Counsel From the Bishop

[NewToBe]

Well, briefly as a summary, I have recently been engaged to the love of my life and someone I really cherish. She has an amazing personality, great goals, etc. I knew her before my mission, etc.

Recently though after being engaged, we've been hanging out together quite often which is to be expected. We ended up slipping up and having oral sex while staying out too late at night.

We went to the bishop that I personally know as a great man and has helped me alot, given me counsel with future goals, etc. Great family friend. We talked with him and as a result, we would have to move the date of the marriage back 3 months since our goal was to enter the temple and do so.

The current situation is with my fiance. She does feel that the counsel and time for the actual delay was too extreme. She had know that her sister had done things farther than that and still had simply a month added.

I understand that certain counsel is for certain people and that it can be by the Spirit as well as by the standard protocol. I have spent alot of time trying to let her know that the man is trying to go by the Spirit as well and follow how he feels inside.

How can I better help my fiance know that the counsel he had given to us was for us? or was the counsel too much?

Thanks!

[MarginOfError]

Well, briefly as a summary, I have recently been engaged to the love of my life and someone I really cherish. She has an amazing personality, great goals, etc. I knew her before my mission, etc.

Recently though after being engaged, we've been hanging out together quite often which is to be expected. We ended up slipping up and having oral sex while staying out too late at night.

We went to the bishop that I personally know as a great man and has helped me alot, given me counsel with future goals, etc. Great family friend. We talked with him and as a result, we would have to move the date of the marriage back 3 months since our goal was to enter the temple and do so.

The current situation is with my fiance. She does feel that the counsel and time for the actual delay was too extreme. She had know that her sister had done things farther than that and still had simply a month added.

I understand that certain counsel is for certain people and that it can be by the Spirit as well as by the standard protocol. I have spent alot of time trying to let her know that the man is trying to go by the Spirit as well and follow how he feels inside.

How can I better help my fiance know that the counsel he had given to us was for us? or was the counsel too much?

Thanks!

So let me get this right. You knew this girl less than a year before you served a mission, came home less than three months ago, started dating her less than one month ago, and have already had oral sex. On top of that, now that you've been to the bishop, she's upset that her sister got less of a waiting period than is being imposed on her, and that 'extended' waiting period will last all of an additional 60 days?

I see so many red flags here that I have to say again, I really don't think the two of you are at all prepared for what you are getting into.

To address your question though, the appropriate response to her frustration is that life isn't fair. Get over it. If 60 days is really too long for her to wait to enter the temple, she's probably not ready to enter the temple.

[Sharky]

Setting aside the entire timeframe issue of when you met & how long you've been dating etc .... & assuming that you are okay with waiting 3-months & that you are truely repentant, that the concerns expressed are your girl friends ......

One thing that immediately came to mind when reading the OP .... During that 3-month waiting period is the Bishop contuening to meet with you/her & counsel you/her or has he simply handed out the "punishment" & let the matter drop?

What are you & her doing to ensure there is not a re-offense during this "waiting period"?

The second thought I had: If your girl is so angered or upset by having to wait 3-months, by her waiitng period being longer then her sisters, I have to wonder how repentant she really is. How seriously is she taking her own sin? If she is serious about ensuring her own worthiness & her own level of preparedness to enter nto the Temple of the Lord & be sealed for time & eternity.

I see (read) judgment of the Bishop, judgement of her sister & her sisters Bishop, maybe even some judgement of you her future hubby, judgement of everyone but her own self.

Okay, so I'm not privy to the entire situation .... but?

I am not sure 3-month is a long enough waiting period for her to come to the realization that her actions have consequences ..... if not consequences in this life then consequences in the eternal sense.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Sharky
spelling errors

[Sharky]

At the risk of taking this post in a direction that was not intended .... or maybe bringing up old doctorine, perhaps outdated ...... may I refer you to LDS (Mormon) Stake Presidents Blog: Oral Abstinence; the Key to a Happy, Fulfilling and Joyous Marriage , a blogspot of an LDS Stake Pres on the subject of oral sex.

There is a old letter from a previous First Presidency at the end of the blog post & a quote from that letter:

“In interviewing one for a temple recommend, the individual being interviewed should be reminded that the Lord has said that no unclean thing should enter His house…. Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices…… The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”

The letter is signed by the First Presidency including Gordon B. Hinckley

[FunkyTown]

I hadn't really discussed this on here because I thought it wasn't anybody's business, but:

My wedding was delayed by the Bishop as well. By 90 days.

Not because of any sexual transgression, but because I was suffering from depression and had missed about half of the meetings(For about 6 months) because I was finding it difficult to get out of bed. There were a lot of reasons for that. Nobody but my Bishop was aware of that because I was pretty good at putting up a front.

I took responsibility. It cost me quite a bit of money to reschedule everything, but we wanted to do it right. We wanted to get married, then get sealed in the temple and not have to wait a year(In Britain, we're required by law to get civilly sealed. The Temple ceremony isn't legally binding).

I manned up, went to church every week and the struggle actually helped me come to terms with the things that were weighing me down. It helped tremendously.

Don't try to reason your fiance out of trying to feel the way she does. Don't try to explain why she's wrong to feel the way she does. Just hug her, tell her you'll get through it and it'll be okay.

Then, don't break your covenants again.

[MarginOfError]

At the risk of taking this post in a direction that was not intended .... or maybe bringing up old doctorine, perhaps outdated ...... may I refer you to [(link removed) , a blogspot of an LDS Stake Pres on the subject of oral sex.

There is a old letter from a previous First Presidency at the end of the blog post & a quote from that letter:

“In interviewing one for a temple recommend, the individual being interviewed should be reminded that the Lord has said that no unclean thing should enter His house…. Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices…… The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”

The letter is signed by the First Presidency including Gordon B. Hinckley

You do realize that blog is a sham, right?.

The author of that blog is working an angle and making fun of how some have applied current and past policies within the Church. Yes, it is true that the Church distributed a letter describing oral sex as an unnatural, impure, and unholy practice. What the blog fails to recognize is that letter was later rescinded, is not part of the current body of Church policy, and has generally been replaced with wording such as "things that are acceptable and appropriate to them both."

Edited December 13, 2012 by Eowyn
Links to a blog mocking Church leaders and policy.

[trubludru]

At the risk of taking this post in a direction that was not intended .... or maybe bringing up old doctorine, perhaps outdated ...... may I refer you to [(link removed)

There is a old letter from a previous First Presidency at the end of the blog post & a quote from that letter:

“In interviewing one for a temple recommend, the individual being interviewed should be reminded that the Lord has said that no unclean thing should enter His house…. Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices…… The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice.”

The letter is signed by the First Presidency including Gordon B. Hinckley

And you realize that this letter was almost immediately recalled and stake presidents and bishops have since been instructed that they should not be asking specifics of married couples sexual relations. As has been discussed elsewhere it is a huge can of worms if the Church had to define every little thing that was unacceptable/acceptable in the bedroom. Which is why they made the decision to trust married couples to be able to define what is acceptable for themselves. My opinion is things that make one or the other feel degraded, violated etc are what is impure or unholy.

But back to the OP, I don't think a 3 month waiting period is unreasonable, for a law of chastity violation. Your fiance doesn't seem to understand, that it is somewhat of a big deal, as living the law of chastity is part of temple covenants. Just because her sister "got away" with something and didn't get much a "penalty" doesn't mean that it is ok. I have heard a few varying degress of violations of the law of chasity of engaged couples with varying consequences and council from the Bishop. Your Bishop feels like this wasn't just a little oops, of we got a little carried away and stepped on the line a little, it is more of big oops of crossing well past the line for non-married people.

Talk with your fiance, you both need to understand that violation of the law of chastity is a problem. There is nothing wrong with being attracted to each other, that is a good thing, but you need to make a plan to repent and be able to keep the law of chastity to be able to honestly enter the temple, be sealed and start your marriage off in the right way.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Eowyn

[Guest]

Or... the bishop probably discerned something more than just the Law of Chastity at play here... he probably discerns that both of you are not ready to make this temple covenant.

And, judging by your fiancee's reaction... it is looking like he might be right.

[Dravin]

I find the, "Jimmy stole a cookie and only got time out, not grounded!" complaint speaks of a misunderstanding of the repentance process and the purpose of the delay. It's not some fine levied by Gospel Code 1-34A.5, it's purpose is to ensure sufficient time for repentance and demonstrated consistency so that one doesn't enter the house of the Lord unworthily.

Is 3 months excessive? I honestly don't know as I'm not your Judge in Israel, though I have opinions about it, but the fact that someone else in what one feels are similar or even more egregious circumstances was given a time period less than 3 months doesn't make it so. If nothing else, if we assume a Bishop must be in error, why is it assumed that 3 months is excessive for the circumstances and not that 1 month was insufficient?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Dravin

[Backroads]

My definition is fairly simple and straight forward when it comes to sex: sex is sex is sex. I don't care if it's intercourse or oral or tantric or whatever, it's sex. I really have trouble understanding how her sister could have committed any sexual act that was significantly further.

I'm not familiar with your average delays over broken chastity laws, but I'm going to be trusting your bishop here. He's the bishop, he's your judge here, 3 months seems good enough to me. If I read your post correctly, you seem at peace with that time frame as well.

Counsel your fiancee. I doubt she's feeling fully repentant, but rather stubborn and clinging to the not-that-wrong-ness of what you two did. Attend church, meet regularly with the bishop, etc.

Some other thoughts:

--I see this as a big red flag. Not saying it can't be fixed, but it's something you should be scrutinizing.

--"Slipping up" and getting to the point of oral sex takes work. I hardly see that as an accident. That goes for any other slipped-up-and-had-sex incident. I heard it said once that when you're taking that pause to rip off your clothes you ought to think about what the heck you're doing.

[Guest]

--"Slipping up" and getting to the point of oral sex takes work. I hardly see that as an accident. That goes for any other slipped-up-and-had-sex incident. I heard it said once that when you're taking that pause to rip off your clothes you ought to think about what the heck you're doing.

Especially if you have to go through garments to get there...

[Wingnut]

--"Slipping up" and getting to the point of oral sex takes work. I hardly see that as an accident. That goes for any other slipped-up-and-had-sex incident. I heard it said once that when you're taking that pause to rip off your clothes you ought to think about what the heck you're doing.

Agreed. There's no such thing as "slipping and having oral sex."

To quote The West Wing: "I don't understand. Did you trip?"

[Anddenex]

I personally feel the Bishop is going "light" on you two. This should be a 6 month wait in my opinion.

[Vort]

What the blog fails to recognize is that letter was later rescinded

I believe this is untrue. I do not believe there was ever a recision of the letter under discussion. It does seem to be the case that the contents of the letter are not used as a measuring stick (at least, not currently).

[NeuroTypical]

NewToBe, I would like to re-give my earlier advice from your earlier thread, before your latest development:

Dude - I don't want to be a downer here. This is a horrible train wreck waiting to happen. I mean, out of a thousand couples in your situation who believe it's the right thing, you might be one of the lucky 5 that it is actually the right thing. But odds are, you're one of the normal 995 couples.

Tell you what - make the wedding date December, 2013. If you make it to June, start doing serious planning and spending money on preparing.

If anything, your latest post demonstrates a greater liklihood that you're heading into a horrible trainwreck.

No really - break the engagement. This is a horrible idea. Wait at least one year.

[Backroads]

No really - break the engagement. This is a horrible idea. Wait at least one year.

I think there's some wisdom here.

If you're meant to be together, you can bring back the engagement in a year's time. But perhaps the two of you should work on some things first.

[Guest kshRox]

Dude, stop having inappropriate relations and get married.

[Backroads]

Dude, stop having inappropriate relations and get married.

Yet in this case marriage might not be the best option.

[Guest kshRox]

Yet in this case marriage might not be the best option.

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to get married?

Do you think the attraction is only physical and lacks emotional maturity?

[MarginOfError]

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to get married?

Do you think the attraction is only physical and lacks emotional maturity?

Yeah, we kind of do.

[Vort]

If 60 days is really too long for her to wait to enter the temple, she's probably not ready to enter the temple.

I agree with everything MoE wrote here (yes, it does happen), except for this last sentence. I disagree with the "probably".

[Backroads]

Why wouldn't it be appropriate to get married?

Do you think the attraction is only physical and lacks emotional maturity?

It's not just the sex. It's that in combination with the shortness of the relationship and their mismatched levels of spirituality.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with everything MoE wrote here (yes, it does happen), except for this last sentence. I disagree with the "probably".

Dude. When both Vort and MOE are in agreement, the thinking has been done.

[pam]

I think Vort and MOE should just kiss and make up.

[Just_A_Guy]

Given MOE's current avatar, that could be . . . awkward.