The Crossroads of My Dreams and Destiny

[Gazing at essence]

Update: 

Today we talked on the phone for over an hour. Just a reminder: we aren't currently both in the US. I wish we could have talked in person as well. But she should be coming back here relatively soon. 

Well to be honest, the news and details were quite a bit worse than I expected them to be. She poured out her soul to me and I absorbed it all. It was very emotional for both of us. @Latter-Day MarriageDon't worry I made sure she knows that she is forgiven and that she has nothing to be ashamed of or embarrass about at this point. She was really grateful that I listened and did not judge her or attack her. All I felt was love for her and a desire that she will be happy. That is what is about for me. Whether I become her husband or not, I want her to be happy and confident that she is forgiven, and not reminded by her future spouse that she was once covered in sexual transgression. 

It is crazy because in my mind I had drawn this line, and if she crossed it then I was out for sure. And well...yeah...she crossed it but I am not giving up on her. I walked out of the temple today feeling like everything would be okay. As soon as we had finished our hour or so talking about her past and mourning together/comforting each other, it was back to joking around and just talking about our days and plans for the weekend. She is special to me. She said she understands if her past sins are too much for me and again, I had to let her know that any man who would hold that against her doesn't deserve her. I told her it would take me time to accept everything in a mature manner but that I would try. We just go together, she even wants to be friends if things don't work out. At the same time, I cannot imagine only being friends. 

So I will resume my praying and scripture study. And we will see how things go from here.

 

This was my first time posting on mormonhub. I had read some articles and explored forums here before but today was the day I made my account. Thanks for taking the time to read about my life and offer advice. I feel very welcomed into this special online community. 

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, Eowyn said:

What I read:

"Well yeah, when you say it, it sounds bad.

 

i guess technically she's clean, except she's really not.

 

If you disagree with me, you're sick."

??

No.  I said actions have consequences.  This isn't hard.  According to your logic every time a spouse commits adultery and repents the offended spouse has no choice but to continue in the marriage.  I mean the adulterer is fully clean, so why should it bother the spouse at all!!!

Please, the logic does not compute.  Yes, it is a sick society.  

The two, adultery and fornication outside of marriage are very, very similar-especially for one who has served a mission and been to the temple.  

An adulterer previously made a covenant with their spouse (and if married in the temple a covenant with God) to not engage in sexual relations outside the marriage.  They broke their covenant.

A fornicator (who is baptized and been to the temple) previously made a covenant with God to not engage in sexual relations outside of marriage.  They broke their covenant.

An adultery usually causes the re-evaluation of whether the marriage is viable.  Prior fornication usually causes a re-evaluation of whether a potential marriage is viable.

In our society, people normally say the aggrieved party should get a divorce in adultery.  In our society, people normally say the aggrieved party in fornication should completely ignore it and get married.

Those two ideas combined together are hypocritical and are evidence of a sick society. It should be the reverse. The consequences of a divorce (effects on society, children, etc.) are much greater, then the consequences of leaving a potential spouse. Yet at the first drop of adultery, it's DIVORCE HIM.  At the first drop of fornication, it's IGNORE IT or you are a scumball and not righteous enough.

Now, I do make an exception to individuals who have not been taught the truth or made covenants with God. An individual raised in a non-Christian or non strong moral background household might not be taught fornication is wrong.  Then they get baptized, learn of the truth and keep their covenants-their is a difference. Still caution but not as much as one who is raised or converted LDS goes to the temple and then fornicates.

Edited May 27, 2017 by yjacket

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, yjacket said:

This is total hogwash.  Are you worthy of her?  Give me a break. What is wrong with this world?  In today's society we castigate the individual who desires for, wants a pure, virtuous wife, who has lived her life as such and is heartbroken when he finds out that his potential mate fornicated prior to marriage.  

And he is the one who is unworthy?  Please, what utter complete rubbish, garbage and hogwash. 

 

Read what I said more carefully please.  I said there is nothing wrong with preferring a wife who hasn't broken the LoC in the past, but making it a requirement is wrong.  She has repented and is forgiven so she is pure and virtuous, if he can't see that, then yes he has some issues he needs to work out before he will be a suitable match for her.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, yjacket said:

 I find it despicable that members of the Church would do what they can do make a young man who has lived his life worthily (something to be commended for and honored) feel bad b/c he his having second thoughts b/c his potential spouse did not live like that.

If somebody thinks somebody else isn't good enough for them because of something  God has forgiven them of, they are filled with pride and lack charity and don't really believe in the power of the atonement.  Those who don't forgive others are guilty of the greater sin.  You can't dump somebody for something you claim to have forgiven them of without being a hypocrite.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, Gazing at essence said:

@Latter-Day Marriage

Hey I appreciate your defense of her and your desire to make sure she is treated fairly. One of the problems with communicating over technology is that I can't show you all just how sorry I am and just how much I do actually care for her. I realize that my writing may reveal my prideful nature and my young attitude that certainly needs to mature. But I do want you to know that I mourned with her on the phone today and I made sure that she knows she is forgiven and that the problem is mine now. The problem being my ability to accept her for who she is and what she has done. I told her that she deserves a man who will not make her feel guilty because of things she has done in the past and repented of. (Maybe I will grow up into that man maybe I will not be able to. I am trying to become a better priesthood holder). I think I don't come across the right way on these posts. If you met me in person I reckon you would maybe think differently of me (at least different from the way your responses seem to imply). I am calm, caring, and would never want to see one of Heavenly Father's precious daughters cry. What I experienced today will be carved into my memory for forever. 

You did provide a lot of advice that I really appreciate. So I thank you for that. For the directness and the passion and the love. All of it.

Sounds great, I pray for a happen ending for you both, however it goes.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, yjacket said:

There is the modern idea in church culture that with sex outside of marriage is bad, but that as long as one repents it shouldn't be a factor in a marriage decision-hogwash.

I think where we differ is I draw a distinction between the sin and the consequences of the sin.  I'm looking at this narrowly and saying that if the existence of past sins is the ONLY issue, it should not be an issue

If somebody was a prostitute and/or porn star with hundreds of lovers and a few abortions, but she meets the missionaries, has a powerful conversion and radically transforms her life to bring it in line with the gospel, the fact she did those things should not be a deal breaker on their own.  There may be negative consequences arising from her past that could be a legitimate deal breaker, and as you said if somebody still has the same character flaws that lead them into the sin, that can be a  legitimate deal breaker, but the sin BY ITSELF with nothing else about her being a negative should not be a deal breaker.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, Gazing at essence said:

I was surprised to find out that a lot of her sins took place after her mission. I came across a scripture today in Jeremiah 13 which reads: Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Jeremiah was not talking about one individual there, but about the whole nation of Israel, applying that to a single person and saying they can't change is taking that verse out of context.  There are also many cases where vile sinners have transformed their lives, and somebody who has largely lived a good life but made some serious mistakes at one point is not somebody I would say was 'accustomed to do evil'

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, Gazing at essence said:

@eddified

Well I actually ended up finding out the details today. For me I just want our relationship to be one of trust and I don't want there to be any secrets. Maybe I am crazy, but I just see it bothering me more in the future if I don't know what she had been up to. Part of moving on for me is understanding the situation completely.

That is very true.  A couple at the alter should not be hiding anything from their partner, even when it may be painful for them to hear it.  Especially when it may be painful for them to hear it.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, Gazing at essence said:

 @Latter-Day MarriageDon't worry I made sure she knows that she is forgiven and that she has nothing to be ashamed of or embarrass about at this point. She was really grateful that I listened and did not judge her or attack her. All I felt was love for her and a desire that she will be happy. That is what is about for me. Whether I become her husband or not, I want her to be happy and confident that she is forgiven, and not reminded by her future spouse that she was once covered in sexual transgression. 

It is crazy because in my mind I had drawn this line, and if she crossed it then I was out for sure. And well...yeah...she crossed it but I am not giving up on her. I walked out of the temple today feeling like everything would be okay. As soon as we had finished our hour or so talking about her past and mourning together/comforting each other, it was back to joking around and just talking about our days and plans for the weekend. She is special to me. She said she understands if her past sins are too much for me and again, I had to let her know that any man who would hold that against her doesn't deserve her. I told her it would take me time to accept everything in a mature manner but that I would try. We just go together, she even wants to be friends if things don't work out. At the same time, I cannot imagine only being friends. 

So I will resume my praying and scripture study. And we will see how things go from here.

Sounds fantastic!

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Read what I said more carefully please.  I said there is nothing wrong with preferring a wife who hasn't broken the LoC in the past, but making it a requirement is wrong.  She has repented and is forgiven so she is pure and virtuous, if he can't see that, then yes he has some issues he needs to work out before he will be a suitable match for her.

You are wrong.  There is nothing wrong with making that a requirement, just like I don't want to marry someone who has done drugs in the past. I don't want to marry someone who went to jail in the past.  Absolutely nothing wrong with making it a requirement.

Really?? (one the 2nd bold) Please give me a break. He suitable for her, he worthy of her?? Talk about turning things completely upside down. It's the reverse. She is the one who demonstrated by actions that at one point in her life she was not faithful to her covenants, not him.  

Edited May 27, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

If somebody was a prostitute and/or porn star with hundreds of lovers and a few abortions, but she meets the missionaries, has a powerful conversion and radically transforms her life to bring it in line with the gospel, the fact she did those things should not be a deal breaker on their own.  There may be negative consequences arising from her past that could be a legitimate deal breaker, and as you said if somebody still has the same character flaws that lead them into the sin, that can be a  legitimate deal breaker, but the sin BY ITSELF with nothing else about her being a negative should not be a deal breaker.

I'm more in line with this. Remember this lady who broke the LoC was a missionary, i.e. she's been endowed, she served the Lord for 18 months (presumably honorably) and then after she had further light and knowledge broke the LoC. That is vastly different than someone who was a porn star found God and changed completely.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man (who has never broken the LoC) to say I will only marry someone who also hasn't broken the LoC. People make all sorts of requirements upon their future spouse. I want to be attracted to her, I want her to be a member of the Church, etc. etc. etc.  If someone has a requirement that is "she needs to be pretty" (i.e. I need to be attracted to her), how is that requirement more important and more worthy than "I want her to be a virgin"?  One is superficial (beauty fades over time, but is important) and one is of spiritual importance.

Except you can't take the sin by itself-it doesn't work that way.

Edited May 27, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

The fact that we are having this discussion shows just how much people do not think sexual purity is that big of a deal.  Whoops so she screwed around, she's clean now-no big deal. No it is a big deal-especially when choosing a mate.  It shows one's character, one's commitment to principles, all the intangible things that go into a marriage decision.

[Vort]

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 AM, Gazing at essence said:

I understand that she has fully repented. Is it unfair of me to leave?

No.

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 AM, Gazing at essence said:

I think she deserves someone who will see her for the beautiful daughter of God that she is and not worry about her past.

I agree.

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 AM, Gazing at essence said:

What steps do I take next?

Your next step is to consider the possibility that, by cutting her free, YOU may well be the one bitterly regretting that decision in the future. Then look to find your way forward.

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 AM, Gazing at essence said:

Is it out of line to ask her the exact details so I know the full picture as well as she can recall?

I don't know if it's out of line or not. I think it's probably not helpful, and likely the opposite. Dredging up such specific details won't lead to a good place.

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 AM, Gazing at essence said:

I still really like her and want to continue our relationship, I still feel like we belong together. But is it fair to either of us?

Sure. It's fair to both of you. Neither of you is perfect, but each of you is beloved of God. Each of you has the freedom to decide how to pursue this relationship, and together you get to decide which direction the relationship goes.

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 AM, Gazing at essence said:

Am I wrong to think I deserve someone more sexually pure?

Hmmm...

I don't think you're necessarily objectively "wrong" to think that you "deserve someone more sexually pure". I do think that you misunderstand what sexual purity consists of.

Sexual purity does not consist of an intact hymen. Sexual purity does not even necessarily consist in never having engaged in intercourse -- consider a victim of forcible rape, who might be perfectly sexually pure despite her "lost virginity". Sexual purity is a type of spiritual purity, something we all struggle to keep. That is why repentance has been made available to us.

Honestly, if her having had sex with someone else bothers you so much that you don't want to marry her, then DON'T MARRY HER. You are under no obligation, and you might well do more harm to yourself (and to her) by condescending to marry her than you would by just walking away. I happen to agree with yjacket that people today simply do not put enough value in chastity and sexual morality in general. If you can't get over being bothered by this, then do yourself and your girlfriend a favor, and call it off.

But consider: Why is chastity worthwhile? What IS chastity, anyway?

"Chastity" derives from the Latin castus, which refers to moral uprightness, usually in a sexual context. It has nothing directly to do with virginity; a married man or woman can and should be chaste, even as they engage in conjugal relations with their spouse. If your fiancée truly has repented, then she is chaste, by definition. In a gospel context, this means that she is "sexually pure". Remember: "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." White, pure snow is white, pure snow, whatever form the water in that snow has taken in the past.

Now, don't misunderstand. I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT telling you to marry her. That is your decision, and hers. But if (please note the word!) she truly is worthy and fitted to you in every other way, then I think you would be making a foolish choice to turn her away because of previous, now irrelevant, transgressions. You will be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You have fallen into the common trap of thinking that your sexual purity and avoidance of fornication have been a huge, and so far unrewarded, sacrifice. You are wrong. In most cases, virtue is its own reward, and that is true in this case. Your mind, your spirit, and possibly your body are in better shape because you have avoided fornication. Thinking you can "eat your cake and have it too" is a lie from Satan. How awful would it be going through your life comparing your sexual relationship with your wife to whatever "flings" you may have had before marriage? How much might such wicked, pernicious, self-defeating thoughts drag down your marriage bed and degrade your sacred relationship with your wife? No, you will enjoy the blessings of your chastity for the rest of your life, and for all eternity. Don't mourn your "lost opportunity" to sow wild seed. That's like mourning the amputations that you never got the pleasure of experiencing.

Maybe you're afraid that your potential wife will do just that -- compare you to the other man or men that she has had. Well, if that's a concern, talk with her about it. And don't stop at her first horror-struck protestation that, oh my, no, she would never do such a thing! Talk to her, in kindness, love, and true charity, but also in absolute truth, until you are satisfied that either you are good with things or that you can't marry her without misgivings. Either way, you have your answer.

All the best to you and your fiancée.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Those who don't forgive others are guilty of the greater sin.  You can't dump somebody for something you claim to have forgiven them of without being a hypocrite.

This is completely, utterly, and in all ways wholly false.

You don't have to marry someone to forgive them.

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I think where we differ is I draw a distinction between the sin and the consequences of the sin.  I'm looking at this narrowly and saying that if the existence of past sins is the ONLY issue, it should not be an issue

If somebody was a prostitute and/or porn star with hundreds of lovers and a few abortions, but she meets the missionaries, has a powerful conversion and radically transforms her life to bring it in line with the gospel, the fact she did those things should not be a deal breaker on their own.  There may be negative consequences arising from her past that could be a legitimate deal breaker, and as you said if somebody still has the same character flaws that lead them into the sin, that can be a  legitimate deal breaker, but the sin BY ITSELF with nothing else about her being a negative should not be a deal breaker.

The problem with the above is that one of those "negative consequences" is a coarsening of attitude toward sex and love. I have read several prostitutes, young women who freely prostituted themselves to pay for college or whatever, who said that they cannot see ever having a normal marital sexual relationship with a husband -- and this, despite the fact that they WANTED to marry a man and have a "normal" life.

God does not make fornication a sin just by whim. The act of sex profoundly changes a person. It does. A woman giving herself to a man, for whatever reason, changes her, either for the better or for the worse. I have nothing but cheers and good wishes for the repentant prostitute, but if my son is thinking of marrying her, I will have some very sober words for him and urge him to consider the matter very, very well before he marries her. Because his married sex life will likely never be what it might have been when he's trying to build that sex life with someone who has given herself to others as the ex-prostitute fiancée would have done.

[Vort]

On 5/26/2017 at 9:29 AM, Latter-Day Marriage said:

The fact of the matter is that she is worthy of your love, she is worthy of every blessing God has for the righteous.  The question is are you worthy of her?

If by "she is worthy of your love" you mean "you should marry her", then you are wrong. My wife is worthy of his love, too, but he's not going to marry her.

Your second sentence above is simply wrong. The question is not whether he is worthy of her. The question is whether he should follow through and marry her despite her previous sin of openly transgressing the law of chastity. And despite what you seem to be implying, that is not a question with an obvious answer.

[eddified]

@Vort I'm having trouble understanding your position.

Quote

God does not make fornication a sin just by whim. The act of sex profoundly changes a person. It does. A woman giving herself to a man, for whatever reason, changes her, either for the better or for the worse. I have nothing but cheers and good wishes for the repentant prostitute, but if my son is thinking of marrying her, I will have some very sober words for him and urge him to consider the matter very, very well before he marries her. Because his married sex life will likely never be what it might have been when he's trying to build that sex life with someone who has given herself to others as the ex-prostitute fiancée would have done.

Seems to contradict your previous statement:

Quote

But if (please note the word!) she truly is worthy and fitted to you in every other way, then I think you would be making a foolish choice to turn her away because of previous, now irrelevant, transgressions. You will be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The former says "yes, sex changes a person in a big way, so it matters" but the latter basically says "she's repented, so it doesn't matter". So does it matter or doesn't it? Please expound.

Edited May 27, 2017 by eddified

[Latter-Day Marriage]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

You are wrong.  There is nothing wrong with making that a requirement, just like I don't want to marry someone who has done drugs in the past. I don't want to marry someone who went to jail in the past.  Absolutely nothing wrong with making it a requirement.

Really?? (one the 2nd bold) Please give me a break. He suitable for her, he worthy of her?? Talk about turning things completely upside down. It's the reverse. She is the one who demonstrated by actions that at one point in her life she was not faithful to her covenants, not him.  

You really like telling me I'm wrong, and we aren't even married! 

By repenting and obtaining forgiveness she demonstrated that her past actions are irrelevant to the knowing what kind of person she is today.  What you suggest is to hold it against her forever no matter what, which is withholding forgiveness.

Doctrine and Covenants 64:9
Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

[Vort]

33 minutes ago, eddified said:

The former says "yes, sex changes a person in a big way, so it matters" but the latter basically says "she's repented, so it doesn't matter". So does it matter or doesn't it? Please expound.

Sex changes a person in a big way, so it always matters. But so do all of our choices. Repentance allows us to overcome our own weaknesses, but it doesn't justify those weaknesses.

Put it this way: Suppose you decided to cut off your arms. That would be a foolish and very sinful thing to do. Suppose that you afterward repented of your sinfulness -- real, sincere repentance, that changed you as a person and put you back on the path you should travel. In that case, the angels themselves would sing and shout in exultation for your repentance. But you still wouldn't have any arms. They don't magically grow back just because you repented.

If a woman is well-fitted for a man, but he rejects her for a fornication for which she has truly repented, then he is spiting himself. That's a foolish thing to do. But that doesn't mean the woman was not changed by her fornications; we all are changed by our decisions to choose evil instead of good.

Saying "Sex matters!" doesn't mean we can't repent; but by the same token, saying "We can repent!" doesn't mean that sex doesn't matter.

[Sunday21]

I wonder what the Op would think about marrying a widow? A woman who has had sex before but within the bonds of matrimony? Is it having had sex? Or having sinned?

In any case, you do not want this young woman to marry someone who has the mistaken belief that she is not worthy. If it is something, he cannot live with than she is better off without him.

 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

I'm more in line with this. Remember this lady who broke the LoC was a missionary, i.e. she's been endowed, she served the Lord for 18 months (presumably honorably) and then after she had further light and knowledge broke the LoC. That is vastly different than someone who was a porn star found God and changed completely.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man (who has never broken the LoC) to say I will only marry someone who also hasn't broken the LoC. People make all sorts of requirements upon their future spouse. I want to be attracted to her, I want her to be a member of the Church, etc. etc. etc.  If someone has a requirement that is "she needs to be pretty" (i.e. I need to be attracted to her), how is that requirement more important and more worthy than "I want her to be a virgin"?  One is superficial (beauty fades over time, but is important) and one is of spiritual importance.

Except you can't take the sin by itself-it doesn't work that way.

She was a former missionary, but yes when somebody has progressed that far and messes up it is a more serious matter.  Her Bishop and Stake President would take that into account as she works out her repentance, along with whatever other relevant factors are at play.  But it is her Bishop, not you or I, who is the judge and entitled to know by revelation when her repentance is complete.  Seems like he made that call some years ago and she hasn't had an issue since.  The OP did say she was getting older and hearing her biological clock ticking so this seems to been around a decade ago that it happened, not last week.

What if the woman had been previously married or raped?  She would not be a virgin but would not have broken the LoC and they would be chaste.  Likewise a woman who did break the LoC and repented would become chaste through the power of the atonement.  It is the Law of Chastity, not the Law of Virginity. 

Certainly people have the right to make whatever silly rules they want about who they will marry (only somebody rich, only somebody with a Phd, somebody who doesn't have a beard etc.) but when the reason the person makes the rule stems from unchristlike attributes in themselves it is not a good rule, and requiring a woman be a virgin rather than a woman be chaste comes from pride and self-righteousness, a lack of charity and a lack of forgiveness.  Those are good reasons for somebody to reject marriage with the person with that rule.

Everybody as their own sins, everybody has their own baggage they bring into a marriage.  You marry the person you marry the baggage and if you can't handle the baggage you shouldn't marry the person.  But if you don't even check if the baggage is something you could bear or not and just knee-jerk reject someone because you choose to live by a uncharitable rule, then something is not right in your heart.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

She was a former missionary

Not so. You are never released from being a missionary.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

But if you don't even check if the baggage is something you could bear or not and just knee-jerk reject someone because you choose to live by a uncharitable rule, then something is not right in your heart.

I agree, you are indeed being profoundly uncharitable to the OP. For shame. The OP is doing exactly what you say: Investigating whether this baggage is something he can or is willing to take on. That's his choice, not yours. Your shaming of him for asking a perfectly reasonable question and doing some real soul-searching is far beyond the pale.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

The fact that we are having this discussion shows just how much people do not think sexual purity is that big of a deal.  Whoops so she screwed around, she's clean now-no big deal. No it is a big deal-especially when choosing a mate.  It shows one's character, one's commitment to principles, all the intangible things that go into a marriage decision.

Breaking the LoC is a big deal, nobody disagrees with that.  But the power of the atonement is a BIGGER deal.  Don't belittle the power of what Christ did to save us and how complete His forgiveness is. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not so. You are never released from being a missionary.

No, you come home, report to the High Council / Stake Presidency and are released.  When you are called it is for a period of 2 years or 18 months, says so right in the letter.