A morality/repentance/etc hypothetical for CUF...

[beefytee]

I have friends with wild pasts who have had this conversation with their spouses, and it never ended well. One friend told his wife everything before they got married, and he told me it was one of the worst decisions he'd ever made. It affected their marriage for years.

I also know people who disapproved of their friends'/relatives' fiances because of the fiances' history even though they had changed their ways. Since I have a bit of history myself, that never fails to rile me up.

Yeah, I have to agree that the past should be left in the past as long as everything is resolved.

It can affect things negatively if it is revealed or harped upon.

No one should be prying and no one should be confessing.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I have friends with wild pasts who have had this conversation with their spouses, and it never ended well. One friend told his wife everything before they got married, and he told me it was one of the worst decisions he'd ever made. It affected their marriage for years.

I also know people who disapproved of their friends'/relatives' fiances because of the fiances' history even though they had changed their ways. Since I have a bit of history myself, that never fails to rile me up.

I want to modify my response above just to say that one has to be honest but not necessarily get into the history. Just mention "yeah, I have a past, but I'm not going to mention particulars because I've already resolved those issues to the point where I'm temple-worthy and I feel it will only damage our relationship." I would also say "no, I have no STDs."

[Fiyero]

Since he was repented and was forgiven, it means the sin is no more, correct?

Hey I like that response. I'm filing it in the same category as those who have weekend marriage & annulment flings in Vegas: since the law treats an annulled marriage as one that never existed, there's no reason to ever tell anyone about it.

[Rosebud]

Tell her if she wants to know. If she's worth marrying the knowledge won't change much. Think of the anger she might have if he lies now and then she finds out during one of those first-year-of-marriage fights.

[statman]

I guess I'll reply to my own hypothetical:

IMO - she has every right to an honest answer - for whatever reason she wants it. He would too, for that matter. I think lying about it would be a horrible way to start off an engagement.

If he decides to lie to her, he can NEVER tell her the truth. It comes out now or it never comes out, regardless of how guilty he may feel about it (I had to talk a nephew (not the law school guy) down from divorce when he found out that his wife was not a virgin when they got married. He wanted to know. She lied. It ate at her for about 18 months and she finally told him, and for about a week it looked like they would get divorced over it. Knowing my nephew, had she told him the truth, he probably would have broken it off. He was a really popular kid in HS who literally had beautiful non-LDS girls throwing themselves at him, and he felt that if he had remained faithful, he could expect a wife who had as well. He denied at the time he found out that it would have been a deal-breaker, but I know him pretty well, and I'm pretty sure he would have dumped her...

Back to the hypothetical -

If he does decide to tell her, she has to decide whether it matters and make her decison to go forward or not. He's been forgiven (as far as we can tell) by the Church and by the Lord. She can either say it matters or it doesn't - but absolutely can't bring it up again later.

I would favor the telling option. I think she has a right to know if she wants to. I also think starting a marriage with a big lie is a big mistake that means he'd have to hide something forever. Because if she found out he lied (like my nephew found out), it's going to feel like he just did it - not like it was somehtign that happened years ago.

Anyway - I asked the question because my niece (married to Law School guy) has a religion professor who said on his web page (for whatever reason) that in a case like this, the guy is OBLIGATED to lie. In fact he goes as far to say it would be DISHONEST for him to tell the girl the truth. His reasoning - the fact that he's repented means that he's a new person who didn't actually sleep with his girlfriend.

I think the BYU religion professor (ex bishop, stake president, mission president, EFY speaker(!)) is full of crap . The Church does too. The "Raising of the Bar" standard for missionaries, admittedly enforced by some bishops and stake presidents different than others, proves that repentence and currently being worthy to hold a temple recommend does not completely erase the actions of a past sin. If the church can eliminate you from mission service because you slept with your girlfriend when you were 17, it isn't COMPLETELY forgotten. But this guy is apparently telling kids in his mission prep classes that they are obligated to lie to their bishops and stake presidents as well. Their fancy, new, repented selves didn't actually sin, right? So it would be DISHONEST to tell your BYU bishop who is interviewing you about going on a mission that you had sinned and repented with your home ward's bishop back when you were 17.

The thought makes reason stare...

My niece is going to start her class with this guy on Monday by asking him to reconcile his web page post - the "fact" that the sin is COMPLETELY gone - with The Raising of the Bar. And to condone lying to your new fiancee (and by his logic your bishop & SP) - and insist it would be dishonest to do otherwise? Wow. It would be fun to hear his answer...

[mUUser]

My vote: Be honest with her.

[statman]

I want to modify my response above just to say that one has to be honest but not necessarily get into the history. Just mention "yeah, I have a past, but I'm not going to mention particulars because I've already resolved those issues to the point where I'm temple-worthy and I feel it will only damage our relationship." I would also say "no, I have no STDs."

I think that is probably the best course of action.

The only reason I could see a person wnating to know more than that is to know who the individual was that he had sex with. If, three years down the road, he says - Oh I ran into Julie from my home ward at the Cougareat. We had lunch. If Julie was the one he'd had sex with, that lunch wouldn't be as innocent as it would be otherwise. And if Julie WAS the one he'd had sex with, he'd be an idiot to have lunch with her...

[Surfah]

In one of Bro. Bott's famous Q&A sessions at BYU this question came up. He said you break up with her and as you're walking away you say yes I am. That confused the hell out of me.

[cowboy]

I think the BYU religion professor (ex bishop, stake president, mission president, EFY speaker(!)) is full of crap . The Church does too. The "Raising of the Bar" standard for missionaries, admittedly enforced by some bishops and stake presidents different than others, proves that repentence and currently being worthy to hold a temple recommend does not completely erase the actions of a past sin. If the church can eliminate you from mission service because you slept with your girlfriend when you were 17, it isn't COMPLETELY forgotten....

My niece is going to start her class with this guy on Monday by asking him to reconcile his web page post - the "fact" that the sin is COMPLETELY gone - with The Raising of the Bar. And to condone lying to your new fiancee (and by his logic your bishop & SP) - and insist it would be dishonest to do otherwise? Wow. It would be fun to hear his answer...

This is the kind of self-righteous bullshit that comes from egotistical people who lack even an ounce of introspection and humility.

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.”

What part of that didn't you believe?

[beefytee]

I think she has a right to know if she wants to.

A question (or 2) for CUF in general.

What are the things a spouse has a "right" to know? What things does a spouse have a right to withhold from a spouse?

If the church can eliminate you from mission service because you slept with your girlfriend when you were 17, it isn't COMPLETELY forgotten.

I not that familiar with raising the bar. Is it impossible to go on a mission (non-couple, obviously) after having sex (and being honest about it)?

[cowboy]

Is it impossible to go on a mission (non-couple, obviously) after having sex (and being honest about it)?

Yes.

Edit: No, it's not impossible - I read the question wrong.

[statman]

In one of Bro. Bott's famous Q&A sessions at BYU this question came up. He said you break up with her and as you're walking away you say yes I am. That confused the hell out of me.

That's the guy...

[beelzebabette]

Anyway - I asked the question because my niece (married to Law School guy) has a religion professor who said on his web page (for whatever reason) that in a case like this, the guy is OBLIGATED to lie. In fact he goes as far to say it would be DISHONEST for him to tell the girl the truth. His reasoning - the fact that he's repented means that he's a new person who didn't actually sleep with his girlfriend.

statman, can you provide the link? Somehow, I suspect the story's lost something in its relaying.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think that is probably the best course of action.

The only reason I could see a person wnating to know more than that is to know who the individual was that he had sex with. If, three years down the road, he says - Oh I ran into Julie from my home ward at the Cougareat. We had lunch. If Julie was the one he'd had sex with, that lunch wouldn't be as innocent as it would be otherwise. And if Julie WAS the one he'd had sex with, he'd be an idiot to have lunch with her...

I definitely think the information is important to the person who has abstained from sex until the marriage. In their mind, it's important that they have only experienced sex with each other and it's a bigtime road block to imagine them being intimate with someone else. I can't totally blame them for feeling this way and have to say that I felt somewhat the same way when I found out a girl I was dating (LDS) had been sexually involved with a boyfriend she had just broken up with.

Now, I can't say I'd feel the same way. If I transported my current self to my self from six years ago that dated this girl, I'd probably be high-fiving myself after the news and then contemplate a way to get the girl into the sack.

[statman]

Yes.

Although, admittedly, with very different enforcement from different bishops and stake presidents.

"Bishop Shopping" is a very real thing these days at BYU. If you have a bishop who enforces the 'raised bar' standard, you move to a different ward until you find one who will let you go. And just hope that your home ward bishop - assuming he knows about it - doesn't call your BYU bishop when he finds out about your call...