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

[wuapinmon]

This sounds a lot like Dante's hangup in Clerks. cowboy, if he had sex one time, that's one thing. Would you want to know if he had been with 20 different people before getting back on the straight and narrow?

[SteelBlue]

This isn't really a question for me. You have to be honest. If the girl decides that's a deal breaker in spite of the atonement having worked in your life then I'd submit you're much better off being rid of her. There are plenty of people in the world who have a good understanding of the atonement and forgiveness so why waste your time being looked down upon by one who doesn't? Honesty is always the best policy imo.

[marsupial]

This isn't really a question for me. You have to be honest. If the girl decides that's a deal breaker in spite of the atonement having worked in your life then I'd submit you're much better off being rid of her. There are plenty of people in the world who have a good understanding of the atonement and forgiveness so why waste your time being looked down upon by one who doesn't? Honesty is always the best policy imo.

Exactly. Also, if it really is a deal breaker for this woman, no matter how kooky it sounds, she has the right to make an informed decision about who she marries. If it is really that important to her that she marries a virgin, than she should be able to know whether or not he is one.

[woot]

Repentance is = to expungement. If you've truly repented, you can answer the question as NO, and not be lying.

This is the exact logic that the Catholic leadership used to cover up all the child rape. I don't care if you're weawwy sowwy about it. If you did something and say you didn't, you're lying.

[BlueHair]

Again, it depends with whom you speak...

Here is some "Raising the Bar" text:

Missionary work is not a rite of passage in the Church. It is a call extended by the President of the Church to those who are worthy and able to accomplish it....It demands that those who serve as missionaries be worthy in every respect....I am confident that raising the bar on eligibility will cause our young people, particularly our young men, to practice self-discipline, to live above the low standards of the world, to avoid transgression and take the high road in all their activities.” (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Missionary Service,” First Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 11 Jan. 2003, 17.)

In 2007 L. Tom Perry reiterated the letter and gave it a new twist: "The bar was raised by the leaders of the Church, and now the minimum standard for participating in missionary work is absolute moral worthiness; physical health and strength; intellectual, social, and emotional development." The new raise my bar doesn't just include moral worthiness. It includes absolute moral worthiness. That means anyone that commits sexual transgression will not be able to go on a mission." ... " Personal worthiness is the minimum spiritual standard for serving a mission. This means that you are worthy in every way to make and to keep sacred temple covenants.

" Do not disqualify yourself from the blessings bestowed on those who serve in this very special calling by committing acts of transgression which will make you ineligible to serve. "

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=fc852bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

If you look at the language of the first "RTB" talk in 2002, it wasn't as absolute. By 2007, it was pretty absolute - service is a privelege, and past transgression can make you ineligible for the provelege (interesting that it's not called 'sin' - repentance reomes the sin, but it doesn't remove the fact that the transgression took place).

Here's a website that has summarized the history of it:
http://mormonmission.blogspot.com/20...ept-or-re.html

If absolute moral worthiness is the standard, they shouldn't have any missionaries out in the field. You'd be hard pressed to find an 19 year old boy that hasn't spanked it at least once.

[cowboy]

I want to be clear about my position. I'm not saying the man should lie - I'm saying it shouldn't matter, and that the assertion that somehow it should matter in spite of the man's repentance exemplifies the pious hypocrisy for which we Mormons are so notorious.

Missions and RtB are a unique circumstance where the visibility of the sin and what appears to be lack of consequence force the bretheren to take a tough stand. The issue isn't whether a prospective missionary has been forgiven, rather it is the example he/she sets for others. The fact that it leads people to believe that COMPLETE forgiveness cannot be acheived for certain sins is the reason I am very opposed to "Raising the Bar."

[BlueHair]

I have no idea if my wife was a virgin. It's not important to me. As far as the hypothetical goes-I would tell her the truth.

[Non Sequitur]

I want to be clear about my position. I'm not saying the man should lie - I'm saying it shouldn't matter, and that the assertion that somehow it should matter in spite of the man's repentance exemplifies the pious hypocrisy for which we Mormons are so notorious.

Missions and RtB are a unique circumstance where the visibility of the sin and what appears to be lack of consequence force the bretheren to take a tough stand. The issue isn't whether a prospective missionary has been forgiven, rather it is the example he/she sets for others. The fact that it leads people to believe that COMPLETE forgiveness cannot be acheived for certain sins is the reason I am very opposed to "Raising the Bar."

Repentance is between you and God. He's the only one that knows if true repentance took place. When I was preparing to go on a mission, I had to repent half a dozen times for the same thing before they would let me go out. I'm the first to admit that I'm a bad risk when it comes to back sliding. For many people it doesn't matter what their spouse has done in the past. My wife married an imperfect person, as did I. It didn't matter to us, but for some people it matters. For those people, they have the right to know the truth.

[FMCoug]

As others have said, I would be concerned as to WHY she feels like she needs to know ... danger signs if you will.

This will come as no surprise to those of you who know her, but I have a bit of a different version of this story. As you can imagine (at least those who know my background which I think is most here), my pre-baptism activies included some decided non-LDS things. When my wife and I began to get serious, I felt like she should know what some of those things were. When I went to broach the subject, she stopped me and said something to the effect "if the Lord remembers it no more, why would I care/want to know?" (paraphrased).

Yep, I married WAY up.

[FN Phat]

What this guy needs in the hypo is a cock-blocking buddy.

I was just starting to talk to this girl that just moved into the ward. I had just started to come back to the church. I was talking to this girl outside of the church after FHE and my buddy stuck around and decided to join the conversation. She had asked why I didn't have a girlfriend at church and I explained that I just broke things off with a girl I dated through the last 2 years of high school. Before I could continue my buddy blurts out, "FN Phat is not a virgin!" Talk about awkward. I didn't know what to say, this beautiful young woman was shocked and my buddy was looking around like he didn't understand why it was awkward.

So again, if he had this type of buddy he wouldn't have been in the situation to begin with.

[Portland Ute]

I wouldn't think the Lord's forgiveness is an issue. He's been to the temple, been on a mission, etc. In hi current life, he's living right on and off the field. At this point he's "worthy." But she still wants the question answered.

Tell her or lie? Or just dodge the question...

He had sex and went on a mission and he's 23?

What happened to "raising the bar?"

I guess this story is hypothetical, after all.

edit: I should have read the rest of the thread. This has been beaten to death. But, as an addendum, of the three stakes that I've been in since RtB, all the stake presidents have been VERY explicit to young men in special meetings that they cannot go if they do certain things. The words of the G.A.s seem to back that up. I'm not sure why individual bishops are doing something different. I guess that's the beauty of a lay membership.

It's no surprising. WHen I was growing up, boobs could get you a few months of probation, but your buddy might only get a slap on the wrist and a "don't take the sacrament this Sunday."

That's life.

[Portland Ute]

Again, it depends with whom you speak...

Here is some "Raising the Bar" text:

Missionary work is not a rite of passage in the Church. It is a call extended by the President of the Church to those who are worthy and able to accomplish it....It demands that those who serve as missionaries be worthy in every respect....I am confident that raising the bar on eligibility will cause our young people, particularly our young men, to practice self-discipline, to live above the low standards of the world, to avoid transgression and take the high road in all their activities.” (President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Missionary Service,” First Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, 11 Jan. 2003, 17.)

In 2007 L. Tom Perry reiterated the letter and gave it a new twist: "The bar was raised by the leaders of the Church, and now the minimum standard for participating in missionary work is absolute moral worthiness; physical health and strength; intellectual, social, and emotional development." The new raise my bar doesn't just include moral worthiness. It includes absolute moral worthiness. That means anyone that commits sexual transgression will not be able to go on a mission." ... " Personal worthiness is the minimum spiritual standard for serving a mission. This means that you are worthy in every way to make and to keep sacred temple covenants.

" Do not disqualify yourself from the blessings bestowed on those who serve in this very special calling by committing acts of transgression which will make you ineligible to serve. "

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=fc852bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

If you look at the language of the first "RTB" talk in 2002, it wasn't as absolute. By 2007, it was pretty absolute - service is a privelege, and past transgression can make you ineligible for the provelege (interesting that it's not called 'sin' - repentance reomes the sin, but it doesn't remove the fact that the transgression took place).

Here's a website that has summarized the history of it:
http://mormonmission.blogspot.com/20...ept-or-re.html

So no sexual transgression? Necking? Petting? Heavy petting? Levi Lovin'? Masturbation? Sexting?

It's no wonder the numbers of missionaries is dropping. Quite frankly, I'm surprised the number hasn't dropped precipitously.

[SoCalCoug]

I've never had sex with a virgin. I'd guess the whole virgin thing is overrated.

I'd absolutely tell her, and if it was a problem, I'd thank God I found out what she was before we got married, and move on to someone else - preferably a non-virgin.

Of course, that's the 41-year-old, twice-married me talking.

The 23-year-old me would have just answered (truthfully) "yes" and went forward with my marriage to a likely prude.

[Katy Lied]

There's a lot of good sense on this board. My thoughts:

She must have been wondering about this for a while, but did not feel she had the right to ask him, or the power to make him confess, but now that he has asked her to marry him (laying all his cards on the table), she has leveraged her priviledged position to "make" him confess. In fact, she made her answer (whether yes or no) contingent upon his confessing (whether yes or no).

2 Red flags:

1. Why could she not have just asked him this question if she had been wondering? If they are in love enough to marry, they should be able to communicate. Why did she have to wait until she had power over him to demand the info? She took a tender moment and used it to her advantage.

2. What else will she demand when she perceives herself in a position of power in the relationship? She doesn't seem to see them as a partnership.

Nothing wrong with her wanting to know, and nothing wrong with asking, but the way she asked was troubling.

[LA Ute]

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.

I like Bro. Bott's approach. I think the question is out of line. Talking about past sins (after full repentance) too often leads to unfortunate results.