Makin' out in the chapel.

[beefche]

See my next comment in that post. I wouldn't bring it up as an issue of getting anyone specific in trouble, but as an issue of everyone in the branch needing to be firmly reminded to keep their hormones in check, or at least to check where they are when their hormones flare up.

I think the older I get, the less I care about getting people in trouble. If you do something wrong or inappropriate, then it needs to be brought to your attention. If I saw a child jumping from the table to a table 100 feet away, you bet I'm going to tell that kid's parents. One, he shouldn't be doing that and two, he could get seriously hurt. To me, it's the same concept. They shouldn't be doing that and they can get seriously hurt if they continue on that path.

If it happens with several people in the branch, then it's an issue within the branch. Otherwise, it's an issue with these 2 individuals.

Edited April 15, 2013 by beefche

[MarginOfError]

I think the older I get, the less I care about getting people in trouble. If you do something wrong or inappropriate, then it needs to be brought to your attention. If I saw a child jumping from the table to a table 100 feet away, you bet I'm going to tell that kid's parents. One, he shouldn't be doing that and two, he could get seriously hurt. To me, it's the same concept. They shouldn't be doing that and they can get seriously hurt if they continue on that path.

If it happens with several people in the branch, then it's an issue within the branch. Otherwise, it's an issue with these 2 individuals.

Strangely, if I saw a child jumping from table to table, I'd be more likely to engage the child in a discussion about their actions than inform the parents. If I did inform the parents, it would be after I had talked to the child. And if the child were old enough to understand both the social appropriateness and the safety issues involved, I probably wouldn't tell the parents at all.

[beefche]

Really, MOE? You wouldn't want to know if your child was doing something dangerous?

[Soulsearcher]

Really, MOE? You wouldn't want to know if your child was doing something dangerous?

If the parents are close enough for me to tell right away it means they didn't care enough to keep an eye on them in the first place. It's great to tell the parents, but really unless the kids are older it just points out that really the kids actions aren't the real problem.

[MarginOfError]

Really, MOE? You wouldn't want to know if your child was doing something dangerous?

If you find my child doing something dangerous and you stop her and explain to her why what she is doing is dangerous and convince her to stop, that's good enough for me. But I would much rather you address the immediate potential for harm than come find me and ask me to do it.

[beefche]

If the parents are close enough for me to tell right away it means they didn't care enough to keep an eye on them in the first place. It's great to tell the parents, but really unless the kids are older it just points out that really the kids actions aren't the real problem.

So? Does that mean you sit and watch a kid just smash his face because the parents are there and not seeing what they are doing?

If the parents are nearby and obviously not seeing what's going on, I'll probably say, "hey, your kid is about to do a faceplant." and let it go.

If the parents aren't nearby, I'm going to say something to the kid. And not only do I let the parents know what I said to their kid to notify them of some behavior issues, but to cover my own butt as tales that kids love to tell their parents often vary greatly from the truth.

The issue this thread is talking about is not kids, but adults (immature, probably). I'm so tired of passive agressive behavior from people (I get it ALOT at work) that I just refuse to play the game. I don't know what I would have said to the make out couple. I probably would have said something to completely embarrass them. I may or may not have said anything to the branch president. But, I certainly don't think it is wrong to let the branch president know who did what (if I knew their names). I think we need to be better about not worrying about people getting in trouble. I am not the one doing the wrong behavior--they are. That means they get to deal with the consequences--embarrassment or lecture or whatever else may occur.

I certainly can't control parents or the branch president. If my warnings or tattle tales or whatever else you want to call it goes in one ear and out the other, no skin off my nose. I'm not the one that will have to deal with the doctor bills from the faceplant the kid did or have to now deal with a potential LoC issue.

[BadWolf]

If you find my child doing something dangerous and you stop her and explain to her why what she is doing is dangerous and convince her to stop, that's good enough for me. But I would much rather you address the immediate potential for harm than come find me and ask me to do it.

This is why I think E rocked it.

- Addressed the immediate potential for harm

- Then sought the relevant concerned parties

Legitimately busted.

[prisonchaplain]

Immature, but not sacriligious.

While I understand the distinction between a ward and a temple, I still do not get why making out in a chapel would not be sacreligious. Can someone explain?

[prisonchaplain]

See my next comment in that post. I wouldn't bring it up as an issue of getting anyone specific in trouble, but as an issue of everyone in the branch needing to be firmly reminded to keep their hormones in check, or at least to check where they are when their hormones flare up.

Why not get them in trouble? I've got to assume that they know better. Should they not get in trouble?

[Wingnut]

Why not get them in trouble? I've got to assume that they know better. Should they not get in trouble?

Ideally they'd already be embarrassed enough to not repeat the behavior.

However, Eowyn said that they kept at it for another minute or so after she and her friend were in there. I wonder if this wasn't a situation of ignorance or hormonal impropriety, but rather that they dared themselves (or were dared) to do it. Deliberate risque behavior in an inappropriate situation. If that were the case, I'd agree that they need a stern talking-to by someone with the authority to give it.

[RipFoster]

I don't understand the need to tell a member of the presidency, names or not. While the location may not have been the most appropriate place, we are talking about 2 adults. A simple, Please take that someplace else' seems suffice.

[RipplecutBuddha]

I don't understand the need to tell a member of the presidency, names or not. While the location may not have been the most appropriate place, we are talking about 2 adults. A simple, Please take that someplace else' seems suffice.

Respectfully, what they were doing would be inappropriate wherever it took place, unless they were married and in the privacy of their own homes.

They may have not broken the law of chastity, but they were clearly on that path for the moment. They need a talking to, because they were definitely not acting in harmony with the standards of the Church.

[Vort]

The fact is, if a married couple were consummating their love, or even having a hot-n-heavy makeout session, that would be inappropriate. The chapel is the LDS sanctuary, a sacred place set apart from the world, not unlike the temple. Think it would be appropriate to feel up your wife in the temple, maybe behind an altar in an unused sealing room? No? What's the matter with you? Are you one of those weirdos who think sex is dirty?

Or maybe you're just one of those weirdos who thinks there is a time and a place for everything that is good, and while sex is good (in marriage), the temple is not the place for it. Nor the chapel.

If you're unmarried, that's triply true.

[MorningStar]

While I understand the distinction between a ward and a temple, I still do not get why making out in a chapel would not be sacreligious. Can someone explain?

I consider it to be sacreligious.

[selek]

While I understand the distinction between a ward and a temple, I still do not get why making out in a chapel would not be sacreligious. Can someone explain?

Actually, PC, you're right on the money.

It IS sacreligious.

[Guest Doctrine]

They could have found a better place for that. But some people just don't understand that there action affect others.

[Gwen]

I'm not saying I agree with the behavior.............. BUT............

To avoid judging this young couple is there any circumstance that I can come up with that would make this "ok" in their minds? Was there any "good intention" in the action?

Ok so I can't know this unless I talk to them but I can speculate..... which is all anyone here is doing when they make comments about their lack of respect for the chapel or lack of hormone control or that they are just getting off by the "danger" of the location as a whole........... any of which could be true.

But what if.... they have been struggling to stay within the proper boundaries and sitting in the car they know they would go too far.... so they start thinking, "How can we be close and know that we won't cross those lines?"..... (maybe even said as a joke at first) "Would never go too far in the chapel"..... Is it possible they weren't there to desecrate the chapel or to get their jollies off but to try and be reminded of who they are so they don't get carried away? Maybe the method is wrong but the desire to follow their covenants is admirable. The right thing in the wrong way.

Do I think they still need some correction? yes. Would they have been better served to go to their bishop for advise? in my opinion yes. But let's be truthful, as hormonal ysa don't most first try to find a way we could keep doing what we were doing before admitting the need to go to the bishop? Maybe getting caught was a good thing, maybe reporting to leaders will help get the attention they need to realize what the proper course of action is.

All anyone here can do is "what if" when it comes to the motives of the couple.... but I don't know, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that there may have been some good intention before passing judgment. Unless I know you well enough that you've proved otherwise to me, then you get the judgment you've earned. lol

[EarlJibbs]

All anyone here can do is "what if" when it comes to the motives of the couple.... but I don't know, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that there may have been some good intention before passing judgment. Unless I know you well enough that you've proved otherwise to me, then you get the judgment you've earned. lol

I am with you Gwen, dont judge.

I am really trying here to think of what "good intention" they may have had, but now I have a headache. I can not judge the people in this situation, they may be 100 times better than myself. But I sure can judge the situation, and I am not finding any good intention of two young single adults laying down on the pews and making out. I can only think of one intention of laying down with someone making out in the chapel... sexual gratification.

Maybe you meant good justification?

[Wingnut]

But what if.... they have been struggling to stay within the proper boundaries and sitting in the car they know they would go too far.... so they start thinking, "How can we be close and know that we won't cross those lines?"..... (maybe even said as a joke at first) "Would never go too far in the chapel"..... Is it possible they weren't there to desecrate the chapel or to get their jollies off but to try and be reminded of who they are so they don't get carried away? Maybe the method is wrong but the desire to follow their covenants is admirable. The right thing in the wrong way.

Whether they did it to deliberately be risque or to help them control themselves (which didn't seem to work), they were still playing chicken with the law of chastity and general decorum.

[pam]

I worry that if they are comfortable enough doing this in a sacred place as the chapel, what might they do in other places?

[Gwen]

Whether they did it to deliberately be risque or to help them control themselves (which didn't seem to work), they were still playing chicken with the law of chastity and general decorum.

I agree which is why i said they would be better served to go to their bishop.

I'm not agreeing with what they did or saying the possible scenario I presented makes it ok. Just pointing out that there actually could have been some "good intentions" there. yes immature or flawed logic but there could be more to the story. Something to keep in mind when passing judgments. lol

[beefche]

People keep talking about passing judgments. I am always baffled by this--who is passing judgment about the couple? What I'm seeing is people saying they are judging their actions as inappropriate or flat out wrong.

[pam]

If you find my child doing something dangerous and you stop her and explain to her why what she is doing is dangerous and convince her to stop, that's good enough for me. But I would much rather you address the immediate potential for harm than come find me and ask me to do it.

You may think that way but I've known quite a few parents that don't. I've had one parent tell me straight out that I'm not to talk to their child. I am to come to them instead.

[selek]

To avoid judging this young couple is there any circumstance that I can come up with that would make this "ok" in their minds?

Here's a better question for you, Gwen: Are there any circumstances that would make this "ok" in THE LORD'S mind?

Was there any "good intention" in the action?

I'm sorry- Call For References, please:

Can you cite a single instance in which "good intentions" (however noble) excused deliberate and intentional disobedience to God's law?

I can't think of any- and I'm pretty sure Uzzah is similarly at a loss.

But what if.... they have been struggling to stay within the proper boundaries and sitting in the car they know they would go too far.... so they start thinking, "How can we be close and know that we won't cross those lines?"..... (maybe even said as a joke at first) "Would never go too far in the chapel"..... Is it possible they weren't there to desecrate the chapel or to get their jollies off but to try and be reminded of who they are so they don't get carried away? Maybe the method is wrong but the desire to follow their covenants is admirable.

Horse pockey.

If they're playing the "let's see how close we can get to the fire without getting burned" game, they're already sinning.

Misusing the chapel as a "control rod" to their reaction (as you theorize) is itself an act of blasphemy- it explicitly admits that they knew what they were doing was wrong- but persisted in doing it anyway.

It also tacitly admits that they knew this behavior was not even remotely appropriate to the Chapel, and thus knowingly profaned that sacred space.

Do I think they still need some correction? yes. Would they have been better served to go to their bishop for advise? in my opinion yes. But let's be truthful, as hormonal ysa don't most first try to find a way we could keep doing what we were doing before admitting the need to go to the bishop? Maybe getting caught was a good thing, maybe reporting to leaders will help get the attention they need to realize what the proper course of action is.

I agree.

All anyone here can do is "what if" when it comes to the motives of the couple.... but I don't know, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt that there may have been some good intention before passing judgment.

As noted above, "good intentions" is a meaningless rationalization.

"Good intentions" led Eve to eat the apple and Adam to transgress in the garden.

"Good intentions" led the third servant (Matthew 25:14-29) to bury that which he was given.

"Good intentions" led Joseph Smith and Martin Harris to lose the first hundred-and-sixteen pages of the Book of Mormon.

"Good intentions" led to the founding and foundering of the Kirtland Safety Society.

"Good intentions" led William Law to precipitate the assassination of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

"Good intentions" led Joseph Smith III to lend his name and credibility to the apostates in Nauvoo.

"Good intentions" led the Southern Baptists to "occupy" Salt Lake City in 1998 in an attempt to preach repentance to "them thar Marminz".

"Good intentions" can excuse a lot of sins- but is about as practical and effective as a moist towlette in a blast furnace.

Edited April 16, 2013 by selek

[MorningStar]

I think it would be OK to roll up a Friend magazine and beat them with it. Wouldn't it?