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

[Tick's wife]

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.

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...

Well, I was forgiven for my sins and repented and seen as a virgin in the eyes of the Lord and the church, but my daughter, would have been hard to explain to Tick, had I lied about not having relations before Tick.

[Surfah]

Well, I was forgiven for my sins and repented and seen as a virgin in the eyes of the Lord and the church, but my daughter, would have been hard to explain to Tick, had I lied about not having relations before Tick.

You should have just told Tick what Gidget told me, "The Spirit rested upon me. Immaculate conception baby!" And I liked her enough to not want her to be stoned so I said cool.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Yes. Yes you can.

I was agreeing that you could go. So I think we are on the same page.

I happen to know someone on a mission right now who had an ongoing sexual relationship while at BYU with a girl and is on a mission right now. There was a one year waiting period.

[marsupial]

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.

Did you not discuss previous relationships at all?

[wuapinmon]

And I liked her enough to not want her to be stoned so I said cool.

Did she says this to you (3:26 in)?

[YOUTUBE]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XF2ayWcJfxo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XF2ayWcJfxo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

Wait, did she have a pot problem?

[statman]

I was agreeing that you could go. So I think we are on the same page.

I happen to know someone on a mission right now who had an ongoing sexual relationship while at BYU with a girl and is on a mission right now. There was a one year waiting period.

From the get-go, I have said that there are Bishops who would let a young man in such a situation serve - Brother Bott, for example. There are others who would not. But there are General Authorities talks - the ones that defined the "raising the bar" - that say sexual sin should preclude someone form service.

The 'wait one year' has been the standard for at least 30 years - it has nothing to do with raising the bar. Bishops holding young men to that standard haven't raised any bar and IMO are actively going against the guidelines set by the authors of the raising the bar standard - President Hinckley, Elder Ballard, et al. But that's their prerogative.

[Colly Wolly]

My younger brother had to go through this whole thing before he got married. I'm not sure if she asked him or if he gave the information voluntarily. He said she didn't like it, but ultimately it was not a deal breaker for her. They have been married 4 years and have a beautiful 1 year old son.

Thinking about it a little more, I'm wondering if the fact that his wife is an RM had any affect on the outcome and the fact that she was able to move forward with their marriage and relationship. Though I don't always care for my sister in law, I think this matter reflects a certain level of spiritual maturity and perspective on her part. Understanding that if the Lord can forgive and forget, she should as well, etc. Not saying you have to have been an RM to have that perspective, just wondering if that made a difference.

[LA Ute]

From the get-go, I have said that there are Bishops who would let a young man in such a situation serve - Brother Bott, for example. There are others who would not. But there are General Authorities talks - the ones that defined the "raising the bar" - that say sexual sin should preclude someone form service.

The 'wait one year' has been the standard for at least 30 years - it has nothing to do with raising the bar. Bishops holding young men to that standard haven't raised any bar and IMO are actively going against the guidelines set by the authors of the raising the bar standard - President Hinckley, Elder Ballard, et al. But that's their prerogative.

Even with the raised bar I think there are factors that move the needle one direction or the other. For example, sex with multiple partners (serially, not simultaneously, you sickos) will foreclose a mission.

[DrumNFeather]

Not to threadjack here or anything, but I wonder which would be a bigger issue to a bride-to-be; Her fiance not being a virgin? or being a recovering porn addict. ?

[Portland Ute]

Even with the raised bar I think there are factors that move the needle one direction or the other. For example, sex with multiple partners (serially, not simultaneously, you sickos) will foreclose a mission.

I imagine simultaneous sex with multiple partners would do the trick, too, however.

[All-American]

I imagine simultaneous sex with multiple partners would do the trick, too, however.

Doing tricks might also pose a problem.

[LA Ute]

I imagine simultaneous sex with multiple partners would do the trick, too, however.

My guess is that would be even farther beneath the "bar" than the serial variety would be.

There's quite a bit in the CHOI on "Ensuring Worthiness and Ability to Serve" of prospective full-time missionaries. The guidance covers spiritual, physical and emotional preparedness. Spiritually, the problem areas identified are "adultery, fornication, heavy petting, homosexual activity, other sexual perversions, drug misuse, serious violation of civil law, or other serious transgressions." The period during which the candidate must be "free of transgression . . . could be as long as three years for multiple serious transgressions and should not be less than one year from the most recent serious transgression."

Later it states:

Individuals who have been promiscuous with several partners or who have been with one partner over an extended period of time in either a heterosexual relationship outside of marriage or a homosexual relationship will not be considered for full-time missionary service. Stake presidents should help these individuals repent and should help provide other meaningful ways to serve the Lord.

Exceptions may be requested to the First Presidency through the Missionary Department.

So that's the "chapter and verse."

[Non Sequitur]

There's quite a bit in the CHOI on "Ensuring Worthiness and Ability to Serve" of prospective full-time missionaries. The guidance covers spiritual, physical and emotional preparedness. Spiritually, the problem areas identified are "adultery, fornication, heavy petting, homosexual activity, other sexual perversions, drug misuse, serious violation of civil law, or other serious transgressions."

Are you telling me that heavy petting excludes someone from missionary service? I don't believe that for a minute. If that's the case, we don't have more than a dozen missionaries out in the field.

[LA Ute]

Are you telling me that heavy petting excludes someone from missionary service? I don't believe that for a minute. If that's the case, we don't have more than a dozen missionaries out in the field.

I'm just quoting the CHOI. FWIW, it doesn't say that heavy petting excludes anyone, just that it has to be cleared up. A strict reading (which I personally don't like) of the language would be that a guy or gal needs to be "free of transgression" for one year. I'm guessing that varies from stake to stake.