I lied to my husband, now I want to tell the whole truth

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Vort, it isn`t about what I think, it`s about what God thinks and you can`t assume he is going to look at things the same way as you.  From what I see in the scriptures, in what church leaders say, in church policy on how to deal with members who have gotten into such situations, it should be taken that seriously.  I can agree to disagree, but let`s not get disagreeable about it.

[yjacket]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

yjacket, seriously, chill. This is wrong in so many ways. The woman has admitted (anonymously) to her actions and has come here seeking a path forward. Heaping coals on her head isn't helpful.

When the woman taken in adultery was dragged before Christ, she appeared not to have been willingly confessing. She wasn't there because her guilt drove her there, but because she was apparently dragged from her bed of adultery into a public place. Jesus first ignored, then shamed, her accusers, finally leaving only himself and her (and the rest of the crowd watching the drama unfold). At that point, Jesus did not rub her actions in her face. Quite the opposite: He said that he did not condemn her.

We are given a space for repentance, before the condemnation of God comes upon us. God does not immediately condemn us for our missteps, even something as serious as adultery. Instead, he allows us to figure things out and repent. I suspect I am as disgusted by this adulterous sin as you are, but coming out in accusing condemnation toward the woman who sinned is not the way to go. Remember who has the title of Accuser. That's not someone we want to emulate.

By the way, the idea that sex sin is the worst possible thing that anyone could ever do except for murder appears to be scripturally based solely upon a specific interpretation of the teachings of Alma (junior) to his son Corianton, found in Alma 39:2-5:

But what are the actual antecedents to "these things"? In context, they are: (1) boasting in his own strength and wisdom; and, (2) forsaking his ministry by going after a harlot. In other words, his abominable actions were self-glorification and breaking his divine covenants of ministry.

Insofar as adultery (or fornication in general) is a breaking of covenant, then I certainly agree that it is most abominable. But the idea that non-marital sexual activity per se is the worst thing anyone can ever do besides murder another person is absurd on its face. I can think of any number of things more spiritually damaging and damning than an unmarried couple having sex with each other -- and so can you. Years-long neglect to the needs of a child, or ongoing nastiness and hatefulness toward him. Long-term physical abuse. Beating someone so badly that you cause permanent, severe disability. Actively working to undermine the legitimate government of a people. Openly rebelling against God and seeking to lead his children astray.

Anyway, believe what you like about that. But I think that your condemnation of the OP is over the top. I think that encouraging her to come clean and turn from her path of sin is a better option than explaining to her in gory detail how awful she is.

Vort,

Yes, I was harsh; but sometimes sternness and speaking frankly is needed.  There are very few things that one can get excommunicated for in the Church.  Adultery is one of those things.  I know in today's society sex has become so commonplace that we have become numb to how sacred and important it is-and that is one of the Devil's tools.  You really have to work hard to get excommunicated from the Church.  Adultery, abuse, serious crimes (felonies,murder,etc). will get you excommunicated.

As with all sin there are varying degrees as to how much a person needs to change in order to repent.  I think we can all agree that going into a store and robbing 1 candy bar, then feeling absolutely horrible about it going to the owner saying your sorry replacing the candy bar, etc. is on a completely different level than robbing a candy bar from 10 different stores, realizing you did wrong going back to one store owner replacing the candy bar and then saying "I'm good".  Serial Adultery and Adultery are different degrees of the same sin, but they indicate different levels of a necessity of repentance.  Now, I don't claim to know how much is necessary for repentance as that is obviously individual-however just based on human nature when one commits an serious sin multiple times that indicates that it will more likely than not take a little more force of change to effect a serious repentance. But that change, that repentance can happen in an instant (as it did with Alma), but it may not.

Let's think about this multiple affairs with multiple men.  That's a problem, a big problem.  One affair with one man, can be hey I've been working really late in the office, really stressed out, there is a guy at the office he helped me out with xyz problem, things went a little too far . .. etc. etc. etc.  One affair with one man can be a huge wake-up call as in my marriage wasn't that good, I need to invest more time into it, etc.  But multiple men, multiple times means that either a) this same thing that lead to the first affair happened again and if that is the case it is serial adultery and has been going on for quite a long time or b) this individual has been having multiple affairs with different men at the same time.  If b is the case then that means this individual is what going to nightclubs, bringing home a different guy every couple of weeks??  Going to Ashley Madison?  If b is the case, the quite frankly there is no point to be married? If b is the case, by action you are saying you don't want to be married.  The best case is a, but if a is the case that means the affairs have been going on for quite some time.  And a) isn't the case b/c she said multiple guys over 10 months!!  There are words that describe that type of behavior (I won't say them-but none of them are good words).

And yes, a husband (or wife) absolutely has a right to know if the adultery was a one-time incident or an on-going affair-and how it occurred. I don't think the number really matters nor the intimate details, just the degree and broad generalities.  There are few things that justify divorce, Abuse and Adultery and if adultery has occurred and if the spouse is making a decision to stay or not-then they have a right to know how bad the adultery was.

And to compound this problem, this individual initially didn't state the whole truth, she made it seem to the Bishop and her husband as a one time slip up.  And the only reason she is coming clean now is b/c a guy e-mailed her husband.  By action, that tells me she has a long ways to go.

Full repentance requires Godly sorrow, not the "I'm sorry I got caught".  But an absolutely soul-crushing, gut-wrenching, feeling your heart sink to the bottomless pit, absolutely ranked with damnation-lying on a puddle in the floor, and crying out with every fiber of being, God help me!  The Bishop, the judge in Israel has the divine right to determine whether the Church should place any disciplinary actions on the individual in order (not as punishment) but in order to help them repent and rely on the Atonement-only God can let the individual know if they have repented.  But the Bishop is limited by the knowledge given to him by the individual with the sin they have committed.  Full repentance means you simply don't care what other people think, not the Bishop, not your spouse, friends, family, etc.  Their opinion means squat-b/c all that matters is getting right with God. In full repentance there is no covering up, you explain everything, b/c if it gets to be too much detail the Judge in Israel will tell you not to go there.  Full repentance means being at peace with whatever decision might come, you lay yourself bare upon the Alter, if the judgement means you are excommunicated then so be it-there is no fear with full repentance.

If you come onto a message board and explain you are afraid to explain your sins to your husband or your Bishop (and appear pretty nonchalant about it)-then haven't fully repented.  That means you fear man more than you fear God. And if you fear man more than God-you aren't there yet and you need to repent.

With the woman taken into adultery, we have no real context, but my supposition is that yes, the woman taken into adultery had fully repented prior to Christ announcing she was forgiven . . .or in the act of forgiving her she was able to fully repent.  I don't know, all I know is that repentance is a process; and that process is about turning towards Christ and changing our entire being to become like Him.  There are some basic steps to it and unfortunately for us human beings a lot of times we have to learn by experience and by pain. It's in the process of feeling the pain for our sins, that we recognize that we don't ever want to feel that pain again so we do things to avoid it.

And then the absolute Miracle of Forgiveness is that the pain is taken away, that Christ in some way incomprehensible is able to take it all away to where we aren't racked with the pains of eternal damnation.  And that we will do anything Christ says so that he can take the pain from us so that we don't have to suffer and to continue to suffer for our own sins and that it doesn't matter what man thinks about our sins.  It just doesn't matter what mom, dad, husband, Bishop, nobody's opinion matters, the only opinion that matters is God's.  And the only thing that matters is feeling the peace in our heart that only God can give, the peace that our sins are taken up in the Atonement-that He took it all.  That He suffered, bleed from every single pore, that He both mentally, spiritually, physically suffered more than I can possibly imagine.  My pain for my sins, is so minuscule compared to the absolute torment He went through.  And then to think, that my sins was another nail in the cross, another lash of the whip.  Yet He bore it. He suffered all! So I can be redeemed.  It is the greatest miracle of all.  And I will gladly do whatever He requires, I will give Him ALL my sins, confess them all no matter how painful it is, so that I can be redeemed.

Because all sin is the same, it keeps us from God.  We are all on the same path, to become like our Heavenly Father.  It's just that some sin more fully demonstrates the condition of our heart (which in this case is an Enemy to God) and thus requires a lot more change than other sin.

The reason why I came down hard, is b/c there is a pervasive nonchalant attitude towards sin in our society.  Like a "oops, my bad-I'll just get a do-over", God forgives me, I'm good attitude.  An attitude of well-I'll get beat with a few stripes and I'm good, or even well what I didn't wasn't really that bad.  Or "we are all human, we just make mistakes". Yes, we are all human, but it wasn't that long ago that breaking fidelity in marriage was something you just didn't do, no matter how hard it was.  Today, it's a big "oops".

Adultery is bad enough that it was one of the few things that according to Old Testament law you were stoned for-and some countries still do that.  Now I'm glad we don't stone people for adultery, and Christ fulfilled that portion of the law. But make no mistake, it is bad enough that in the OT you were stoned for it, i.e. that according to Old Testament law the blood of the physical ram couldn't even save you-it was only by your own blood that you could be redeemed.  So yeah,it's pretty bad.

And that is why it is termed as second to murder. Very few sins in OT law required blood atonement of the individual for redemption, murder and adultery are two of them.

Edited January 19, 2017 by yjacket

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Bad Karma said:

I know you're trying to make a point here, I am just not sure what it is.

My point is that telling a fornicator, even an adulterer (or adulteress), that his/her sin is comparable to murder in seriousness, is not likely to be helpful. And there is always a chance that the sinner will think rationally about that statement. If he does so, he will likely reject the idea as utterly absurd. As a rational thinker, he may even decide that anyone who teaches that fornicating with your girlfriend is worse than child abuse, torture, betrayal of your country, or cheating a thousand old folks out of their lifetime savings and leaving them in poverty, is clearly not to be taken seriously, and as a result avoid repentance altogether.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Vort

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Vort, it isn`t about what I think, it`s about what God thinks and you can`t assume he is going to look at things the same way as you.  From what I see in the scriptures, in what church leaders say, in church policy on how to deal with members who have gotten into such situations, it should be taken that seriously.  I can agree to disagree, but let`s not get disagreeable about it.

That is okay by me. I do not believe for the smallest moment that God thinks that a few moments of willful indiscretion and violation of chastity is more evil or spiritually damaging than severely neglecting and abusing a child under your care. I see absolutely no good reason to believe such nonsense; Alma certainly does not teach that.

EDIT: For the record, I consider sexual sin to be deeply spiritually damaging and perhaps the signature sin of our sinful generation. I think it has destroyed millions and will destroy millions more. I abhor it. I simply disbelieve that sexual sin in general can reasonably be called the worst possible sin other than murder. As I wrote above, that is not what Alma taught.

And also for the record, my wife and I were both virgins on our wedding day, and we have been strictly faithful to those covenants for our entire lives. As far as I know, none of my children have violated the law of chastity. So this is not some personal vendetta on my part.

I actually agree with much of what yjacket writes in general. But in this case, I can see nothing at all helpful in his response, and quite a bit that could potentially be extremely hurtful. And it can't even be said, "Well, but it's true." It is not true, not in the way yjacket expressed it.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Vort

[Vort]

21 minutes ago, yjacket said:

And yes, a husband (or wife) absolutely has a right to know if the adultery was a one-time incident or an on-going affair-and how it occurred.

 

22 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Full repentance means you simply don't care what other people think, not the Bishop, not your spouse, friends, family, etc.  Their opinion means squat-b/c all that matters is getting right with God. In full repentance there is no covering up, you explain everything, b/c if it gets to be too much detail the Judge in Israel will tell you not to go there.  Full repentance means being at peace with whatever decision might come, you lay yourself bare upon the Alter, if the judgement means you are excommunicated then so be it-there is no fear with full repentance.

For the record, though I disagree vehemently with much of what you have posted, I do agree with the above.

[Bad Karma]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

My point is that telling a fornicator, even an adulterer (or adulteress), that his/her sin is comparable to murder in seriousness, is not likely to be helpful. And there is always a chance that the sinner will think rationally about that statement. If he does so, he will likely reject the idea as utterly absurd. As a rational thinker, he may even decide that anyone who teaches that fornicating with your girlfriend is worse than child abuse, torture, betrayal of your country, or cheating a thousand old folks out of their lifetime savings and leaving them in poverty, is clearly not to be taken seriously, and as a result avoid repentance altogether.

But she didn't fornicate with her boyfriend, she betrayed her husband in the most vile manner, her children if she has any, her family, and God. She lied about it to further conceal it. You're not talking about a frisky boyfriend and girlfriend horsing around, this is an incident of a full blown adulteress with multiple acts of adultery.For the reasons cited by Latter-Dad-Marriage (Of which I interpreted the same prior to his posting) I'd lump that up with murder. We used to put people to death for that. irrc, the last time we hung an adulteress was in 1937. In some places in the US, Adultery is still a felony. Massachusetts, Idaho, Michigan it is a felony.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice prosecutes adultery still, under article 134. 

Definition of a felony: " A felony is typically defined as a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year or by the death penalty"

Her offense is MAJOR. Even in earlier California, her conduct was felonious and punished severely as such. Under what used to be called "Crimes against morality", adjacient to "Crimes against nature" prior to California becoming so liberal. 

In many part of the world, Adultery is punished as a capital offense where the prescribed sentence is death. 

 

If it likely to be helpful? NO, but then again, neither is sugar coating it, to be sure. However, the lord our God is a loving and merciful God. Now, the Adulteress's husband is the victim in this incident, and if there are any children, they are co-victims. If in God's judgement Heavenly Father listened to "Victim impact statements", it would yield ugly results. 

She owes a criminal and spiritual debt to her husband, her children (is any) to the church of which she has also espoused (Christ, he was betrayed too). We can and should be forgiving to the truly repentant, but that does not alleviate consequences payable and due.  There are plenty of murderers that are "sorry" for murdering, but we often still strap them down and the state proceeds with it's prescribed justice. 

Adultery is FELONY conduct. 

 

This is not my attempt to condemn her, although I may be mistaken as such, it's more so to pour the seriousness of the offence and to sustain the comments on Latter-Day-Marriage as I do agree. As I said earlier, I am grateful I am not the Bishop she will have to deal with, this would be hard for me to decide, and I confess, I would lean to the harsher of church punishments for her actions (One of the reasons I NEVER want to be a Bishop). I don't want to make those calls. I'd rather be blissfully ignorant of such occurrences and not responsible for judging them. 

It should be noted that I am not a judge, nor would I ever want to be. Thank you for your response and allowing me to reply. 

 

ETA: No, I am NOT advocating anyone hang, harm etc this young woman for her actions, only adding elements substantiating a previous post that came into question. I actually don't feel good about this post. I feel sad for all involved. 

ETA: May Heavenly father restore this family, that wife to her husband, that husband to his wife, and that love and mercy prevails. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Bad Karma

[Jane_Doe]

I don't think specifying if the sin was X-horrible or Y-horrible is something that's going to help the OP here.  As fun and distracting as side talk is, I think it's best we focus on helping this daughter of God.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

I've seen no one here "sugar-coating" her sins.  I have seen people pointing out the truth that God loves her, and that God will forgive her if she repents..  There are no false-hoods or sugar-coating in those statements.  No one has counciled her against confession to both her husband or her bishop, in fact just about everyone has reinforced that idea is exactly what she needs to do. Many have pointed out that the exact outcome can not be determined on this forum because we lack both keys and stewardship. Whereas getting her before those that hold the keys, and stewardship will help her see what the exact outcome will look like.

Edited January 19, 2017 by estradling75

[NeedleinA]

At what point does "sexual sin" stand in it's enormity to murder? What degree of sexual sin? Any and all possible variations of it? A youth who masturbates once OR a prostitute who has been with many clients? Are both of these equal? If not, at what exact point do you cross the line to be next to murder?

Using the "Sex is second to murder" is an all guns blazing comment that gets casually tossed around too often and can be crippling to those who are repenting or scaring away those who are fearful of being condemned. Sexual sins are not equal in their enormity, and classifying "all" as "next to / akin to murder" can be detrimental to a sinner's hope for change in their lives.

There appears to be a lack of definitions when this subject arises.
What does enormity mean? Enormity in "seriousness to repent asap"? Enormity in that it is on "equal grounds in terms of evil"? What does "next to" murder mean? Exactly next to/beside it, only 1%, 5% difference? 2nd place? How about still 2nd but a far distant 2nd?

Point being... when in doubt error on the side of compassion and perhaps leave the all guns blazing comments alone, especially if we are not really sure what they mean.
 

[Vort]

A last clarification about my participation on this thread -- and yes, I realize this is not about me, which is why I want to make this clarification:

I had not intended to respond on this thread, only read it. My original participation was prompted by what I felt was an over-the-top condemnation of the OP, who after all is a sister and appeared to be seeking a path forward. I, too, thought she seemed to be distancing herself more than a little from what she had done. But I thought the vociferous condemnation was (a) factually wrong and, more importantly, (b) hurtful and not helpful.

My intent was not to come on this forum and preach a new doctrine, or a new interpretation of a doctrine, and set myself up in opposition to our authorities. If you perceive an important difference between what you think I teach and what you think the apostles teach, then stick with the apostles. I personally see no such conflict, but I understand why others might. My attempt is not to steady the ark or provide alternate interpretations in defiance of our leaders' teachings, but to try to offset what I saw as some harsh and unwarranted condemnation of a sister in disastrous spiritual peril.

No more about Vort. I just wanted the above understood, in case some thought I had other motives.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

Masturbation, while wrong, has never been called by the church a violation of the Law of Chastity to my knowledge so lumping it in with adultery isn't called for.  Godly sorrow worketh repentance, how can somebody have too much godly sorrow when they actually have done something they should repent of?  It's the worldly sorrow that is unhelpful no matter how much or how little there is.

[NeedleinA]

17 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Masturbation, while wrong, has never been called by the church a violation of the Law of Chastity to my knowledge

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball  Chapter 17: The Law of Chastity

Quote

The early apostles and prophets mention numerous sins that were reprehensible to them. Many of them were sexual sins—adultery, being without natural affection, lustfulness, infidelity, incontinence, filthy communications, impurity, inordinate affection, fornication. They included all sexual relations outside marriage—petting, sex perversion, masturbation, and preoccupation with sex in one’s thoughts and talking. Included are every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure thoughts and practices.

 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

preoccupation with sex in one’s thoughts

If not for the Atonement, this alone would insure that 100% of men would fail to gain their exaltation.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Masturbation, while wrong, has never been called by the church a violation of the Law of Chastity to my knowledge so lumping it in with adultery isn't called for. 

We've talked a bit about this in another thread.  It is. It has been.  The thing that has changed is the administrative end of things.  We understand that even within the Law of Chastity (which has been held by many as one of the most important of God's Laws within the gospel) there are varying levels of sin.  What you've read and talked about before is to indicate a relative level of severity of self abuse vs other violations of the LoC.  It does not make it outside the LoC.

In law, we have various types of physical harm we can commit against another person.  Murder, torture, abuse, assault, negligence, touching... But physical harm is physical harm.  As a lawyer, you should know that different levels of physical harm will warrant differing levels of sentencing.

EDIT: Oops.  Sorry, I got you mixed up with Doc Lemon.  He's the lawyer.  I don't know what you do for a living.  Are you a marriage therapist?

Edited January 19, 2017 by Guest

[Bad Karma]

I just hope that family is able to get through this, it's a really big thing for everyone. I hope that the bishop will be able to help her through repentance as well as counsel her husband about forgiveness effectively, that's huge. Forgiveness.

I also think in the case of her husband, that if she asks for forgiveness, as a husband, a holder of the priesthood and as such an adjunct to heavenly father, forgiveness is expected, truly.  I've known coupled that had this very problem where in the end, love, mercy and forgiveness and these beautiful people were able to continue with a blessed marriage.  

I hope the OP can come back again soon to tell about the repentance process with a story of a healed marriage.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

6 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball  Chapter 17: The Law of Chastity

 

The Law of Chastity is clearly defined in the temple, and not all sexual sins are LoC violations.  It is common to bring up a broader range of sexual sins than just LoC violations when talking on the subject of sexual morality as is done in that quote, so there are a number of things listed there that are sexual sins but not LoC violations (although they can lead to that if left unchecked).  If there is an authoritative quote that states that masturbation is a violation of the LoC I would like to see it.  The handbook says to treat it like a failure to live church standards, not as a violation of temple covenants.

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

The handbook says to treat it like a failure to live church standards, not as a violation of temple covenants.

You and I don't disagree on how masturbation is/should be "treated" in regard to Church Discipline, as we have been on the same side of this argument in previous threads. I specifically choose "masturbation" for this exact reason in the graphics I shared above. 

Our disconnect, of which we may not be able to agree upon, is if masturbation falls under the umbrella of the LOC or not. I say yes, it appears you say no. I shared one quote, that I felt was authoritative enough, I'll share another, and then we may just have to agree to respectfully disagree on this subject. 

Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity

Quote

We have been taught that the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse. The First Presidency warned young people of other sexual sins:

“Before marriage, do not do anything to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in 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 allow anyone to do that with you. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body” (For the Strength of Youth [pamphlet, 2001], 27).

Like other violations of the law of chastity, homosexual behavior is a serious sin.

 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Our disconnect, of which we may not be able to agree upon, is if masturbation falls under the umbrella of the LOC or not. I say yes, it appears you say no. I shared one quote, that I felt was authoritative enough, I'll share another, and then we may just have to agree to respectfully disagree on this subject. 

Chapter 39: The Law of Chastity

 

I can agree to disagree, but I would like to be property understood.  It isn't about your quotes being authoritative or not, it is about clarity.  It does not state what you conclude from it.  The quote was talking about 'sexual sins', and listed masturbation as being one.  It did not say 'These things are violations of the LoC' or words to that effect, it said they were sexual sins.  Likewise with your latest quote:
 

Quote

We have been taught that the law of chastity encompasses more than sexual intercourse. The First Presidency warned young people of other sexual sins:

So a) the LoC is not just about having sexual intercourse outside of marriage, AND b) there are other sexual sins as well besides violating the LoC.  For example: having oral sex with somebody you are not married to certainly would violate the LoC, even though it is not intercourse.  Deliberately and constantly dwelling on sexual thoughts does not, that is not having sexual relations with another person  you are not married to.  It's still a sexual sin, but not a LoC violation.  Likewise for masturbation. 

There are quotes a-plenty calling masturbation a sexual sin, but none that I know of explicitly state it is a LoC violation.  If it was, it would be a violation of temple covenants which would be treated far differently than what the handbook says.

[Bad Karma]

I've never been clear on church policy as to masturbation. My wife has often joked with me that she didn't mind if I did, I don't know if she was serious or not. What I did feel was the spirit telling me "Don't". Further guidance from the spirit explained to me that this was intimacy denied my wife. Some may look at me as odd for feeling this way, some may identify with me. 

In my life's decisions, I do not want to behave in a way in my intimacy that heavenly father would disapprove of, that would bring my wife sadness or bring me a sense of shame. I don't consider myself to be someone full of zeal, yet I do not want to "get it wrong" either. So, I just don't. Sometimes, she and I don't always have time to connect, I'd rather do nothing about it than mess it all up. Ultimately, my personal feelings are to do everything to be obedient to the covenants we made to one another,  and in the temple. I want to do what is necessary for us to have that eternal marriage. 

I would also say that prior to marrying my wife, I was seldom this concerned about the topic as I was never with anyone I ever wanted to spend forever with, until I sealed to my wife. I think these thoughts and foundation are my motivating factors that I have participated in this thread. 

When I consider doing something that would jeopardize what my wife and I agreed to and made promises about, I feel great discomfort at any thought to the contrary. I am not perfect or holy, I just strive to not be the person I use to be long ago. I didn't like that guy much. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Bad Karma

[zil]

9 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

having sexual relations with another person  you are not married to

A) It all depends on how you define "sexual relations" - you and others appear to define that differently.

B) It's not about whether there's another person, it's about whether the person to whom you're married is part of it (in other words, "with" you).  (At least, that's how some interpret it.)

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, zil said:

B) It's not about whether there's another person, it's about whether the person to whom you're married is part of it (in other words, "with" you).  (At least, that's how some interpret it.)

If that was the case then a threesome would be OK as long as two the people are married to each other.

[zil]

Just now, Latter-Day Marriage said:

If that was the case then a threesome would be OK as long as two the people are married to each other.

I didn't figure I needed to add yet another caveat, which was obvious, but OK, fine: "with ONLY the person to whom you are married"  (as opposed to "not with a person to whom you are not married" - there's a subtle difference).  (No, I'm not trying to quote anything, I'm trying to explain how some people see it - doesn't matter whether you agree, only that you intellectually comprehend the idea.)

I also didn't say you had to interpret things one way or the other, and I don't think I implied right or wrong ways to interpret, I'm just saying there are different ways to interpret and I can understand the interpretations which I've heard / read.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

31 minutes ago, zil said:

I didn't figure I needed to add yet another caveat, which was obvious, but OK, fine: "with ONLY the person to whom you are married"  (as opposed to "not with a person to whom you are not married" - there's a subtle difference).  (No, I'm not trying to quote anything, I'm trying to explain how some people see it - doesn't matter whether you agree, only that you intellectually comprehend the idea.)

I also didn't say you had to interpret things one way or the other, and I don't think I implied right or wrong ways to interpret, I'm just saying there are different ways to interpret and I can understand the interpretations which I've heard / read.

These day's do need to be that specific.  I've run into members who actually do think a threesome or partner swapping is OK as along as it is all consensual.

[zil]

2 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

These day's do need to be that specific.  I've run into members who actually do think a threesome or partner swapping is OK as along as it is all consensual.

[Backroads]

On 1/20/2017 at 11:47 AM, Latter-Day Marriage said:

These day's do need to be that specific.  I've run into members who actually do think a threesome or partner swapping is OK as along as it is all consensual.

I've met people who find bits of doctrine and history to support their view.