Doctrine we agree on

[prisonchaplain]

So often I involve myself in threads about the Trinity, about canon, about soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), and the occasional one about the gift of tongues. How often do we discuss our religious practice? There is much that we agree about in this realm. For this thread, I want to explore our beliefs about sexual morality.

Areas of agreement:

1. Intimacy is reserved for marriage.

2. Premarital "petting," is an invitation to more.

3. Fornication is sin.

4. Adultery is sin.

5. Lust is adultery.

6. We should avoid media that would lead us to lust.

Areas of discussion

1. It's not wise for believers to date non-believers.

2. Believers must not marry unbelievers.

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

[LittleWyvern]

A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

Exactly. Christ set the standard for Christ-like living, so it makes sense that all Christian religions have a common system of morals.

[lestertheemt]

Thanks PC,

Sometimes I think we all get caught up on our differences that we forget our similarities.

[Traveler]

So often I involve myself in threads about the Trinity, about canon, about soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), and the occasional one about the gift of tongues. How often do we discuss our religious practice? There is much that we agree about in this realm. For this thread, I want to explore our beliefs about sexual morality.

Areas of agreement:

1. Intimacy is reserved for marriage.

2. Premarital "petting," is an invitation to more.

3. Fornication is sin.

4. Adultery is sin.

5. Lust is adultery.

6. We should avoid media that would lead us to lust.

Areas of discussion

1. It's not wise for believers to date non-believers.

2. Believers must not marry unbelievers.

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

I think I agree with you notions - although I might state them with a bit more conviction.

For example under #1. in areas of agreement - I would clarify "Intimacy" as "sexual Intimacy ".

I would also clarify that marriage is ordained of G-d and that for a believer in G-d marriage is a sacred covenant with G-d and cannot be broken without G-d – “for what G-d has joined let no man put asunder”.

The Traveler

[Maxel]

Areas of agreement:

1. Intimacy is reserved for marriage.

2. Premarital "petting," is an invitation to more.

3. Fornication is sin.

4. Adultery is sin.

5. Lust is adultery.

6. We should avoid media that would lead us to lust.

Areas of discussion

1. It's not wise for believers to date non-believers.

2. Believers must not marry unbelievers.

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

Dang it, PC, trying to bring us all together with your newfangled ecumenical talk and hidden agenda of 'unity' and 'togetherness'. *Does his best impression of 'grumpy old man'; waves a cane crankily* Get off my lawn, whippersnapper!

Anyway...

Having read your 'areas of agreement' list twice, I don't see any areas of discrepancy between what you've stated and (my understanding of) LDS doctrine. I would like to comment on #2 of your "Areas of agreement"- 'premarital petting is an invitation to more'- by saying that the LDS view premarital petting as a sin in and of itself. I believe you feel the same, but the exclusion of the phrase 'is sin' in that point leads me to think others might misunderstand. Or, maybe I have misunderstood and I presume too much.

Moving onto your 'areas for discussion' list, I think it would be most helpful to cite authoritative sources for the LDS stance on each subject to act as a springboard for future discussions. The following does not, of course, constitute the entirety of LDS discourse on the subjects, but do constitute authoritative statements derived from canonized scripture, official proclamations, LDS.org, or the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (hereafter FSY).

1. It's not wise for believers to date non-believers.

In the For Strength of Youth the most pertinent statement advises members to

"[d]ate only those who have high standards and in whose company you can maintain your standards. A young man and a young woman on a date are responsible to help each other maintain their standards and to protect each other’s honor and virtue. You must honor the sanctity of the priesthood and of womanhood." ("Dating," 24-25)

2 Cor. 6:14, cited in FSY (pg. 25) advises us to "e ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

In light of the previous two comments, it seems safe to say the LDS view dating relationships as having more leeway in terms of if both people are members of the Church- as long as both parties maintain high standards of moral integrity, it seems that casual or semi-serious dating relationships with non-members are not overtly discouraged, although not explicitly encouraged.

2. Believers must not marry unbelievers.

2 Cor. 6:14

Again, we find that 2 Cor. 6:14 lends credence to this idea among the LDS circles. Part of the emphasis on this idea stems from the doctrine of eternal marriage, discussed in greater detail below. Once the point of marriage has been reached, it is no longer enough for an ideal couple to merely hold to 'high standards of moral integrity'; covenants need to be made in the temple that seal the marriage as binding for eternity. Those covenants cannot be made by non-members, and therefore an ideal LDS marriage excludes by necessity being married to non-believers.

In saying such, I speak strictly from a doctrinal point of view and do not mean to cause anyone to take offense. If anyone has done so, I deeply apologize.

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

From LDS.org:

"The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" ([see]D&C 131:1–4)...

"Those who are married should consider their union as their most cherished earthly relationship. A spouse is the only person other than the Lord whom we have been commanded to love with all our heart (see D&C 42:22)."

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World,

"the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles proclaim that 'marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.' When a man and woman are married in the temple, their family can be together forever."

NOTE: All citations are from LDS.org - Topic Definition - Marriage

I think the underlying reason for the difference in viewpoint between LDS and traditional Christianity on eternal marriage is the same reason for the difference in viewpoint on the Trinity and other essential doctrines- the nature of God. We believe man and God to be of the same divine species, and that "the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Don't Drop the Ball1). Indeed, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11).

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.2

Because of the close interrelation between society and government, let me state the LDS Church's official views of government.

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society. . . .

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

"We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker" (see D&C 134:1, 5–6).

The 12th Article of Faith states "[w]e believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." (Articles of Faith 1:12)

Governments are prone to a slow dissolve into chaos, as are all human institutions. Just like our bodies, governments require constant maintenance and a correct exercising of power to stay healthy. If governments are given of God, then their proper maintenance can be found by continuing to adhere to God-given principles, and reforming governments as needed to maintain a truly moral focus and to stave off the slow onslaught of corruption. I find no disagreement with the idea that "[p]olitical efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting", as the only way to maintain a healthily functioning society is through a healthily functioning government.

However, a firm line must be drawn between encouraging godliness in society and the legalized forcing of religious practices. When drawing that line, however, one should be careful not to confuse religious practices with moral and ethical values.

A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

Personally, I am hesitant to accept this, as there are some 'Christian' denominations that repulse converts that live according to the Light of Christ- the most prominent example being the Westboro Baptist Church and other hate-centered denominations. In the end, however, it hinges on one's definition of 'Christian' (which I do not want to discuss here, lol).

1- It is important to note that President Hinckley's statements are not canonized, nor are the sources he cites. However, at the time Hinckley wrote the article he was acting in the office of the First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church; less than 12 months later he would assume the role of the President of the Church. While I stress it is not canonical, I can find no grounds why the LDS should not include it as official doctrine. However, as I said above, it is not canonical.

2- My explanation and use of canonical LDS scripture is admittedly very personalized in the following section. This question is the most philosophical of the four, and therefore requires more scriptural knowledge to adequately support than I possess. However, my views have been reached through careful study and reflection of LDS materials; I daresay they reflect a good portion of LDS members on the subject, and do a fair job of accurately portraying what might be the official LDS stance on the subject- to my knowledge, there is no official statement regarding this exact question.

EDIT: I hope I haven't missed the spirit of the OP in addressing some of the differences as well as the similarities between the LDS stance and traditional Christianity. If so, I apologize.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Maxel
Doing something sneaky

[prisonchaplain]

that the LDS view premarital petting as a sin in and of itself. I believe you feel the same, but the exclusion of the phrase 'is sin' in that point leads me to think others might misunderstand. Or, maybe I have misunderstood and I presume too much.

I'm going to munch all around this one. Technically heavy petting is not a sin for us. However, lust is. How one can engage in heavy petting and not lust is beyond me. So, in practice it is. My explanation probably explains my wording. Ditto for self-pleasing, btw.

In light of the previous two comments, it seems safe to say the LDS view dating relationships as having more leeway in terms of if both people are members of the Church- as long as both parties maintain high standards of moral integrity, it seems that casual or semi-serious dating relationships with non-members are not overtly discouraged, although not explicitly encouraged.

This is a more complicated matter. Rather than look to church membership, we have in mind Christian faith in general. On the other hand, if one is Catholic and the other is not, there could certainly be some complications. My aunt was raised Lutheran, did marry a Catholic, but then again, her parents did not object. I stole my wife from the Presbyterians, but then again, Korean Presbyterians are probably closer to Assemblies of God beliefs than they are to Presbyterian USA ones.

Again, we find that 2 Cor. 6:14 lends credence to this idea among the LDS circles. Part of the emphasis on this idea stems from the doctrine of eternal marriage, discussed in greater detail below. Once the point of marriage has been reached, it is no longer enough for an ideal couple to merely hold to 'high standards of moral integrity'; covenants need to be made in the temple that seal the marriage as binding for eternity. Those covenants cannot be made by non-members, and therefore an ideal LDS marriage excludes by necessity being married to non-believers.

The impression I get here is that there is more liberality in this area--that LDS youth are not always or usually restricted from dating decent kids that are not members. This frankly perplexes me, though some of that liberality can be found in some of our families as well.

I think the underlying reason for the difference in viewpoint between LDS and traditional Christianity on eternal marriage is the same reason for the difference in viewpoint on the Trinity and other essential doctrines- the nature of God. We believe man and God to be of the same divine species, and that "the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Don't Drop the Ball1). Indeed, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11).

The doctrine of Eternal Marriage does seem to drive the intensity of dating amongst youth, and lead to earlier marriages. Because they are earlier, the strong standards would seem to be even more important.

I'll have to address more of this string later...Maxel is either a quick typist or a very patient poster.

[Casslan]

quote 2. Believers must not marry unbelievers. 2 Cor. 6:14 quote

Again, we find that 2 Cor. 6:14 lends credence to this idea among the LDS circles. Part of the emphasis on this idea stems from the doctrine of eternal marriage, discussed in greater detail below. Once the point of marriage has been reached, it is no longer enough for an ideal couple to merely hold to 'high standards of moral integrity'; covenants need to be made in the temple that seal the marriage as binding for eternity. Those covenants cannot be made by non-members, and therefore an ideal LDS marriage excludes by necessity being married to non-believers.

Despite this being the ideal, for both members of the LDS church and non-members, one cannot dictate who one falls in love with.

The apostle Paul wrote the following:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. (1Corinthians 7:12-17).

So mixed religious marriages, though not the ideal are not condemned. There is always hope that at some point, the unbelieving spouse converts.

[rameumptom]

Areas of agreement:

I do agree on all these here:

1. Intimacy is reserved for marriage.

Ram: How can two people be truly intimate, when they are not exclusive? Intimate does NOT mean having sex, but it means sharing emotions, experiences, thoughts, and a lifetime of both good and bad.

2. Premarital "petting," is an invitation to more.

Ram: Exactly. Anything sexual is an invitation for more. This can even include kissing beyond a good night kiss, or dating young.

3. Fornication is sin.

Ram: Yes, while unmarried, the individuals involved are abusing God's sacred gift of procreation and intimacy.

4. Adultery is sin.

Ram: Yes. Not only is it like fornication, but there's additional layers of trust, fidelity and intimacy that are broken.

5. Lust is adultery.

Ram: Yes. It is just adultery yet to be realized. All our actions begin with thoughts. D&C 121 encourages us to "garnish [our] thoughts with virtue unceasingly." We cannot be holy if we do not conquer our thoughts and desires.

6. We should avoid media that would lead us to lust.

Ram: Yes, for all the above reasons. D&C 38:30 tells us to fill our minds with the things of God, otherwise the world will do so by shouting in our ears until we are convinced that they are correct. Many who once thought sexual sin was a sin, now consider it minor (sadly, this includes many clergy).

Areas of discussion

1. It's not wise for believers to date non-believers.

Ram: Agreed. Being "unequally yoked" causes problems for both the individuals and children if they fall in love. In dating and marriage, issues are tough enough without looking for relationships where there will be even more issues to disagree upon and argue about later on.

2. Believers must not marry unbelievers.

Ram: "Must" is a tough word. Believers definitely should not, unless the Spirit of the Lord states otherwise. Sadly, most people in "love" do not take the time to listen to the Spirit (or their parents).

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

Ram: Marriages should definitely be "till death do you part" if not forever. Dedication to marriage is what keeps society running and progressing. The breakdown of marriage, whether by infidelity, divorce or simply redefining it, means the breakdown of future families and of society. Any marriage requires true committment, through good and bad times. It cannot be for summertime soldiers, only, since struggles often happen in the winter. The concept of eternal marriage should cause all involved to pause and consider the seriousness of the committment and covenants being made.

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

Ram: Yes, as long as they stay somewhat generic, so as not to encourage one religion over another. There are basic moral principles that should apply everywhere: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, honor they parents, be honest, do good to others. These things can definitely go a long way to improving society.

PC: A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

Ram: Agreed. Sadly, more and more Christian churches are slouching downward toward Gomorrah. To stay "popular" and with the times, many have begun to overlook the principles of God, which do not change. When churches support sin, and even to support legislation of sin, then the Church becomes an impediment to those seeking Christ. Jesus was correct to chastise the Pharisees of his day. Are the Pharisees of our day not equally to blame for the confusion and falling away of many who would come to Christ?

[rameumptom]

Despite this being the ideal, for both members of the LDS church and non-members, one cannot dictate who one falls in love with.

quote]

Sadly, this is an error of the Romance Era. One CAN dictate who one falls in love with. Love is more than just an emotion that hits someone. You are talking attraction, not love.

The scriptures show that true love is a gift of God, given OF Him. It is a choice, for us to choose to love or not love. Animals attract one another and mate. Children of God use a combination of mind and heart, based on holy principles, to choose a righteous mate.

We are not lowly animals, who can only make choices from the brain stem. God has given us higher functions. Alma told his 2nd son, Shiblon, to "bridle your passions that ye may be filled with love." And Moroni told us to "pray with all the energy of heart" to be filled with charity (Moroni 7:48).

Satan would have the world believe that we are bound to our senses and emotions. God says we can rise above the flesh and transcend to a higher state of true, eternal love.

When I was single, I was attracted to many women, LDS and otherwise. And several non-LDS women were attracted to me. But when I was ready to seek marriage, I was cautious to only date members, members who were seeking a holy lifestyle. Was it easy? No. But I chose my wife for her righteous qualities first, not because I was attracted to her physically.

I COULD and CAN dictate who I fall in love with. If not, then there is no agency, and there is no way a just and merciful God could judge any of us.

[Guest ceeboo]

And several non-LDS women were attracted to me.

Please post pictures as well as explain exactly what " several " means in numbers.:):)

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

[Palerider]

Please post pictures as well as explain exactly what " several " means in numbers.:):)

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

I need the laugh button for this......

[Palerider]

My question is.....what about Tithing....I think most Denominations believe in that principle.....thoughts??

[Hemidakota]

Five 'Nevers'

Never date anyone unless you planning marriage.

Never marry unless it is for eternally and same beliefs.

Never swap spit [kissing] with anyone since it encourages greater emotions if left unchecked.

Never be alone with the opposite sex, especially at night. This also means driving someone home alone.

Never let any sexual or unchaste thoughts fester since it usually leads to actions later.

[Traveler]

So often I involve myself in threads about the Trinity, about canon, about soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), and the occasional one about the gift of tongues. How often do we discuss our religious practice? There is much that we agree about in this realm. For this thread, I want to explore our beliefs about sexual morality.

Areas of agreement:

1. Intimacy is reserved for marriage.

2. Premarital "petting," is an invitation to more.

3. Fornication is sin.

4. Adultery is sin.

5. Lust is adultery.

6. We should avoid media that would lead us to lust.

Areas of discussion

1. It's not wise for believers to date non-believers.

2. Believers must not marry unbelievers.

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

A common bottom line: Christians of all denominations will attract converts if they live holy, and will repulse them if they live unholy.

I wonder if we can agree on something else - regardless of one's professed beliefs that sin deliberately left un-repented will negate divine spiritual rebirth, being whole and being “one” with G-d.

The Traveler

[Janice]

I was going to respond, but then I read Maxel's reply. Maxel, you said everything I was going to say, and you said it better then I would have.

Having read your 'areas of agreement' list twice, I don't see any areas of discrepancy between what you've stated and (my understanding of) LDS doctrine. I would like to comment on #2 of your "Areas of agreement"- 'premarital petting is an invitation to more'- by saying that the LDS view premarital petting as a sin in and of itself. I believe you feel the same, but the exclusion of the phrase 'is sin' in that point leads me to think others might misunderstand. Or, maybe I have misunderstood and I presume too much.

Moving onto your 'areas for discussion' list, I think it would be most helpful to cite authoritative sources for the LDS stance on each subject to act as a springboard for future discussions. The following does not, of course, constitute the entirety of LDS discourse on the subjects, but do constitute authoritative statements derived from canonized scripture, official proclamations, LDS.org, or the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (hereafter FSY).

In light of the previous two comments, it seems safe to say the LDS view dating relationships as having more leeway in terms of if both people are members of the Church- as long as both parties maintain high standards of moral integrity, it seems that casual or semi-serious dating relationships with non-members are not overtly discouraged, although not explicitly encouraged.

Again, we find that 2 Cor. 6:14 lends credence to this idea among the LDS circles. Part of the emphasis on this idea stems from the doctrine of eternal marriage, discussed in greater detail below. Once the point of marriage has been reached, it is no longer enough for an ideal couple to merely hold to 'high standards of moral integrity'; covenants need to be made in the temple that seal the marriage as binding for eternity. Those covenants cannot be made by non-members, and therefore an ideal LDS marriage excludes by necessity being married to non-believers.

In saying such, I speak strictly from a doctrinal point of view and do not mean to cause anyone to take offense. If anyone has done so, I deeply apologize.

I think the underlying reason for the difference in viewpoint between LDS and traditional Christianity on eternal marriage is the same reason for the difference in viewpoint on the Trinity and other essential doctrines- the nature of God. We believe man and God to be of the same divine species, and that "the whole design of the gospel is to lead us onward and upward to greater achievement, even, eventually, to godhood" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Don't Drop the Ball1). Indeed, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11).

Governments are prone to a slow dissolve into chaos, as are all human institutions. Just like our bodies, governments require constant maintenance and a correct exercising of power to stay healthy. If governments are given of God, then their proper maintenance can be found by continuing to adhere to God-given principles, and reforming governments as needed to maintain a truly moral focus and to stave off the slow onslaught of corruption. I find no disagreement with the idea that "[p]olitical efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting", as the only way to maintain a healthily functioning society is through a healthily functioning government.

However, a firm line must be drawn between encouraging godliness in society and the legalized forcing of religious practices. When drawing that line, however, one should be careful not to confuse religious practices with moral and ethical values.

Personally, I am hesitant to accept this, as there are some 'Christian' denominations that repulse converts that live according to the Light of Christ- the most prominent example being the Westboro Baptist Church and other hate-centered denominations. In the end, however, it hinges on one's definition of 'Christian' (which I do not want to discuss here, lol).

1- It is important to note that President Hinckley's statements are not canonized, nor are the sources he cites. However, at the time Hinckley wrote the article he was acting in the office of the First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church; less than 12 months later he would assume the role of the President of the Church. While I stress it is not canonical, I can find no grounds why the LDS should not include it as official doctrine. However, as I said above, it is not canonical.

2- My explanation and use of canonical LDS scripture is admittedly very personalized in the following section. This question is the most philosophical of the four, and therefore requires more scriptural knowledge to adequately support than I possess. However, my views have been reached through careful study and reflection of LDS materials; I daresay they reflect a good portion of LDS members on the subject, and do a fair job of accurately portraying what might be the official LDS stance on the subject- to my knowledge, there is no official statement regarding this exact question.

EDIT: I hope I haven't missed the spirit of the OP in addressing some of the differences as well as the similarities between the LDS stance and traditional Christianity. If so, I apologize.

[Janice]

...that LDS youth are not always or usually restricted from dating decent kids that are not members. This frankly perplexes me, though some of that liberality can be found in some of our families as well.

This perplexes me as well. If I had been forbidden to date non-LDS kids from the ages of 16+, I would have never gone on a date. Wisely, my parents made no such rule. But I think that had we lived in Utah where other LDS kids my age abounded, they still would not have made such a rule, and the fact that some parents do is, as you say, perplexing. It always struck me as counter-Christian. "I can't spend time with you, because you are not like me."

I do like the idea of Mormons marrying other Mormons... I think it will lead to a happier marriage. But to forbid Mormon youth from dating non-Mormon youth... I can't get there.

Janice

[prisonchaplain]

quote 2. Believers must not marry unbelievers. 2 Cor. 6:14 quote

Despite this being the ideal, for both members of the LDS church and non-members, one cannot dictate who one falls in love with.

The apostle Paul wrote the following:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. (1Corinthians 7:12-17).

So mixed religious marriages, though not the ideal are not condemned. There is always hope that at some point, the unbelieving spouse converts.

Paul writes to Christians who are first-generation to the faith. If one converts, after marriage, and the spouse does not, Paul does say to stay the course. Perhaps you'll win them over. Irregardless, the vows remain valid.

And indeed, there will always be a few that convert after marriage...and the counsel for them is the same. Stay where you are. Live in peace.

However, for singles, we have the choice. God's "ideal," is a command. Be not unequally yoked. If a believer marries an unbeliever, either there is disobedience (I hate to be blunt, but we must love God more than the flesh), or weak teaching (some church leaders and families may not emphasis this matter, or even see it as important).

This standard helped me to avoid heartache in my youth, and preserved me for the marriage I have today. Far better to wait a few years (I was 31), and get it right the first time, than to rush in, based on romantic drives, only to discover that compatible faith and worldviews really are important.

[prisonchaplain]

This perplexes me as well. If I had been forbidden to date non-LDS kids from the ages of 16+, I would have never gone on a date. Wisely, my parents made no such rule. But I think that had we lived in Utah where other LDS kids my age abounded, they still would not have made such a rule, and the fact that some parents do is, as you say, perplexing. It always struck me as counter-Christian. "I can't spend time with you, because you are not like me."

I do like the idea of Mormons marrying other Mormons... I think it will lead to a happier marriage. But to forbid Mormon youth from dating non-Mormon youth... I can't get there.

Janice

Perhaps we are confusing causual outings in groups with the kind of dating that leads to marriage (i.e. courting)? Why date (individual, get to know, maybe this is the one???) with someone that Scripture says is not qualified for marriage?

[LittleWyvern]

The impression I get here is that there is more liberality in this area--that LDS youth are not always or usually restricted from dating decent kids that are not members. This frankly perplexes me, though some of that liberality can be found in some of our families as well.

This is slightly inaccurate. My mom was a non-member when my dad started dating her. The advice here is not to never date nonmembers, but to not depend on whomever you're dating to convert to the church if you want a temple marriage.

[Moksha]

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

Hey Chaplain, how about your kids being encouraged to attend LDS Seminary as a way to encourage godliness? Catechism classes? This idea gains some tarnish when specific examples are suggested, does it not?

I support the right to have or not have religion. Both should be present to have freedom.

:)

[Maxel]

I read PC's 4th area of discussion not as a suggestion for specific religious programs instituted in society, but to encourage godly behavior. That is to say, programs that encourage service to others, patience and understanding, charity, etc. I can think of plenty that are non-denominational yet still of godly influence and, therefore, worth supporting.

[Janice]

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

I take great comfort in knowing that my marriage will last forever, and not until death do us part. I treat my hubby and our marriage differently knowing it will last beyond this life.

4. Political efforts to encourage godliness in society, though imperfect, are worth supporting.

I struggle with this one, and I fully admit that it is an area in which I am still formulating my thoughts. One of the core principles of Christ's Gospel is agency. We must be free to choose good from evil. Given that, is it wise to pass laws which mandate moral choice? And if we do open that door, where does it stop? Eventually, someone will try and pass a law that will either stop me from doing something I view as moral, or to force me to do something that I view as immoral.

Murder is and should be against the law. How about abortion? Should we overturn Row v. Wade? What about adultery? Should it be illegal? How about fornication? Petting? Where is the line?

On the flip side of the coin, what about banning prayer in school? What about forcing the Boy Scouts to allow gays as Scout Masters?

As soon as we start passing laws to stop things we find immoral, the door is open, and eventually there will be a law to do the opposite.

Janice

[Justice]

3. Marriages should last through this lifetime (vs. forever).

Could you give more explanation on what you mean by this one?

[prisonchaplain]

I wonder if we can agree on something else - regardless of one's professed beliefs that sin deliberately left un-repented will negate divine spiritual rebirth, being whole and being “one” with G-d.

The Traveler

My branch of Christianity (Arminian) agrees. It is possible to fall from grace. Those that espouse "Eternal Security," "Presdestination," or "the perserverance of the saints," disagree.

[prisonchaplain]

Hey Chaplain, how about your kids being encouraged to attend LDS Seminary as a way to encourage godliness? Catechism classes? This idea gains some tarnish when specific examples are suggested, does it not?

I support the right to have or not have religion. Both should be present to have freedom.

:)

You confuse "godliness" with "sectarian faith." I was referring to such issues as pro-life, abstinence education, anti-pornography, and defense of traditional marriage. The closest I might come to what you propose would be that schools accommodate off-site religious education, be it by allowing for a religious education period, or by offering sports and culture classes to home-school students who live in the district.