pam Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) I think beating himself up over it should lead him to his knees....doesn't sound like the Bishop really need be involved. I have to disagree. He already stated he's on probation due to previous transgression...this sounds like it could be (or not) headed in the same direction.*edit* If I had only read Beefche's post first, I would have noticed she had already said the exact same thing. Edited April 8, 2012 by pam
sena Posted April 8, 2012 Author Report Posted April 8, 2012 Considering the OP has already had sex with the fiance before, grinding through the clothes is a knowing prelude to sex again.So, yes, the bishop needs to be involved considering she just finished probation for breaking the LoC before and now doing an act that leads to actual intercourse.beefche, please tell me where it states there was sex with the fiancé? To provide facts rather than your assumption, I have not had sex with my fiancé and it was prior to us. I have done the repentance with the bishop concerning that. Please for any credibility which you may have, make sure you don't assume things.
Leah Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 beefche, please tell me where it states there was sex with the fiancé? To provide facts rather than your assumption, I have not had sex with my fiancé and it was prior to us. I have done the repentance with the bishop concerning that. Please for any credibility which you may have, make sure you don't assume things.Well, in a post from 6 or 7 months ago, you clearly stated you'd been having sex. I think it would be a reasonable assumption on anyone's part - knowing that you have a fiance - that the sex ocurred with the fiance because it was so recent.Now it appears that you had sex with at least one other person previously, and are currently engaging in sexual activity (yes, "grinding" IS sexual activity" with your fiance.The bottom line is that you seem to be unable to maintain the law of chastity on your own. If you can't do something on your own, it's time to ask for help. You do want help, don't you? You do want to be Temple-worthy, don't you? Or are you looking for a way to justify and/or continue your activity without it having any impact on your impending wedding?
skalenfehl Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 To the OP: If you would not do something in Christ's presence, it ought never be done. Such relations are sacred and only intended for those who are married or sealed in marriage. Anything beyond this is adultery, even adultery in the heart. If that is in your heart, then our Savior is not and therefore not worthy of the temple or partaking of the sacrament.
bytor2112 Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) I have to disagree. He already stated he's on probation due to previous transgression...this sounds like it could be (or not) headed in the same direction.*edit* If I had only read Beefche's post first, I would have noticed she had already said the exact same thing. Oh....I missed that part. Yes, indeed, seeing the Bishop is definitely needed. Edited April 8, 2012 by pam correcting my typo
beefche Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 beefche, please tell me where it states there was sex with the fiancé? To provide facts rather than your assumption, I have not had sex with my fiancé and it was prior to us. I have done the repentance with the bishop concerning that. Please for any credibility which you may have, make sure you don't assume things.As Leah said, I assumed since you've had a sexual relationship with someone in the recent past, that he was your fiance. Sorry, I didn't know you were having a sexual relationship with 2 different guys.
pam Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 I thought Sena was a guy? Thank you so I'm not going crazy. When I looked at the profile yesterday it said Sena was a 24 year old male.
Guest Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 I think if he had relations with 2 different guys, we're dealing with a horse of another color.
pam Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 Hey everyone. To cut things short, I'm in my young twenties, came home from a mission early, fallen away from the church, took off my garments, have drank, had sex, stopped paying tithing, stopped praying, reading the scriptures etc... Now the profile says 32 year old female. We're being played.
Guest Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 Either he/she is ashamed or angry at being chastised, or someone needs to get a productive hobby.
Guest Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 (Confusion could have been avoided by using "fiance" or "fiancee" correctly, were I to nitpick.)
beefche Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 (Confusion could have been avoided by using "fiance" or "fiancee" correctly, were I to nitpick.)WHAT???!!!?? You expect correct spelling on a forum? Have you lost you're mine?
pam Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) If it's a gold mine, I'll look for it. And it's not Valentines day..so I won't say you are mine. :) Edited April 8, 2012 by pam
Guest Posted April 8, 2012 Report Posted April 8, 2012 Not "your gold mine", but "you are gold mine". Have I lost I am gold mine? I couldn't say.
MorningStar Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 Now the profile says 32 year old female. We're being played. Yep. I'm almost 100% positive it said he was a guy.
pam Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 Yep. I'm almost 100% positive it said he was a guy. Yep, I know it did.
Backroads Posted April 9, 2012 Report Posted April 9, 2012 Frankly, I'd think the better "play" would be keeping information steady. Guess this is why I'm not the troll.
bl80920335 Posted April 24, 2012 Report Posted April 24, 2012 This is a non- issue. Of course it's against the law of chastity.
NightSG Posted June 27, 2012 Report Posted June 27, 2012 If you would not do something in Christ's presence, it ought never be done.Great, now we're all going to explode from holding back gas.
Timpman Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 From "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet in the section on "Sexual Purity":"Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression." (emphasis added) The Law of Chastity "means not having any sexual relations before marriage." It used to specifically say "sexual intercourse" and that is still what it means. Other activities can "lead to" that. Are we sure that those other activities are part of the Law of Chastity?
Timpman Posted July 12, 2012 Report Posted July 12, 2012 Gah! I seem to come in when the conversation is over. Anyway, I need to apologize. Though the "Law of Chastity" might be referring to only sexual intercourse outside of marriage, we are clearly and consistently taught about what it takes me be sexually pure. K, bye.
NightSG Posted July 20, 2012 Report Posted July 20, 2012 Talk to your bishop and let him lead the way. In the meantime, don't grind. Keep a Book of Mormon distance between your bodies at all times. (Martin Harris's actions mean that you're still 116 pages closer than you otherwise would be.)116 pages doesn't matter much when you keep your BoM on a MicroSD card.
Lusiadas Posted August 19, 2013 Report Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) Actually, Pam was trying to be helpful. She was trying to give you a wake-up call. This is not a "gray area"....you are not living the law of chastity. Re-read JudoMinja's posts, she spelled it out pretty clearly. It's time to talk to your bishop...again.Good one you got her (...again). Flippant remarks and subtle reprisals of her dignity are a little counterproductive. An acute anxiety on this subject is prompting her to return to this forum seeking genuine responses from someone who has experienced this same dilemma and possibly some advice on how to resolve it. Instead you insert your own personal agenda and subtly bring up specific past transgressions already resolved that are irrelevant to the current question being posed. Don't suggest that she need repent (...again) implying that this sin is as grave as the past sins you're obviously keeping track of. This is already causing her anxiety and a sense of condemnation but it should not be experienced as gravely as the past sins you're referring to. I'm not saying give positive reinforcement but maybe promote her God-given ability to overcome this temptation and counsel with her bishop. Careless little discrepancies in your speech can cause people with serious anxiety disorders to further condemn themselves and have self-defeating thoughts of failure. It can be overwhelming and they give up altogether or leave the church. Take this extremely thought provoking story of Zeezrom into account; Alma 15:3-12. Had Alma and Amulek phrased their response to this man as you have I'm sure there would have been a negative outcome. 6 And it came to pass that Alma said unto him, taking him by the hand: Believest thou in the power of Christ unto salvation?7 And he answered and said: Yea, I believe all the words that thou hast taught.8 And Alma said: If thou believest in the redemption of Christ thou canst be healed. (Alma 15:6-8) Edited August 19, 2013 by Lusiadas
Leah Posted August 19, 2013 Report Posted August 19, 2013 Good one you got her (...again). Flippant remarks and subtle reprisals of her dignity are a little counterproductive. An acute anxiety on this subject is prompting her to return to this forum seeking genuine responses from someone who has experienced this same dilemma and possibly some advice on how to resolve it. Instead you insert your own personal agenda and subtly bring up specific past transgressions already resolved that are irrelevant to the current question being posed. Don't suggest that she need repent (...again) inferring that this sin is as grave as the past sins you're obviously keeping track of. This is already causing her anxiety and a sense of condemnation but it should not be experienced as gravely as the past sins you're referring to. I'm not saying give positive reinforcement but maybe promote her God-given ability to overcome this temptation and counsel with her bishop. Careless little discrepancies in your speech can cause people with serious anxiety disorders to further condemn themselves and have self-defeating thoughts of failure. It can be overwhelming and they give up altogether or leave the church. Take this extremely thought provoking story of Zeezrom into account; Alma 15:3-12. Had Alma and Amulek phrased their response to this man as you have I'm sure there would have been a negative outcome. 6 And it came to pass that Alma said unto him, taking him by the hand: Believest thou in the power of Christ unto salvation?7 And he answered and said: Yea, I believe all the words that thou hast taught.8 And Alma said: If thou believest in the redemption of Christ thou canst be healed. (Alma 15:6-8)LOLWhat "personal agenda" do I have? The only "agenda" I had was to provide advice in line with church teachings to someone who was repeatedly violating the law of chastity. With more than one guy. Should I have told her that her actions were were okey-dokey? Because that would have been a lie and not in line with church teachings. And it would have shown disregard for what is best for her from an eternal perspective.But you think that is "flippant"? Were you deliberately searching out a thread wherein you would have an excuse to be arrogant and judgmental?She violated the law of chastity....again. What good would it do to lie and tell her that she did not? Repentence IS necessary (how would one ever stop sinful behaviour if they didn't repent?) and a talk with with the bishop was in order. She was given good and honest advice by a number of posters. Advice in line with church teachings and with her best interests in mind. It would have been doing her a grave disservice to pretend that what she was doing was A-okay and not to worry about it.
Recommended Posts