Mississippi Bishop Resigns from the Pulpit

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

That was my point, I agree.  The fact that age was even included, and the word "icky" associated with it, I thought people were commenting more on the fact that an 18-year-old made out with a 16-year-old.  I could be misreading that. 

Goodness I am sorry used the word icky.  😀  Does not really bother me. I imagine there are a lot of missionaries past and present that have found ways to kiss girl and sometimes more.  I don't think it all that offensive because he (or she) had some high and holy calling.  I think we should be amazed there are not more such physical interactions by missionaries.  And there may be. We just don't know about them.  But heck the church sends young men out in their sexual prime. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it was pretty serious error.

If so you need to lighten up.  You take these things way to seriously.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Goodness I am sorry used the word icky.  😀  Does not really bother me. I imagine there are a lot of missionaries past and present that have found ways to kiss girl and sometimes more.  I don't think it all that offensive because he (or she) had some high and holy calling. 

I think he abused his position of trust.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think we should be amazed there are not more such physical interactions by missionaries. 

This speaks to the common sense approach taken by the Church, and to the quality of most missionaries who choose to serve.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And there may be. We just don't know about them.  But heck the church sends young men out in their sexual prime. 

I served in the Army before my mission, and most of my fellow trainees were my age or slightly older.  I spent a year at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, which was basically a college-type experience, replete with overindulging on alcohol and, understandably, other appetites.  

The transition from solder to missionary (the interval between leaving active duty and entering the MTC was about 18 days) was . . . bracing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

I know that agreeing to disagree usually signals an intent to end discussion, but if you are willing to answer I am curious to hear your perspective on this.  Is there some doctrine or revelatory commandment against it?  I am only aware of a  policy from the ol' missionary white book.  I am not saying that I disagree with the policy, but is it really categorically more than that?  

As far as I know, there is no policy against kissing in the old missionary white handbook.  I think it mentions something about not dating, but we all know you don't have to date someone to kiss them. 

The not kissing part is implied.  And I think it's agreed to in the acceptance of the missionary call and the agreement to devote 2 years or 18 months of your life to the Lord.  From my perspective it's included when you agree to "maintain the highest standards of conduct" while you serve.  That agreement isn't, from my perspective, an agreement to a policy.  I read it as an agreement to a commandment from the Lord, that He requires if we are to be His representatives and bring people to Him.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think he abused his position of trust.

I know you do. I think you take yourself and such things to seriously.  He was a kid.  They all are.

 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

This speaks to the common sense approach taken by the Church, and to the quality of most missionaries who choose to serve.

I think there is no common sense to the approach to indoctrinating boys from birth and then isolating them with strict rules for a two year period.  

As to quality?  Sure. There are some great young men out there. No doubt.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I served in the Army before my mission, and most of my fellow trainees were my age or slightly older.  I spent a year at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, which was basically a college-type experience, replete with overindulging on alcohol and, understandably, other appetites.  

The transition from solder to missionary (the interval between leaving active duty and entering the MTC was about 18 days) was . . . bracing.

Thanks,

-Smac

I imagine that was quite a transition.  My son is almost 20 year a Marine and I know his lifestyle especially in the early days when he was still 19 and in his early twenties was quite riotous.

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as I know, there is no policy against kissing in the old missionary white handbook.  I think it mentions something about not dating, but we all know you don't have to date someone to kiss them. 

The not kissing part is implied.  And I think it's agreed to in the acceptance of the missionary call and the agreement to devote 2 years or 18 months of your life to the Lord.  From my perspective it's included when you agree to "maintain the highest standards of conduct" while you serve. 

I agree that the not kissing part is "implied" in the old handbook of missionary policies.  It is more direct in the new one.  This is from the old handbook:

Quote

 

Never be alone with anyone of the opposite sex or have any inappropriate association with those of the opposite sex.  Single members of the opposite sex should not be taught except in the presence of an adult chaperon.

Correspondence with anyone of the opposite sex living within the mission boundaries is against mission policy.  Avoid unnecessary correspondence with individuals who reside in the mission boundaries.

 

The new handbook is more direct:

Quote

 

Avoid situations that could become physically or spiritually dangerous or that could be misunderstood.

Do not flirt or associate inappropriately with anyone. Limit physical contact with someone of the opposite gender to a handshake.

Always ensure that another adult of your own gender is present with you and your companion when you visit in person, teach in person, travel with, or have meals with an individual of the opposite gender. Seek approval from your mission president for any exceptions.

 

That means no hugging or kissing.  It is a policy in the handbook, not a commandment.  In regard to the missionary handbook, I agree with this explanation:

Quote

Missionaries have a strict code to follow when they’re carrying out their mission. In many cases this service is voluntary so keep in mind they are also voluntarily following these rules. Even though they’re called “rules” they are not restrictions that missionaries are necessarily held to. They are simply agreed too and followed by young men who decide to enter mission work.

https://www.meredithgould.com/missionary-love/

 

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That agreement isn't, from my perspective, an agreement to a policy.  I read it as an agreement to a commandment from the Lord, that He requires if we are to be His representatives and bring people to Him.

I am confused as to how it goes from an implication/inference in the missionary handbook to a commandment.  Today it is clearly listed in the handbook of missionary policies to which a missionary is expected to abide by.   Elevating or equating our voluntary agreement to serve a mission and to abide by the code of conduct (which we never directly or formally agree to) to some sort of covenant/commandment relationship, I think is going a bit far in my personal opinion.   For it to be a binding commandment/covenant, there would have to be something more formally binding going on in a priesthood ordinance, or there must be some revelation made binding by the law of common consent.  I see neither happening here.  Just an old policy book with a subtle inference.   I just don't think it is safe or fair to elevate an implication in a handbook of policies to the level of commandment/covenant.   

If you want to respond, feel free, but I am happy to agree to disagree at this point now that I better understand where you are coming from. 

Edited February 7, 2024 by pogi

[pogi]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think he abused his position of trust.

A violation of an agreed upon policy would be a violation (or abuse if you want to be dramatic about it) of trust.  I don't know who lost trust in him over this.   I agree it could be seen that way by some.  But that doesn't elevate it beyond a violation of policy.   It just shows that there is a direct relationship between expectations over policies and trust. 

A violation of trust isn't necessarily a sin or a broken covenant. 

Edited February 7, 2024 by pogi

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

How much of this "shame" was self-inflicted?  I suspect pretty much all of it.  The Church isn't into public shaming or shunning.  The bishop does not announce so-and-so's confessed-to transgressions from the pulpit.

The church certainly does have tools to publicly shame its members.  Memberships restrictions or removal, limits on participation like partaking of the sacrament, sending missionaries home for a variety of reason.  Heavy handed rules and "commandments," confession and so on.  Shaming can come in many ways and on many levels.  

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

How much of this "shame" was self-inflicted?  I suspect pretty much all of it.  The Church isn't into public shaming or shunning.  The bishop does not announce so-and-so's confessed-to transgressions from the pulpit.

The church certainly does have tools to publicly shame its members. 

Not really.

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Memberships restrictions or removal,

Apart from some very few exceptions, these are not matters about which the Church creates public knowledge.

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

limits on participation like partaking of the sacrament,

Meh.  To call this "public shaming or shunning" is to stretch and abuse these concepts to the point of absurdity.

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

sending missionaries home for a variety of reason. 

None of which reasons is a matter about which the Church creates public knowledge.

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Heavy handed rules and "commandments," confession and so on.  Shaming can come in many ways and on many levels.  

Your position is predicated on an unreasonable stretching of "public shaming or shunning."

You sometimes say unkind things about my faith.  Do you accept that this amounts to "publicly shaming" and/or "shunning" me?  If not, why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I think he abused his position of trust.

A violation of an agreed upon policy would be a violation (or abuse if you want to be dramatic about it) of trust. 

And that's what happened when he made out with a 16-year old girl while serving as a missionary for the Church.

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know who lost trust in him over this.

So you are okay with someone violating/breaching a reposed trust as long as the reposing party does not know about it? 

Does that lack of knowledge convert the violation/breach into a non-violation/non-breach?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think he abused his position of trust.

I know you do. I think you take yourself and such things to seriously.  He was a kid.  They all are.

So was I when I served.  

If your argument is that we ought to infantilize young adults by absolving them of their misconduct because they are young at the time (18-20 years old), I will respectfully disagree with that.  An 18-20 year old is an adult for all intents and purposes relevant here.

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

This speaks to the common sense approach taken by the Church, and to the quality of most missionaries who choose to serve.

I think there is no common sense to the approach to indoctrinating boys from birth and then isolating them with strict rules for a two year period.

Do you likewise oppose "boys" serving in the military?  Or is this another one of those "It's only wrong when the Mormons do it" kind of things?

That serious misbehavior by missionaries is, generally, a rarity speaks to the "common sense" inherent in the rules which govern missionary life.

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I served in the Army before my mission, and most of my fellow trainees were my age or slightly older.  I spent a year at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, which was basically a college-type experience, replete with overindulging on alcohol and, understandably, other appetites.  

The transition from solder to missionary (the interval between leaving active duty and entering the MTC was about 18 days) was . . . bracing.

I imagine that was quite a transition.  My son is almost 20 year a Marine and I know his lifestyle especially in the early days when he was still 19 and in his early twenties was quite riotous.

My stint in the Army was not "riotous."  It was all in training, and I was young (17-19), so I could not legally drink.  Between complying with civil/criminal laws (no alcohol, cigs, drugs, etc.), military laws and regulations, and the behavioral precepts I was taught by the Church from my youth (which you denigrate as "indoctrination"), I did not have a "riotous" experience.  I observed some of it, but I did not partake.  And in retrospect, I am very grateful for that.  Yes, I missed some experiences that were available to me (binge drinking, noncommittal sexual encounters, etc.), but nothing that I regret missing.  Conversely, I came home, continued to abide by my moral code, found a girl, persuaded her that I was a fairly decent and good person, married her, and we now have six kids and are heading toward our 28th anniversary.

So, yeah.  What you disparage as "indoctrination" I characterize as sound moral precepts that helped me avoid all sorts of problems, helped me prepare to be a good husband and father, and have continued to provide many blessings to me, my family, and society in general.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2024 by smac97

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that the not kissing part is "implied" in the old handbook of missionary policies.  It is more direct in the new one.  This is from the old handbook:

The new handbook is more direct:

That means no hugging or kissing.  It is a policy in the handbook, not a commandment.  In regard to the missionary handbook, I agree with this explanation:

 

I am confused as to how it goes from an implication/inference in the missionary handbook to a commandment.  Today it is clearly listed in the handbook of missionary policies to which a missionary is expected to abide by.   Elevating or equating our voluntary agreement to serve a mission and to abide by the code of conduct (which we never directly or formally agree to) to some sort of covenant/commandment relationship, I think is going a bit far in my personal opinion.   For it to be a binding commandment/covenant, there would have to be something more formally binding going on in a priesthood ordinance, or there must be some revelation made binding by the law of common consent.  I see neither happening here.  Just an old policy book with a subtle inference.   I just don't think it is safe or fair to elevate an implication in a handbook of policies to the level of commandment/covenant.   

If you want to respond, feel free, but I am happy to agree to disagree at this point now that I better understand where you are coming from. 

Like I said, I think agreeing to disagree at this point is best. 

Our temple covenants--a priesthood ordinance--include the covenant to obey all of God's commandments.  As I understand it, when we formally accept a mission call (something all missionaries are required to do) we are agreeing to live by the code of conduct outlined in the missionary call.    If we believe that God has commanded us as missionaries to maintain the highest standards of conduct while serving, then making out with a 16 year old is something that needs to be repented of.  As endowed members, missionaries have covenanted with God to be obedient and failing to maintain the highest standards of conduct is an act of disobedience to God.

If you don't believe that God has commanded missionaries to maintain the highest standards of conduct while they are reliant on the Spirit to bring people to Christ, then your post makes sense. 

But I don't personally think it makes sense. I think God does expect that much of us when we agree to be a representative of Christ to the world.

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, pogi said:

They will not call a person out by name, but shaming has been common practice in the church...pushing people into isolation.  Especially noted in priesthood sessions.   Some may be more resilient than others to such messages, but it is still an external source that did the shaming.  The church has corrected their shaming behavior some, but I still see it.   Drawing the line is one thing, but shaming is a whole other thing that leaders were known to do.

Seriously?  That surprises me.  All of the talk about "locking your heart" and "if you look once, you're a man; if you look twice, you're not a missionary" messages has culturally led to much unnecessary embarrassment and feeling that a couple needs to explain themselves if they met on the mission in order to avoid speculation about what kind of a missionary they were.  

It honestly just happened to me yesterday. Not joking.  A couple came in for travel consultation and it was discovered that the couple both served in the country/mission they were going back to visit.  It was also the country I served in, but different mission.  The husband responded in a very abashed way that "yes...we met on our mission...", but then he emphasized emphatically that they never even served in the same area together and that nothing happened on the mission.  It was as if he felt compelled to assure me so that I wouldn't think badly about what kind of missionary (or non-missionary, if he looked twice!) he was.   I assured him that I wouldn't judge him either way and thought it was great how they met. 

So, it's ok to carry on a romantic relationship while on the mission through letter, but if a simple kiss is exchanged it somehow tarnishes an otherwise charming love story and turns it into an embarrassment?  I think the embarrassment is largely cultural in these cases.   There are historically so many unhealthy expectations of missionaries that lead to unnecessary shame.  

 

I think it's sweet that a couple met on their missions!

I went to Germany in 1972, and there was a sister in our district in the Language Training Mission whom I got along very well with. I was attracted, but knew this was neither the time nor place. I had it in mind that after I finished my mission (she went to a different mission in Germany), I would look her up to see how things might go. Imagine my disappointment when a couple of months before I came home, the front page of newest Church News was photograph of her and her new husband just outside the SLC temple!

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective it's included when you agree to "maintain the highest standards of conduct" while you serve.  That agreement isn't, from my perspective, an agreement to a policy.  I read it as an agreement to a commandment from the Lord, that He requires if we are to be His representatives and bring people to Him.

Well this begs the quesiton of whether such things are a commandment.  We won't agree but I see it as a control mechanism. Church's love to control human sexuality.  Our church excels at it.  No sex before marriage, an obligation or commandment for all young men to serve, no relations with opposite sex for two years, come home, hurry and get married (and most do so they can have sex without "sinning") and then start a family and  don't delay.  Gets you on the conveyor belt of cookie cut Mormonism  very nicely.  This I think it more important to the church leaders than converts.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

A violation of trust isn't necessarily a sin

I would think there is someone harmed when trust is violated, so I would consider it a sin even if unintentional.

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, I think agreeing to disagree at this point is best. 

Our temple covenants--a priesthood ordinance--include the covenant to obey all of God's commandments.  As I understand it, when we formally accept a mission call (something all missionaries are required to do) we are agreeing to live by the code of conduct outlined in the missionary call.    If we believe that God has commanded us as missionaries to maintain the highest standards of conduct while serving, then making out with a 16 year old is something that needs to be repented of.  As endowed members, missionaries have covenanted with God to be obedient and failing to maintain the highest standards of conduct is an act of disobedience to God.

If you don't believe that God has commanded missionaries to maintain the highest standards of conduct while they are reliant on the Spirit to bring people to Christ, then your post makes sense. 

But I don't personally think it makes sense. I think God does expect that much of us when we agree to be a representative of Christ to the world.

Feel free not to respond if you want to agree to disagree, but you have stated things here that I feel deserve a response. 

This opens up the question of what are commandments? 

"Highest standards" is a relative and largely cultural idea that is not necessarily based in "commandment"?    If a standard is only stated in the missionary handbook but not in scripture, does that count as a binding commandment?  Was there a binding priesthood covenant made to abide by the handbook?  Was it accepted by the law of common consent?  Even if God expects us to abide by policy, does that somehow elevate policy to the level of binding commandment?     I think we need to be careful not to push policy into the realm of commandment simply because God expects us to abide by it.  Otherwise, they are useless terms that cannot be differentiated. 

For example, one can say that God expects all leaders to maintain highest standards in maintaining all church policies in the handbook of instructions.  Is the handbook of instructions a book of commandments of God, or an outline of fluctuating church policy?  Same question for the missionary handbook.      Where do policies end and commandments begin, if that is the case?  Is there no difference?  Should all policies and expected "standards" be considered doctrinal commandments?  I don't like such rigid dogmatic approach to religion, personally.  

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not really.

Yes really.  And I grew up in an era that the church excelled at shaming.  They do better now.  But the church still shames and has a culture of shaming as well. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Apart from some very few exceptions, these are not matters about which the Church creates public knowledge.

An organization can shame without something being public knowledge nut I Think you know this.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  To call this "public shaming or shunning" is to stretch and abuse these concepts to the point of absurdity.

No.  To deny that the church does not shame is what is absurd.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

None of which reasons is a matter about which the Church creates public knowledge.

Irrelevant.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Your position is predicated on an unreasonable stretching of "public shaming or shunning."

No it is not.  

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You sometimes say unkind things about my faith. 

Deservedly so.  Your faith is not something that has a right to be excluded from criticism.  Much or Mormonism deserves to be criticized. This is one of them.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you accept that this amounts to "publicly shaming" and/or "shunning" me?  If not, why not?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not sure where you want to go with this.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So was I when I served.  

Same here.  I served a mission as well.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If your argument is that we ought to infantilize young adults by absolving them of their misconduct because they are young at the time (18-20 years old), I will respectfully disagree with that.  An 18-20 year old is an adult for all intents and purposes relevant here.

No. I just understand that 19-21 year olds are still maturing and their brains are still developing.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you likewise oppose "boys" serving in the military?  Or is this another one of those "It's only wrong when the Mormons do it" kind of things?

The US government does not teach that it is a commandment and obligation from God to serve in the military.  So it is a poor comparison.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That serious misbehavior by missionaries is, generally, a rarity speaks to the "common sense" inherent in the rules which govern missionary life.

It certainly seems to be effective in controlling what a missionary can and cannot do.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My stint in the Army was not "riotous." 

Hooray for you.  So?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

It was all in training, and I was young (17-19), so I could not legally drink.  Between complying with civil/criminal laws (no alcohol, cigs, drugs, etc.), military laws and regulations, and the behavioral precepts I was taught by the Church from my youth (which you denigrate as "indoctrination"),

It is indoctrination.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

I did not have a "riotous" experience. 

 

So what?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I observed some of it, but I did not partake.  And in retrospect, I am very grateful for that.

Great.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 Yes, I missed some experiences that were available to me (binge drinking, noncommittal sexual encounters, etc.), but nothing that I regret missing. 

Did I imply that you had regrets?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Conversely, I came home, continued to abide by my moral code, found a girl, persuaded her that I was a fairly decent and good person, married her, and we now have six kids and are heading toward our 28th anniversary.

Great.  I did the same after my mission. I have been married 43 years, have four children and 9 grandchildren. 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So, yeah.  What you disparage as "indoctrination"

It is indoctrination. You were indoctrinated. I was as well.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I characterize as sound moral precepts that helped me avoid all sorts of problems, helped me prepare to be a good husband and father, and have continued to provide many blessings to me, my family, and society in general.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wonderful.  Your life is grand. Mine is pretty good as well.  Hooray!

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would think there is someone harmed when trust is violated, so I would consider it a sin even if unintentional.

Personally, I don't believe in unintentional sin.  One may transgress a law, but one can't sin in ignorance.    

I also don't believe that a breached trust that results in harm is necessarily sin.   There are probably endless examples I could give.  It happens all the time in business where unintentional mistakes are made on insurance claims or bills, or whatever, that violate a trust and harm people.  They are simple mistakes, and only rise to the level of sin if done intentionally. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And that's what happened when he made out with a 16-year old girl while serving as a missionary for the Church.

Right, a policy violation.  Not a commandment violation.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you are okay with someone violating/breaching a reposed trust as long as the reposing party does not know about it? 

Never implied anything of the sort.  I am simply trying to understand who the trust is between, in your mind and why this the violation is more severe than a policy violation.   All policy violations are a breach of trust.   How is this somehow categorically more than a policy violation?

 

 

[Calm]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

I guess so, I always remember it being taboo growing up.  

I didn’t live in Utah, I can’t remember if you did or not.  That might make a difference or did in areas where there were fewer LDS.  I remember people talking about missions as a good way to meet new girls who were dedicated to the Church***, though the implication was the relationship would carry on afterwards.  It wasn’t necessarily just the ones they taught, but the young women attending the local wards, going to all the activities, helping the missionaries kind of thing.

I am trying to remember if I just heard it in my ward or heard it at BYU too.  It was in the 70s, wherever it was.

***Because there were so few LDS around, the youth typically got to know each other too well when they grew up with them to want to date while missions provided them with a much bigger pool with all the transfers.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I think it's sweet that a couple met on their missions!

I went to Germany in 1972, and there was a sister in our district in the Language Training Mission whom I got along very well with. I was attracted, but knew this was neither the time nor place. I had it in mind that after I finished my mission (she went to a different mission in Germany), I would look her up to see how things might go. Imagine my disappointment when a couple of months before I came home, the front page of newest Church News was photograph of her and her new husband just outside the SLC temple!

If you didn’t live in Utah and didn’t go to BYU, going on a mission was a good way to meet new members (new to you).  We didn’t have the internet to use to make new connections.  It had to be done in person.

I don’t remember there being as many single adult and special interest activities and do t remember any wards/branches except in Utah, but that could be due to me not being aware of them because of being in my teens.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Personally, I don't believe in unintentional sin.  One may transgress a law, but one can't sin in ignorance.    

We might think the same way.  I used “sin” to imply there was healing that would need to be done by that person eventually, but there is a big difference in my view between intended and unintended harm, though the result may be identical.

Do you believe someone will need to seek forgiveness for harm that was unintended?  That even if they are on one level unaware, harming someone else damages/burdens their spirit? (Something like karma perhaps)

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

We might think the same way.  I used “sin” to imply there was healing that would need to be done by that person eventually, but there is a big difference in my view between intended and unintended harm, though the result may be identical.

Do you believe someone will need to seek forgiveness for harm that was unintended?  That even if they are on one level unaware, harming someone else damages/burdens their spirit? (Something like karma perhaps)

When I was RS 2nd counselor a woman on my homemaking committee was struggling because her mom had just died. Being concerned about her I let her know it was ok if she couldn't get something done. I found out later I gave her a "weird" look which she interpreted badly. The best I can figure it was what I would call a concerned look. Anyway, she was quite hurt because of it.

No, I don't think I needed to seek forgiveness for that even a little bit. I wish she had talked to me instead of someone else about it because I could have explained my feelings at the time so she wouldn't have had to experience that pain, but that has nothing to do with seeking forgiveness.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Rain

[Rain]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn’t live in Utah,

Ahh. That may be it.  I did live in Utah. Yes, I grew up with the idea that there could be some shame about meeting your spouse on your mission.  One of my companions married one of the APs and at least early on I heard her quickly share how there was nothing going on during missions and how they met again.

Your description does explain a lot all of the people talking about being careful with the teens/women on your mission because they are looking for husbands.

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can’t remember if you did or not.  That might make a difference or did in areas where there were fewer LDS.  I remember people talking about missions as a good way to meet new girls who were dedicated to the Church***, though the implication was the relationship would carry on afterwards.  It wasn’t necessarily just the ones they taught, but the young women attending the local wards, going to all the activities, helping the missionaries kind of thing.

I am trying to remember if I just heard it in my ward or heard it at BYU too.  It was in the 70s, wherever it was.

***Because there were so few LDS around, the youth typically got to know each other too well to want to date while missions provided them with a much bigger pool with all the transfers.

 

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe someone will need to seek forgiveness for harm that was unintended?  That even if they are on one level unaware, harming someone else damages/burdens their spirit? (Something like karma perhaps)

That's an interesting question.  I do believe in making restitution as much as possible where harm may have been unintentionally caused, and asking forgiveness from whoever was harmed (more for their sake); but I don't believe that repentance, or asking forgiveness from God is necessary. 

In the case we are talking about, I can't think of anyone who would need restitution made for them.  

Edited February 7, 2024 by pogi