is punishable by death. I understand the concept that certain behaviors can cause more harm.  And I understand the LDS Church pust sex sin next to murder (which is ludicrous). I think controlling one's sexuaity is one of the ways religion controls people and in spite of Fether's denial the LDS church has and does shame people for what they call sexual sin. I think it has decreased some but  it is still there.

 

What harm comes if this person goes to the temple but does not feel bad about living with someone before marriage but is married and monogamous  now?

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All important questions to consider, if we actually care about the person involved.  If someone doesn't think it's important to learn how to swim, it's not a 'stick' to refuse them access to the deep end of the pool.  

Repentance is a blessing.  Anyone who has ever needed to repent of anything significant knows what a true and utter mercy it is to have a way to lay past choices at the feet of the Savior and have Him help you move forward on a different path.  Sins don't keep us out of the presence of God, separating ourselves from the saving power of Christ does that.  If we don't recognize that we need to change and need His help to do it (which is what repentance is), then that stops our progress.

Repentance is a cure for a disease the organization demanding you to repent gives to you.  It makes you sick and then gives you the cure.

 

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We don't always recognize our sins right away (and I think that's a blessing too as we must progress line upon line or we would be incredibly overwhelmed) but when it comes to making covenants, there are minimum thresholds we need to be willing to meet before adding more responsibilities.  This is for our own good, not some kind of punishment for not jumping through the right hoops. 

Many things we call sin are man made constructs.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You have yet to provide any. Please show me where shame is systematically built into the church. All your examples are either “go look it up” or just plain anecdotal.

Please help me open my eyes. Show me where the church is encouraging shame and I would love to follow you out of the church.

By the way I gave you some general examples and you ignored them. That's why I think a lengthy post with links to shaming tactics would not be worth while.  But I will give you one more.  Telling a child that you would rather see them come back home in a coffin than having lost their virtue, which should be virginity since virtue is more than being chaste.  This was taught from the GC conference, in church publications and in lesson manuals. 

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Totally twisting what I said.

Your question was whether there was ENOUGH repentance, which cannot be accessed on an internet board and so the question itself becomes irrelevant.

I NEVER said repentance was not necessary.  Why did they marry at all? That alone proves there was some kind of change of heart, which is is the very essence of repentance.

 

What??

No I didn't question whether there was enough repentance.  I'm not even sure where you are getting that from.  I said Has she repented though, if she still believes it was a good choice?

[Fether]

55 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If I believe that other things aren't sins (but I'm following all the rules myself) - would that be reason to withhold a recommend? If I am heterosexual but don't see gay marriage as a sin, should I be allowed in the temple?  ( I am, btw) -(and, is this a good comparison?)

If I think coffee and tea are not sinful beverages, but I don't drink them, am I not ready for the temple?

 

🤷🏻‍♂️ I guess it just depends. I think there definitely needs to be some repenting of ideals, but is that enough to keep one out of the temple? I would argue yes on the homosexuality example, but no on the word of wisdom. But that is me and I am willing to have my mind changed.

[Fether]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

By the way I gave you some general examples and you ignored them. That's why I think a lengthy post with links to shaming tactics would not be worth while.  But I will give you one more.  Telling a child that you would rather see them come back home in a coffin than having lost their virtue, which should be virginity since virtue is more than being chaste.  This was taught from the GC conference, in church publications and in lesson manuals. 

Once again, sources? Links?

Your lengthy posts are just that… lengthy. They lack sources. Your just spewing the normal rhetoric we expect. And as I said… they are just anecdotal. Lacking substance.

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Based on the teachings of the scripture any sin keeps you from God and is punishable by death. I

Without access to the saving grace that comes through the Atonement of Christ, that is true. Sin equals spiritual death.  But thankfully we don't live in a world that doesn't have access to that saving grace. The Atonement saves us from spiritual death.

If we have gotten onto the path that leads to eternal life through faith, repentance, baptism and confirmation, then we are saved as long as we remain on that path.  Thankfully we are not required to be sinless to remain in that covenant relationship with Christ. 

Quote

I understand the concept that certain behaviors can cause more harm.  And I understand the LDS Church pust sex sin next to murder (which is ludicrous). I think controlling one's sexuaity is one of the ways religion controls people and in spite of Fether's denial the LDS church has and does shame people for what they call sexual sin. I think it has decreased some but  it is still there.

No offense, but you don't understand the teachings of the church in the same way that I understand them.  If there is a negative way to look at a teaching or a negative way to spin it, that seems to always be your understanding of it.  I think that bias makes it harder to really understand where I and other members are coming from, when we speak on church teachings.

Quote

What harm comes if this person goes to the temple but does not feel bad about living with someone before marriage but is married and monogamous  now?

What harm comes from not repenting of sins?  You know that there is not any answer that I could give you that you would put any stock in.

Quote

Repentance is a cure for a disease the organization demanding you to repent gives to you.  It makes you sick and then gives you the cure.

I'm sure you can understand why, having personally experienced the miracle of forgiveness, I don't find this opinion to be a persuasive argument against the doctrine of repentance.

Quote

Many things we call sin are man made constructs.

And many things that we call man made constructs are sins.  Thankfully, we all get to decide for ourselves which ideologies have merit.  

Edited October 19, 2021 by bluebell

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Once again, sources? Links?

Your lengthy posts are just that… lengthy. They lack sources. Your just spewing the normal rhetoric we expect. And as I said… they are just anecdotal. Lacking substance.

Are you familiar with The Miracle of Forgiveness.

This book was required reading for missionaries when I served.

From the book.

Quote

It is better to die in defending one's [virginity] than to live having lost it without a struggle"

 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Are you familiar with The Miracle of Forgiveness.

This book was required reading for missionaries when I served.

From the book.

 

Does the book really say virginity?  Because that would be weird, considering that married women are raped too.

[MustardSeed]

In response to the OP, I would want to know more about her position.  I think lots of people can acknowledge that something is "sin" but still not regret the choice because it was that particular path that brought them to the desirable place they are in their lives.  

I'm glad my husband was inactive for a few years and lived with his girlfriend.  Someone else would have snatched him up in a heartbeat had he been single at BYU instead of quitting, getting a job at Arby's and meeting the gal he shacked up with for a few years.  I dare say he is too.  It was a rough path, but here we are. 

 

 

[rchorse]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does the book really say virginity?  Because that would be weird, considering that married women are raped too.

The book says virtue, not virginity. Of course, that's slightly harder to use as a stick with which to beat the church, so it had to be altered to say virginity.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Are you familiar with The Miracle of Forgiveness.

This book was required reading for missionaries when I served.

Sources?

When I served, it was not. And I have never had anyone recommend it to me.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Fether

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes. You stop doing the behavior that makes you feel bad.

You are saved by grace after all you can ACTUALLY do.

All you can do for what is past, in this case is change the situation by getting married.  Today the percentage of newly marrieds who are not virgins must be very high.

But that is not a free pass to sin.....................

I lived on an Israeli kibbutz for two years, during which I noticed that couples would first get pregnant and then marry -- family means so much to the Jews.  Just making sure.

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, rchorse said:

The book says virtue, not virginity. Of course, that's slightly harder to use as a stick with which to beat the church, so it had to be altered to say virginity.

That sounds right.

The idea that someone’s virtue can be taken by force isn’t a good thing to teach and I disagree with it completely, but it makes more sense than virginity in that statement.

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Are you familiar with The Miracle of Forgiveness.

This book was required reading for missionaries when I served.

From the book.

 

You might want to quote the sentence before it as well:

Quote

There is no condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.

So, you don't have to actually struggle to be without condemnation.  Saying "no" or just freezing up are non voluntary participation so the victim would have no condemnation.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Once again, sources? Links?

Your lengthy posts are just that… lengthy. They lack sources. Your just spewing the normal rhetoric we expect. And as I said… they are just anecdotal. Lacking substance.

He is most likely referencing Marion G. Romney's message from the September 1981 Ensign (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/09/we-believe-in-being-chaste?lang=eng).

Quote

Some years ago the First Presidency said to the youth of the Church that a person would be better dead clean than alive unclean.

Quote

I remember how my father impressed the seriousness of unchastity upon my mind. He and I were standing in the railroad station at Rexburg, Idaho, in the early morning of 12 November 1920. We heard the train whistle. In three minutes I would be on my way to Australia to fill a mission. In that short interval my father said to me, among other things, “My son, you are going a long way from home. Your mother and I, and your brothers and sisters, will be with you constantly in our thoughts and prayers; we shall rejoice with you in your successes, and we shall sorrow with you in your disappointments. When you are released and return, we shall be glad to greet you and welcome you back into the family circle. But remember this, my son: we would rather come to this station and take your body off the train in a casket than to have you come home unclean, having lost your virtue.”

Quote

Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.”

That last quote is actually President Romney quoting President Clark.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I lived on an Israeli kibbutz for two years, during which I noticed that couples would first get pregnant and then marry -- family means so much to the Jews.  Just making sure.

Yes I think that is a very common practice here in California as well.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

What??

No I didn't question whether there was enough repentance.  I'm not even sure where you are getting that from.  I said Has she repented though, if she still believes it was a good choice?

Forget about it. 

It's an unanswerable question and a waste of time. I know for a fact that some must feel darkness before the dawn. I stand by every word I have said.