sleeping in the same bed before temple marriage

[yorkiebeebs]

I keep coming back to this thread and telling myself to keep my mouth shut on this one but really... If my son or daughter came up and told me that they were sleeping with their boyfriend every night but not to worry because they don't do anything...well I would have a good laugh for sure.

If by any chance (a very slim chance) that it is correct then I wouldn't recommend that they marry. Something is definitely wrong with the hormones in the guy. This whole idea is crazy to me and I would have a real problem with a bishop who would go along with it.

If nothing else, it is a very bad witness to the teenagers or for single adults in the church not to mention what nonLDS Christians would think of what the LDS church is all about.

I was raised with the teaching that you avoid occasions of sin and that is definitely an occasion of sin.

Wow! I could go on and on. This is such a no brainer to me that I can't even imagine there being a question as to should I do this or not.

Sorry if I have offended anyone but really, come on now....

[pam]

I keep coming back to this thread and telling myself to keep my mouth shut on this one but really... If my son or daughter came up and told me that they were sleeping with their boyfriend every night but not to worry because they don't do anything...well I would have a good laugh for sure.

If by any chance (a very slim chance) that it is correct then I wouldn't recommend that they marry. Something is definitely wrong with the hormones in the guy. This whole idea is crazy to me and I would have a real problem with a bishop who would go along with it.

If nothing else, it is a very bad witness to the teenagers or for single adults in the church not to mention what nonLDS Christians would think of what the LDS church is all about.

I was raised with the teaching that you avoid occasions of sin and that is definitely an occasion of sin.

Wow! I could go on and on. This is such a no brainer to me that I can't even imagine there being a question as to should I do this or not.

Sorry if I have offended anyone but really, come on now....

[pam]

Yorkiebeebs, are you sure you aren't already LDS in disguise? :)

[ryanh]

If by any chance (a very slim chance) that it is correct then I wouldn't recommend that they marry. Something is definitely wrong with the hormones in the guy. This whole idea is crazy to me and I would have a real problem with a bishop who would go along with it.

Why is it that there is something wrong with the guy? Why shouldn't he be running if the girl is that stiff and straight that nothing has happened?

The lack of understanding of variability in individual desire has reared it's head a couple times in this thread. Those who have healthy and normal desires forget that there are both men and women that have lower desires than themselves. For some married couples, once a year, or once a month is often enough. Dysfunction does not exist in the bedroom until there is disparate levels of desire. Frequency or absolute level of drive is not what defines the problem - only the disparity between individuals when it causes friction.

So, assuming that she should run from him if he isn't so horny that he's trying to get in her pants is ignorant of the reality of human variation (not to mention sexist, and based on stereotypes rather than reality). It will could be that the two of them have both found they don't have strong drives, and thus are a good match for each other. That is not wrong. Nor is it really our business.

[crazypotato]

Why is it that there is something wrong with the guy? Why shouldn't he be running if the girl is that stiff and straight that nothing has happened?

The lack of understanding of variability in individual desire has reared it's head a couple times in this thread. Those who have healthy and normal desires forget that there are both men and women that have lower desires than themselves. For some married couples, once a year, or once a month is often enough. Dysfunction does not exist in the bedroom until there is disparate levels of desire. Frequency or absolute level of drive is not what defines the problem - only the disparity between individuals when it causes friction.

So, assuming that she should run from him if he isn't so horny that he's trying to get in her pants is ignorant of the reality of human variation (not to mention sexist, and based on stereotypes rather than reality). It will could be that the two of them have both found they don't have strong drives, and thus are a good match for each other. That is not wrong. Nor is it really our business.

None of it is our business, but we all post our opinion anyway;)

[pam]

It becomes our business when someone posts it publically on a forum. If someone didn't want it to be our business, then don't post it.

[yorkiebeebs]

Yorkiebeebs, are you sure you aren't already LDS in disguise? :)

No but I'm getting close! I was raised by parents who were from very strict churches. My dad was raised with a Quaker background and my mom was raised in a very strict pentecostal church. No short sleeves, nothing above the knee, no makeup, we couldn't date until we were 16yr old...etc, you get the idea.

My parents had 12 children (3 boys and 9 girls) and all of my growing up years I was asked if I was Catholic or Mormon. They compromised and raised us in the Presbyterian Church.

So I guess in our values and dress, etc I was raised in a similiar home. We didn't have family home evening but on Sunday we did nothing except church. Nothing!

I guess I have very familiar feelings when I research the lifestyle of the LDS Church and the teachings are very comforting to me. They just seem to make sense to me.

So I continue on and one day Heavenly Father will make everything come together for me.

Thank you so much for allowing me to be here. I feel very comfortable when I'm here.

[pam]

I, for one, love having you here Yorkie. I sincerely enjoy your posts and your points of view.

[Cassiopeia]

I don't think is so black and white. I believe if a member is acting inappropriately with a minor and I am AWARE of it, definetely will talk to the Bishop about it, I will not wait for the predator to do it. Also depending on the whole story the police would be involved as well.

But we weren't talking about that.

And if you know of an adult acting inappropriately with a minor that is a matter for the police first, and when the charges stick, THEN you tell the Bishop. That's what my HT told me the other night as well because we got onto the topic of when you CAN turn someone in. But we were talking about this guy who said he had cut someone's tongue out and left them to die in the Nevada desert and he was looking to be baptized.

HT, said even then, it has to have gone to court, and the person being convicted. I think it's pretty clear what is and isn't allowed.

But hey, if anyone wants to turn someone in to the Bishop by all means. I'd just be prepared for a lecture and possible discipline if the Bishop thinks it is the spreading of malicious gossip.

[jayanna]

Okay, I asked my hubby, he is in the Bishopric, he says that if anyone feels prompted to go to the Bishop, he/she should go.

Say you are a home teacher, you visit the family, you are the entire family's home teacher. While visiting, you discover that the father/husband of the family is physically abusing the wife...she is refusing to tell the police and you have not seen the actual abuse yourself. Calling the police would be pointless if there is not evidence of the abuse, nor a witness willing to testify of it. The fruits of involving the police would probably be that the father/husband no longer allows a priest to visit, and possibly an escalation of the severity of the abuse. You'd better tell the Bishop, not to condemn anyone, but he would want to know, in order to step up the services given to this family. He is a Judge in Israel, and he will know what to do for them.

I don't know where your HT got his info, Cass, but several people in my ward, including me, received special training concerning sexual child abuse. There was even a video produced by the church for this training that is not available for distribution. You ALWAYS tell the Bishop immediately. There is a very special procedure for this in the church, services (legal and otherwise) are already prepared and 24 hr. resources are in place. Measures are taken swiftly (within hours) to protect the victim, and the member reporting the abuse.

For things of a lesser emergency, I don't think that it would be considered malicious gossip under a few conditions, such as: if the Bishop is the only one you tell, you tell him because you care for them, or if it is effecting your testimony. Mostly though, the prompting is the most important thing.

[Cassiopeia]

Okay, I asked my hubby, he is in the Bishopric, he says that if anyone feels prompted to go to the Bishop, he/she should go.

Say you are a home teacher, you visit the family, you are the entire family's home teacher. While visiting, you discover that the father/husband of the family is physically abusing the wife...she is refusing to tell the police and you have not seen the actual abuse yourself. Calling the police would be pointless if there is not evidence of the abuse, nor a witness willing to testify of it. The fruits of involving the police would probably be that the father/husband no longer allows a priest to visit, and possibly an escalation of the severity of the abuse. You'd better tell the Bishop, not to condemn anyone, but he would want to know, in order to step up the services given to this family. He is a Judge in Israel, and he will know what to do for them.

I don't know where your HT got his info, Cass, but several people in my ward, including me, received special training concerning sexual child abuse. There was even a video produced by the church for this training that is not available for distribution. You ALWAYS tell the Bishop immediately. There is a very special procedure for this in the church, services (legal and otherwise) are already prepared and 24 hr. resources are in place. Measures are taken swiftly (within hours) to protect the victim, and the member reporting the abuse.

For things of a lesser emergency, I don't think that it would be considered malicious gossip under a few conditions, such as: if the Bishop is the only one you tell, you tell him because you care for them, or if it is effecting your testimony. Mostly though, the prompting is the most important thing.

Your husband's in the bishopric, my HT has been in bishoprics and is a young mens president. They can duke that one out. And I did not say my HT commented on child abuse did I? I was relating the story of a man who claimed to have cut out the tongue of another person and left them to die in the desert. I apply his answer about that to any serious crime that is committed.

As far as bringing up child abuse that is the responsibility of Child Protective Services and I'd be careful taking such info to the Bishop or any other member without the ruling from CPS. Law suits for slander are an ugly thing if you can't prove your accusations to be true.

I also am very much against people running to the Bishop with things like the original post. Would we take away their agency and their personal growth in taking away the opportunity to do themselves.

We must mind our own back yards and let people do the same. And let me say, we should never let the actions of others that we are not involved with have anything to do with our testimony. That's their problem not ours.

[Gemma]

Interesting discussion - if I can throw this into the mix, sustaining by a show of hands is a principle in the church.

I've seen cases where someone has raised their hands to say they're opposed to a calling, and seen the bishopric make a note of it. I assume that they then talk to that member and give them a chance to explain why they opposed. In that case, if you knew of a serious unresolved transgression and that this person had told the bishop they were worthy to accept a calling, I think it would be your responsibility to object.

Just going to the bishop out of the blue? I think as a previous poster said that would be taking away the individuals chance to confess themselves, which is an important part of the repentance process, so I'd only do it if I thought others would be harmed.

[Gemma]

Back to the OP's question - I would've liked to clarify the situation before judging, the assumption seems to have been that they were sleeping in the same bed every night, whereas the poster may have been talking about a one-off, we were watching a movie in my room and fell asleep and didn't wake up till morning sort of situation.

Its been my experience that as youth our leaders are so keen to protect us that they sometimes extend the law of chastity to things it doesn't neccessarily need to contain - for example I had a stake president give a fireside where he said 'you should only kiss your boyfriend like you'd kiss your parents'. Needless to say I spent the first 6 months of my current relationship feeling constantly guilty while I tried to figure out what was and wasn't ok. For me, its ok to kiss my boyfriend in different ways to how I'd kiss my parents

I'm not encouraging taking the law of chastity lightly, and I certainly wouldn't reccommend sleeping in the same bed as your boyfriend because I don't believe in leaving yourself open to temptation, but its not a sin in itself and I would be wary of making someone feel as if they'd messed up bad when they may be suffering from overactive conscience!

[jayanna]

And if you know of an adult acting inappropriately with a minor that is a matter for the police first, and when the charges stick, THEN you tell the Bishop. That's what my HT told me the other night as well because we got onto the topic of when you CAN turn someone in. .

That is child abuse. If you have a problem with what the training said, you should take it up with church headquarters, not me. The church protects both the victim from further abuse, and the person who reports the abuse...With legal assistance, from slander, backlash, false reporting, and so forth...and also begins counseling the offender so that a repentace process can begin. (And who knows, maybe that minor has accused people before, many different people, and the bishop is aware of this while the person reporting it is not.) The highest concentration of sex offenders per capita in the United States is in my ward boundaries. I've been drilled on this.

If it is a child being abused their free agency is ripped away from them by their abuser and that will not ever be tolerated.

Youre right, we should never let the actions of others affect our testimony, and yet so many times, it does. Hence, the loads of members that do not attend for this reason. I'm pretty sure the bishop would rather you speak to him after being seriously offended rather than simply going inactive...maybe you are offended b/c of you, maybe not, maybe working out those feelings and getting to the root of them is better than hiding away and pouting.

Again, the bishop is there to help people, not condemn them. Why are so many people afraid of bishops? They're nice. :) Why is there even a phrase, "Turn someone in?" He will NEVER take away someone's free will, they still have it. He might say, "hey, that person is doing just fine, why are you troubled by this?" But wait are Bishops real disciplinarians in some areas? Mine have all been really kind, maybe I'm just fortunate...but I would like to think that they all are.

As I said before, the young couple will be interviewed, twice, if it is a problem it will come up in the interview.

The reason I mentioned my hubby's calling was to point out that it is the current policy in our ward. Actually, he has not had the priesthood for very long at all, but you know what, he said to act on the prompting which is the best advice so far. But then, I am biased, he wins me over with his devastating good looks.

Edited August 5, 2010 by jayanna

[Cassiopeia]

Youre right, we should never let the actions of others affect our testimony, and yet so many times, it does. Hence, the loads of members that do not attend for this reason. I'm pretty sure the bishop would rather you speak to him after being seriously offended rather than simply going inactive...maybe you are offended b/c of you, maybe not, maybe working out those feelings and getting to the root of them is better than hiding away and pouting.

Here's the thing, I said, if the person or situation does not involve us, we shouldn't let it affect us. However, let me say this, if something someone has done to you is affecting your testimony, and you feel your Bishop can help, and you can't get passed it, then by all means talk to your Bishop. It is very hard to NOT let what someone has done to hurt or offend us affect our testimony but, I've found in recent years I have to safe guard my testimony from outside influences that would rip it from me otherwise. Many times, I have to remind myself that my Lord and Savior is not the people of this or any other church. That my relationship with him and Heavenly Father can never be taken from me by the actions of those who are mistreating me and that their membership in the church has nothing to do with me or my relationship to my God.

Again, the bishop is there to help people, not condemn them. Why are so many people afraid of bishops? They're nice. :) Why is there even a phrase, "Turn someone in?" He will NEVER take away someone's free will, they still have it. He might say, "hey, that person is doing just fine, why are you troubled by this?" But wait are Bishops real disciplinarians in some areas? Mine have all been really kind, maybe I'm just fortunate...but I would like to think that they all are.

As I said before, the young couple will be interviewed, twice, if it is a problem it will come up in the interview.

I have met one or two Bishops who aren't "nice". But it isn't their calling that gets in the way, it's their own personality. Bishops are people too. However, the majority of the Bishops I've met are very kind and most of the time outgoing. I think what people are afraid of is the possibility that he might them an unworthy member and often times they haven't done anything. There seems to be a trend in some people to think the worst of themselves. So they fear not only anyone in authority over them but people in general. My studies in interpersonal communications this last semester were very interesting about how our upbringing brings into play the fear of rejection when there is no one there to condemn. (But I digress)

I think that each Bishop probably has what he allows members to come to him about. But in this instance it feels like tattling on the couple. It's a private matter between them.

I don't remember who said it but I agree with them that the young couple if not having intimate relationships now should hurry up and get married. And I think they should stop what they are doing. We are only as strong as the temptations we consistently make an effort to resist.

[Maureen]

If all that was left on planet earth, was a bunch of people who were not married, but were sharing the same bed, there would be children 9 months later. It's a fact of human behavior.

I think that would depend on the size of the bed and how much is "a bunch".

For example, if the bed was a king size and a bunch was two couples, then yes I would agree but, if the bed was a twin size and a bunch was 10 couples then I really doubt it.

M.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Maureen