Makin' out in the chapel.

[Drpepper]

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

Thats just too funny can picture it now....

I once walked in on our Nursery leaders making out in nursery just after i picked up my child and had forgotten something. There about 50 so it was very awkward and they were really going for it. Church can do some strange things to people. Just have a look around next sunday when you're in church and see how many back rubs, neck rubs, massages are going on....

[Gwen]

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

We aren't judged by what is in the lord's mind. We aren't judged by what is in the typical person's mind. We are judged by what we did with what we know.... OUR OWN MINDS. As this thread has shown not everyone sees this the same way. Yes most seem to think it's tacky and inappropriate (any public place is in my opinion) but not everyone sees it as blasphemy. inappropriate vs blasphemy is a huge shade of grey difference.

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.

Actually I can but it's kinda long. It involved a 12 yr old ym very close to me. His parents were divorced and in the court process of getting joint custody (the father willingly gave that up in the beginning to stop the fighting for the child's sake). The mother who wanted nothing to do with the church anymore and regularly expressed hatred toward the church decided she would allow the ym to be ordained if the church didn't tell the father about it. (Which was a false impression of power because in less than a month they would have joint custody and it wouldn't be her decision alone.) So her family (active members) went about making ordination plans in secret. The ym told his dad when they were making plans that grandpa already had it planned out. The father called and confirmed this was really happening with the bishop. Though no one informed him of anything (per mom's request, everyone knew her only motive was to hurt dad) they did tell the truth when confronted. When the ad litem in the court case found out she was livid, called all lawyers involved and told them that she would be putting in an order to stop this first thing on mon and they were not to do anything. The bishop had approved doing the ordination the next week so there would be time for the ad litem to take action. After dropping the ym off the grandfather and 2 other priesthood holders were at the mom's house and they ordained him (in a home that hated the church, no family or anyone there, total secrecy) that night. Before they did it he asked "Can we call my dad? He'll come back, I want him to do it." They told him no, they were doing it in secret at the stake pres request because his dad wasn't worthy and would cause problems if he knew. Total lies, the stake pres and bishop had no idea it was happening.

I think this set up qualifies as intentional and deliberate violation of god's law. This was an abuse of priesthood authority, 2 of the priesthood holders held prominent church callings (the third was lied to just like the boy was) so it was an abuse of their calling and authority, and based on the outrage of the ad litem it was an abuse of the laws of the land.

The father after finding out asked the stake pres to talk to the ym and correct the lies, to nullify the ordination and require it to be reperformed because it was not done properly. The father was denied. We redo baptisms if even a hair or article of clothing doesn't go under the water and I would say this was by far worse. If the sacrament prayers aren't said perfectly they are done over. This was far worse, surely it needed to be done over. Nope. The father was told, "They had good intentions. At least the ym was ordained, that's what is most important. If I did what you ask what message would that send to him about his grandfather? That he's a liar that abused his priesthood... I'm not going to do that. The ordination stands." So instead of correcting a wrong and telling the ym the truth they chose to let the lies stand. They chose to leave the child with the impression that his dad was not worthy and a trouble maker to the point that the stake pres had to perform ordinances in secret. Yes, that is a much better impression to leave a ym about his father rather than tell the truth about his grandfather. But it's ok because the 2 most important things happened, there were good intentions and the ym was ordained.

After all was said and done the mom tried to sue the church because the bishop talked to the father (when confronted directly) about the ordination. That was against her instructions and at the time she still technically had full custody. She dropped the case when her lawyer told her she didn't have much of a chance because less than a month after this they had joint custody and the courts were so outraged by what she did they gave the father sole decision making authority where religious training is concerned. The courts were more upset about their actions than the church leaders.... how sad is that?

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.

I did say they needed to talk to a bishop, didn't say they didn't already have problems if that was the thinking. What I was saying is that what you perceive them as doing and what they thought they were doing might have been totally different. We are judged by what we do with what we know, not what others think/know/believe.

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.

I don't know what was in the mind of each of those ppl, that's the point I was making to begin with. As for adam and eve I know there has been more than one talk about how they did the right thing, what they were supposed to do. So their "good intentions" were exactly right.

Yes I've heard the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and sometimes that is true. My main point is we can't judge someone else, we don't know what is in their mind and that does matter. As I've said twice now, we are judged by what we do with what WE know. What may be a sin for me may not be for my neighbor. I've got the fullness of the gospel and have made covenants, my neighbor has not.

You may understand the sanctity of the chapel and understand what is and is not appropriate there... that doesn't mean these ppl did. Having the bishop talk to them and find out what on earth they were thinking gives the opportunity to teach them. I don't understand the outrage and calls of blasphemy (I see that as judging them). Do I agree with what they did? no. Would I be bothered if I was the one to walk in on them? yes. Do I understand the disgust? yes. But I do not understand the outrage. With the information we have I see 2 ppl in need of course correction, a loving hand of guidance not the fire hose turned on them.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure anyone has suggested excommunication or disfellowship for the couple. There's been no judging of the soul. However, making out in sacred space is just wrong. In the Bible, even the Old Testament, Heavenly Father recognized a distinction between unintentional and intentional sin. Nevertheless, even those unintentional sinners were punished. The judgment was somewhat lighter, but still serious.

I'm still baffled by those who want to blow this off as some young adults just getting a little out of hand, and needing nothing more than a glare, or a gentle verbal reprimand. Again...they were unmarried and making out in holy space.

[applepansy]

I haven't read the whole thread.

When I was growing up the chapel was so sacred we didn't do in unless we had our Sunday clothes on. We didn't use the Chapel for Mutual or anything other than Sacrament meeting, and other gospel oriented activities such as firesides. If something was held in the Chapel then we knew to dress appropriately.

I can't imagine anyone thinking it was ok to makeout in the chapel.

Our world has slowly become more and more permissive. Because of the permissiveness and making it ok to not hold to a higher standard I'm not surprised some young people thought making out in the chapel was ok.

It makes me sad though. We've lost a lot in making it ok to not hold certain places as sacred even if they aren't the temple.

[RipFoster]

Do we make as big a deal when we see someone running through the chapel, or loud conversations, eating, casual lounging? All equally as inappropriate but somehow adults making out appears like some great sin. I don't see where anything more than a stern look or asking them to behave or leave is necessary

[RipFoster]

Just to clarify, I am not condoning making out in a chapel. That's what back seats of a Buick are for :)

[EarlJibbs]

Do we make as big a deal when we see someone running through the chapel, or loud conversations, eating, casual lounging? All equally as inappropriate but somehow adults making out appears like some great sin. I don't see where anything more than a stern look or asking them to behave or leave is necessary

Equally appropriate as being sexually arroused in the chapel, laying down on the pew? Come on now Rip. I dont beleive it should be off with their head for making out in the chapel, but I sure dont beleive it is the same as "casual lounging"

[Dravin]

Do we make as big a deal when we see someone running through the chapel, or loud conversations, eating, casual lounging? All equally as inappropriate but somehow adults making out appears like some great sin.

I doubt those 'making a big deal' are in agreement with your premise of equal inappropriateness.

[BadWolf]

Do we make as big a deal when we see someone running through the chapel, or loud conversations, eating, casual lounging? All equally as inappropriate but somehow adults making out appears like some great sin. I don't see where anything more than a stern look or asking them to behave or leave is necessary

I feel perfectly comfortable running, talking loudly, eating, etc., in front of

- my parents

- my bishop

Snogging & Bathing & picking my nose I do in private.

There are levels of appropriate behavior.

If yah wouldn't do it in full view of authority figures... It stands to reason... It will be handled more severely than things which are allowed in full view.

[RipFoster]

I doubt those 'making a big deal' are in agreement with your premise of equal inappropriateness.

clearly. I view the location of the activity being inappropriate, not the activity itself.

[RipFoster]

I feel perfectly comfortable running, talking loudly, eating, etc., in front of

- my parents

- my bishop

Snogging & Bathing & picking my nose I do in private.

There are levels of appropriate behavior.

If yah wouldn't do it in full view of authority figures... It stands to reason... It will be handled more severely than things which are allowed in full view.

I agree. I recommend all chapel nose pickers see their bishop at once before it leads to more serious sin :)

[selek]

We aren't judged by what is in the lord's mind. We aren't judged by what is in the typical person's mind. We are judged by what we did with what we know.... OUR OWN MINDS.

While this statement does contain some truth, you are painting with far too broad a brush (and conflating a number of things that should not be).

Eternal law is just that: eternal and arbitrary.

Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of our opinion on the matter.

Eternal law does not change simply because it is inconvenient or because we really, really, really, really hoped that God might change his mind just this once and overlook our particular foible.

God cannot look upon or tolerate sin in the least allowance- no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

That is the law.

Under the law, we are all condemned.

Each of us has transgressed and thus each of us is damned.

"Good intentions" are the province of Mercy, or in this case, the Atonement offered by Christ.

The problem is that Mercy cannot usurp justice.

Mercy cannot transgress the law- the price must be paid, whether we transgressed knowingly or unknowingly.

When we enter into the covenant with Christ, our debt is paid (he paid it) and we a offered (essentially) a new covenant.

That covenant is not carte blanche to violate eternal law, but is instead a way to become right with the law on easier terms.

The law cannot forgive. But Christ (having paid the full penalty of the law) can.

We are judged by what we do with what we know, not what others think/know/believe.

Partially correct: We are judged by Christ according to what we know- and he may choose to offer us mercy at his discretion.

Eternal law, however, makes no such provision.

Were we required to pay the debt ourselves (rather than drawing upon his mercy), no allowance would (or could) be made for "good intentions".

My main point is we can't judge someone else, we don't know what is in their mind and that does matter.

This is false, both doctrinally and in the intrinsic accusation you are making against your fellow Saints.

First and foremost, we are commanded to judge, every day and in every place.

We are commanded to recognize and abhor sin and evil.

We are commanded to discern right from wrong- both in actions and deeds.

We are commanded to recognize false prophets and turn from them.

We are commanded to discern between the teachings of God and the wisdom of men (and to shun the latter).

We cannot escape that commandment and yet be true disciples of Christ.

Second, as has been pointed out multiple times, no one here has judged and damned this couple.

We have commented only on their behavior- not their eternal worth.

We have not damned anyone's souls, but rather have decried their behavior.

We have not made excuses to justify or rationalize sin- but sought to correct it, plainly and simply.

That is not sin, but eternal truth- the law and Gospel we are commanded and commissioned to preach- no matter how much it clashes with Babylon's notions of laissez faire permissiveness.

I think this set up qualifies as intentional and deliberate violation of god's law. This was an abuse of priesthood authority, 2 of the priesthood holders held prominent church callings (the third was lied to just like the boy was) so it was an abuse of their calling and authority, and based on the outrage of the ad litem it was an abuse of the laws of the land.

I agree on all counts: but you are again conflating two things that should be considered separately, and moreover, are giving us only part of the picture- your "bird's eye view" of these events as you understand them.

First and foremost, do you really believe that those who did the lying and manipulating will NOT be called to account for their actions before God?

If not, then why bother with all of the record keeping the Scriptures report the angels as engaged in?

Second, the Stake President allowed the ordination to stand- not necessarily means by which it was done (the sins of lying and manipulating others).

You assume- but do not know- that the perpetrators were given a free pass for their misdeeds. Do you really think God will be mocked in that fashion?

Moreover, in deciding to let the ordination stand despite the irregularities and outright deceit, the Stake President was within his rights as a priest and judge in Israel.

Do I agree with his call? Based on what you've told us, no. I would have insisted that the young man be ordained properly and in accordance with the law.

But the Stake President was (and is) privy to information and inspiration within his stewardship which I am not.

Whether I agree with his judgement or not, he was acting within the latitude and discretion given him by God.

He, too, will be called to account for that judgement.

Of course, even your own story shows that justice came on swift wings: for her shenanigans and fecklessness, the mother lost her "decision making authority where religious training is concerned."

The courts were more upset about their actions than the church leaders.... how sad is that?

Again- you don't know that, but are simply assuming.

Whereas the judgement of the court is a matter of public record, Church discipline is private.

So how could you know what has gone on behind closed doors?

Having the bishop talk to them and find out what on earth they were thinking gives the opportunity to teach them.

A matter not in question or dispute.

I don't understand the outrage and calls of blasphemy (I see that as judging them).

And yet here you are, judging us for the "sin" of judging them. Funny that.

If I rake, and hoe, and weed, and plant seeds, and water a small patch of ground it's "gardening" whether or not I realize that's what I'm doing.

Blasphemy, by definition, is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.

Consciously or not, deliberately or not, their actions were insulting, irreverent, and disrespectful not only to the chapel itself but to the God to whom it is dedicated.

By definition, that's blasphemy- whether or not you like the term.

With the information we have I see 2 ppl in need of course correction, a loving hand of guidance not the fire hose turned on them.

In point of fact, I agree. As anyone with a functioning sense of humor can attest, the fire extinguisher crack was tongue-in-cheek.

Some people can be corrected with a gentle word, a slight nudge, or even just a glare.

Other people don't do "subtle" and need their hints to be a little more explicit.

[Guest]

My, how people jump to conclusions and make silly parallels.

No one recommended discipline. We walked in on it, witnessed it a few minutes more, I made a remark to my friend, and they left. The singles' branch was having a break the fast in the building, so after choir we found the presiding leader and informed him of what we saw. Actually my friend did, but I walked to that side of the building with her. It was with the intent to let him know what was going on with his ward members, in the building, so that if he in his stewardship saw fit to say something or do something, he could.

[Leah]

clearly. I view the location of the activity being inappropriate, not the activity itself.

So two unmarried people engaged in sexually arousing each other is an activity you approve of despite the church's counsel against it?

[RipFoster]

I do not consider making out, outside of the chapel, to be an inherently inappropriate behavior, if that is what you are asking.

[Leah]

I do not consider making out, outside of the chapel, to be an inherently inappropriate behavior, if that is what you are asking.

I think my question was clear and direct, requiring a simple yes or no answer. For which you seem unable/unwilling to provide a clear and direct yes or no answer.

[RipFoster]

No, you put words in my mouth. I clarified. No, I do not believe making out is in any violation of council given.

[pam]

I haven't read the whole thread.

When I was growing up the chapel was so sacred we didn't do in unless we had our Sunday clothes on. We didn't use the Chapel for Mutual or anything other than Sacrament meeting, and other gospel oriented activities such as firesides. If something was held in the Chapel then we knew to dress appropriately.

I can't imagine anyone thinking it was ok to makeout in the chapel.

Our world has slowly become more and more permissive. Because of the permissiveness and making it ok to not hold to a higher standard I'm not surprised some young people thought making out in the chapel was ok.

It makes me sad though. We've lost a lot in making it ok to not hold certain places as sacred even if they aren't the temple.

I'm in that generation that had those same thoughts and upbringing as to how we treated the chapel. To this day I still have a hard time wearing pants into the chapel even though I have for some choir practices. But I still feel uncomfortable. I grew up that even if the chapel doors were open and you had pants on, you still went through the cultural hall to get to the other side of the building and avoided going through the chapel in pants. The chapel was saved for special meetings other than Sacrament meeting.

[prisonchaplain]

We used to call the great meeting rooms sanctuaries. Now they are auditoriums. Maybe we've brought this kind of disrespect upon ourselves? We "dumb-down" religious practice to make people comfortable, and then lament when they make themselves comfortable.

[selek]

We used to call the great meeting rooms sanctuaries. Now they are auditoriums. Maybe we've brought this kind of disrespect upon ourselves? We "dumb-down" religious practice to make people comfortable, and then lament when they make themselves comfortable.

Dagnabit!

We need to be able to both "laugh" and "thank" these kinds of posts!

[prisonchaplain]

Dagnabit!

We need to be able to both "laugh" and "thank" these kinds of posts!

Since we're in General Discusion (the ward hallway) you can choose one or the other. Of course, in the Gospel sections laughter would be sacreligious.

[EarlJibbs]

Dagnabit!

We need to be able to both "laugh" and "thank" these kinds of posts!

I am sure Pam is all over this. Right?

[Guest]

What in blazes does making out mean???

[Connie]

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.

Anatess, this is what making out is. It is something the unmarried are very strongly commanded not to do as evidenced by the above quote.

[Dravin]

What in blazes does making out mean???

Making out - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a bit of a fuzzy term, as the Wikipedia article gets into, but I suspect most in the thread are using it in the sense of prolonged passionate open mouthed kissing and necking.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Dravin