For the men, who would you marry?

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How so...  It has been clearly stated by Elder Oaks that we are not to judge a person eternal status (which would be judging her)...  He also states that we can and do need to make intermediate judgements of how to respond to situations we might find ourselves (how her past might impact his future)

It seems to me that such differentiation is essential to avoid what Elder Oaks called unrighteous judgements

Very wise advice. Thank you for sharing my friend. 
 

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Which shows exactly why we need to differentiate on exactly what kind of judgement is being made.  One is an unrighteous "holding sin over the persons head"  the other is understanding the challenges most likely to be faced if you move forward, and choosing if you accept those challenges or not.

Yup, totally agree. I told LadyGator about my own struggles and personal failings before we got married. Not so she could "hold it over my head" (she doesn't) but so she could be ready if they come up again in the future. We agree totally Estradling. Judging past sins so you can feel better about yourself and your own is gravely evil. Judging them so you can find out if you want to deal with what might come up is totally different. 

[zil]

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

and I'm already happy and wonderfully married

 

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

and I'm already happy and wonderfully married

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

and I'm already happy and wonderfully married

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

and I'm already happy and wonderfully married

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

and I'm already happy and wonderfully married

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

and I'm already happy and wonderfully married

....did I get one for each? (I lost track....)  

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

 

 

 

 

 

....did I get one for each? (I lost track....)  

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You got all of them!  

 

+10,000 for Zil. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

 

 

....did I get one for each? (I lost track....)  

You have just been upgraded to second wife Dear. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by MormonGator

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How so...  It has been clearly stated by Elder Oaks that we are not to judge a person eternal status (which would be judging her)...

It's semantics because it is narrowly defining what it is to judge someone. Yes...it has been clearly stated that we are not to judge a person's eternal status. If that were the only meaning of judging someone then we agree. But it is not. Judging whether someone is marriage material for you is another way one might define judging someone, but you are excluding that from the meaning -- making it a semantic issue. I include that in the meaning. So...we end up debating what we mean instead of the actual issue.

And really the issue is whether one ought to or ought to not judge someone as a valid choice for marriage. When someone says that another's past doesn't have anything to do with that choice if they've repented under the terms of "I'm not their judge" they have set the definition. They are saying that they would marry someone despite their past because they have no right to judge. I say that's inaccurate. In those terms, they are their judge, and should be.

What we see, again and again, is this whole misinterpretation of what it means and does not mean to judge, and when it is and when it is not important. If, indeed, everyone saw and understood it as you put it...that the phrase, "I'm not their judge" only mean that they should not judge their eternal status, then great. But when someone says it in regards to what most people say it in regards to, that's not what they're saying at all. As in, should one let their gay son bring their gay lover to thanksgiving dinner with the family. "Well I'm not their judge" some would say. But you are in that regard, because the decision to expose your family to that sort of thing or not has no bearing whatsoever on said person's eternal status.

In this case this is what's being said. Blackmark's "I'm not their judge" with the implicit, "therefore it would be wrong of me to not marry them because of these things" has nothing to do with eternal status either. And so I respond, "yes you are". But then you came in and changed the meaning on us. So I replied. That's semantics.

Edited July 20, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest MormonGator]

I think I judge people more on their music taste than their actions. Bad music tastes=deal breaker. Spent your past looking at porn, robbing banks and beating up small children with a good music taste = well, no one is perfect. 

[Guest MormonGator]

dupe

Edited July 20, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

And really the issue is whether one ought to or ought to not judge someone as a valid choice for marriage or not. When someone says that another's past doesn't have anything to do with that choice if they've repented under the terms of "I'm not their judge" they have set the definition. They are saying that they would marry someone despite their past because they have no right to judge. I say that's inaccurate. In those terms, they are their judge, and should be.

 

Which is exactly why we need to be very clear...  Because we have people that appear to be at both extreme ends of the spectrum  On one hand we have people who appear to be saying that because of their past the only correct for answer everyone is neither... totally ignoring the atonement and Christ's ability to fix things...  And on the other hand we have people who appear to be saying that the only correct answer is both because otherwise you don't believe in the atonement and Christ's ability to fix thing

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

On one hand we have people who appear to be saying that because of their past the only correct for answer everyone is neither...

People only "appear" to be saying this if other people disregard parts of what the other people actually said, such as plain phrases like "in my opinion" and "as a general answer ", and even went so far to reply to the clarifying response by saying, "Sure...of course."

[estradling75]

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

People only "appear" to be saying this if other people disregard parts of what the other people actually said, such as plain phrases like "in my opinion" and "as a general answer ", and even went so far to reply to the clarifying response by saying, "Sure...of course."

So you claim to speak for everyone that posted saying neither?

 

[Blackmarch]

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes, you most certainly are their judge in one, very, very important matter. The whole idea that we are not judges as to whom we marry is almost unfathomable to me. Of course we are supposed to judge who we do and do not marry. That is a different matter than judging whether they are saved or not. And by choosing to marry someone you ARE judging. You're just rendering a different verdict.

the question was choosing to marry someone based upon the sins they have committed prior to repentance. It did not include any other situation, from whence to pull a rightious judgement.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Blackmarch

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

the question was choosing to marry someone based upon the sins they have committed prior to repentance. It did not include any other situation, from whence to pull a rightious judgement.

And even more specifically, the question is which of these 2 sins they committed prior to repentance would provide more risk to the success of one's marriage.

[NightSG]

The right option isn't there; rather than marrying someone because you think you can live with what they've done, how about marrying someone because you don't want to live without who they are and are trying to become?

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, NightSG said:

The right option isn't there; rather than marrying someone because you think you can live with what they've done, how about marrying someone because you don't want to live without who they are and are trying to become?

Perfectly and beautifully said. 

[Blackmarch]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And even more specifically, the question is which of these 2 sins they committed prior to repentance would provide more risk to the success of one's marriage.

Both mess with the brain, habits and vices and etc, both will lead to very dark places if that path is left unchanged... Fully repented of was the impression i got from the OP. I did not assume any more or less of what the OP said.
 

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, Blackmarch said:

Both mess with the brain, habits and vices and etc, both will lead to very dark places if that path is left unchanged... Fully repented of was the impression i got from the OP. I did not assume any more or less of what the OP said.
 

Yes, fully repented of is what the OP asked.  So I take the question to be more of like - which has a greater chance of recurrance, or which has a longer-lasting impact on one's character or something... I don't know.  The same question was asked of Women and I answered I choose the cuter guy...

Edited July 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Blackmarch]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, fully repented of is what the OP asked.  So I take the question to be more of like - which has a greater chance of recurrance, or which has a longer-lasting impact on one's character or something... I don't know.  The same question was asked of Women and I answered I choose the cuter guy...

Both have agreat chance of recurring, as both tap into the same hardwired biological reward system... However i think a full repentance will overcome that.

Outside the hypothetical, one has achance of STDS, unplanned children, and possibly pissed off former intimate partners... The other is much more sneaky and hard to catch and will seem "harmless".... But will line the path to every concievable perversion in grand finery and soothing voices, and will certainly grease the path from going from a viewer to a doer. And by the time someone finally sees they have a problem, they'll be so far out in the left field in what they feel desires for, that getting back to a point that would be considered normal or righ would be monumental.

[slamjet]

Either one, but "B" would understand me more and not be in fantasy land.

[kapikui]

On 7/20/2016 at 7:01 PM, unixknight said:

I honestly can't answer the poll.  To be honest, those factors are irrelevant to me.  In both cases the poll specifies that she's fully repented and Temple worthy.  If Heavenly Father isn't remembering their sins, why should I?

I get the purpose of the poll is just to get a read on how people feel about those issues being in somebody's past, but I just don't think in that way.  Far more relevant to me would be whether she likes Star Trek or whether she can put up with me turning the apartment into an armory when I'm working on my Space Marine suit.

I agree entirely, the only other thing I would add to the formerly promiscuous potential spouse is that she is also medically clean as certain diseases may change the calculus. Forgiveness is one thing, consequences are another. 

[Hemisphere]

fun poll but ridiculous. one can only look onto someones head and not into it. Frankly you want the woman with experience that has tasted the forbidden fruit. She doesn´t get tempted after she ties the know, unless you either displayed a colossal error in human judgement or you neglect her on a scale that your marriage flies apart when you already got to that juncture

[UtahTexan]

um...a woman?

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, UtahTexan said:

um...a woman?

HA!  As @anatess2 would say, I think you just won the internet for today.

[anatess2]

22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

HA!  As @anatess2 would say, I think you just won the internet for today.

Yes he did!  Lol!!!