Rape by deception? Lies, immorality and why sin has created this problem

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

Lies and deceit (on a massive scale, frankly) are not the same as "reasonably selfless".

Honesty regarding your opinions of your girlfriend's religion is not "complete selflessness" - it's pretty basic human decency.

Fair enough.  Don't get me wrong. I sure didn't think much of him and was horrified for her after I heard.  But what are you going to do?

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The more interesting question, IMHO, is whether people will be legally free to decline to have relations with such individuals.  The recent experience of a certain adult film actress, who was cyber-bullied into suicide after announcing via Twitter that she wouldn’t work with actors with a certain type of resume, suggests that many people think the answer should be “no”.  

In our era, and the flexible definitions regarding discrimination, sadly I am able to see people trying to make it unlawful to decline such relationships (or to be bullied into one at school -- being told how much you are filled with "hate" if you don't accept the relationship).

That is an unfortunate loss of life, which from what I read came from the "tolerant" side.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

My wife has a cousin who was dating a non-Mormon.  She told him that she wouldn't marry anyone outside the temple.  He took the discussions.  He got baptized.  They waited.  They got married.  He stopped going to church.  Then he flat out told her that he never believed this stuff anyway.  He only got baptized so he could marry her.

"Serves her right" is far too strong a sentiment, but to dangle yourself as an inducement for converting to the faith is a recipe for disaster. Less dramatic but equally tragic stories involving this very same dynamic are common, most involving men "converting" to get the woman. I am familiar with the same story happening at this moment, where a young man was baptized a year or so ago, recently broke up with his LDS girlfriend, and has now asked his bishop to remove his name from the Church rolls. I personally know a couple (and possibly a second couple) where the husband "converted" to marry his LDS fiancée, then some years later left the Church, became totally disaffected, and openly rebels against and mocks the teachings of the Church.

tl;dr - This is by no means an uncommon thing. Happens all the time, though perhaps not quite so overtly.

[Just_A_Guy]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Serves her right" is far too strong a sentiment, but to dangle yourself as an inducement for converting to the faith is a recipe for disaster. Less dramatic but equally tragic stories involving this very same dynamic are common, most involving men "converting" to get the woman. I am familiar with the same story happening at this moment, where a young man was baptized a year or so ago, recently broke up with his LDS girlfriend, and has now asked his bishop to remove his name from the Church rolls. I personally know a couple (and possibly a second couple) where the husband "converted" to marry his LDS fiancée, then some years later left the Church, became totally disaffected, and openly rebels against and mocks the teachings of the Church.

tl;dr - This is by no means an uncommon thing. Happens all the time, though perhaps not quite so overtly.

And, it’s one of the reasons why “marry an RM” is still reasonably sound advice.  It’s not a perfect filter, but it’s a heckuva lot more probative than a few weepy “testimonies” and a year of sitting in church and not getting caught doing anything too revolting . . .

[NightSG]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure—hence, the legal remedy of annulment (fraud in the inducement).

What is the Church policy on annulment?  I'm fairly certain the legal process doesn't void a sealing, and as such would entail the same difficulties as a divorce in that respect.

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Why would a guy lie in order to get married? Many men don't really want to get married in the first place.

The number of divorces I've seen where one or the other (or in one case both) had been cheating more or less continuously since the engagement or earlier is downright disgusting.  I've also talked to a number of divorcees who found out shortly after the marriage that their spouse had been concealing one or more significant addictions, including one woman who found out while trying to renew her car insurance that her new husband had 3 DUIs, with the most recent being just a few weeks before he proposed.

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am familiar with the same story happening at this moment, where a young man was baptized a year or so ago, recently broke up with his LDS girlfriend, and has now asked his bishop to remove his name from the Church rolls. I personally know a couple (and possibly a second couple) where the husband "converted" to marry his LDS fiancée, then some years later left the Church, became totally disaffected, and openly rebels against and mocks the teachings of the Church.

I know one who, upon learning substantially more about the Church, realized that his girlfriend wasn't living up to anything near Church standards, and expected him to BS his way through a TR interview after a year of being coached by her on how to "act Mormon" in public.  How the missionaries, bishop, etc. hadn't gotten enough information through to him for him to spot that before baptism, (kid honestly thought LDS belief was that we shouldn't be seen drinking or smoking weed) I don't know, except that I suspect with the relatively low baptism numbers here, they just got a little too eager to dunk everybody they could as quickly as they could.  He hasn't become hostile to the Church, but he is openly hostile to the hypocrisy of certain groups of people within it.  (And really, after going to a Conference watching party where the hosts were spiking people's drinks with vodka, I can't blame him for that.)

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, NightSG said:

What is the Church policy on annulment?  I'm fairly certain the legal process doesn't void a sealing, and as such would entail the same difficulties as a divorce in that respect.

Talking of “sealing” as a liturgical rite that the Church duly records—administratively, of course it doesn’t (though anecdotally, a cousin of my wife’s got one and the cancellation process was remarkably streamlined).  

Talking of the “seal” in the sense of “sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise” that gives spouses claim on each other in the resurrection—that sealing, I submit, may never have happened in the first place; regardless of what temple rites may have been performed.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Talking of “sealing” as a liturgical rite that the Church duly records—administratively, of course it doesn’t (though anecdotally, a cousin of my wife’s got one and the cancellation process was remarkably streamlined).

I would hope the First Presidency would not only essentially rubber stamp such a thing, but also would follow up on the reason for the annulment in the first place.  (The only reasons I can come up with that neither person would be held accountable for something serious would be if one of them had an existing spouse legitimately believed to be, but later found to not actually be deceased, or the two find out after the fact that they're too closely related to be married in their state.)

[NightSG]

52 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And, it’s one of the reasons why “marry an RM” is still reasonably sound advice.

3 DUI guy in my other reply was an RM.  Got his first about 2 months after getting back from his mission.  Managed to keep them all a secret from the bishop.  Told his wife at one point that the hardest part of a mission was having to sneak out between lights out and midnight (when the stores stop selling alcohol) and find a store that wouldn't ID a 19 year old that looks like a missionary.

[Bad Karma]

On 12/8/2017 at 10:20 AM, anatess2 said:

Rape by deception - you consent to have sex with a woman with full make-up on.  you wake up the next day with her make-up all melted and crusty and you do a coyote ugly.

Law of Chastity people.

BINGO!

[NeuroTypical]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Fair enough.  Don't get me wrong. I sure didn't think much of him and was horrified for her after I heard.  But what are you going to do?

That's easy - the wife says "Ok, you've got me.  If you want to keep me, we do monthly temple dates."

He then chooses.

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, NightSG said:

I know one who, upon learning substantially more about the Church, realized that his girlfriend wasn't living up to anything near Church standards, and expected him to BS his way through a TR interview after a year of being coached by her on how to "act Mormon" in public.  How the missionaries, bishop, etc. hadn't gotten enough information through to him for him to spot that before baptism, (kid honestly thought LDS belief was that we shouldn't be seen drinking or smoking weed) 

Ok, whoa.  Time out.  I call foul.  

So, I'm 100% in his court when it comes to detesting hypocrisy.  And I'm also very respectful of the impact various events (where people pretending to be good practicing LDS were in fact not) have had on him. 

But no, the odds that he made it to baptism with the understanding that "LDS belief was that we shouldn't be seen drinking or smoking weed" are practically zero, unless he intentionally twisted what he was taught to reinforce that belief, and rejected everything else.

Here's what missionaries do - here are the lessons he was given.  What parts do you think he twisted, and what parts do you think he flat out ignored?

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service?lang=eng

Edited December 10, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

But no, the odds that he made it to baptism with the understanding that "LDS belief was that we shouldn't be seen drinking or smoking weed" are practically zero, unless he intentionally twisted what he was taught to reinforce that belief, and rejected everything else.

I suspect he got a heavy dose of "well, that's what we say, but we don't really do all of it" from her the minute the missionaries left each time.  After all, how many people give a talk on the virtues of honesty and fairness on Sunday, then go back to their sales job Monday morning?  How many politicians are members?

Here's what missionaries do - here are the lessons he was given.  What parts do you think he twisted, and what parts do you think he flat out ignored?

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service?lang=eng

Aside from the Plan of Salvation lesson, I don't recall my lessons being much like that.  Mostly, the missionaries latched onto my Methodist history, and tried to compare and contrast with that.  As I recall, he was raised Southern Baptist, (so the "don't be seen doing it" bit would have made perfect sense to him) so they may have done the same thing.  (Not saying it's a good strategy; I've yet to find a born-and-raised LDS who didn't have far less understanding of many common faiths than others are often accused of having of the LDS Church.  I'd say a third of the discussions consisted of me saying "no, that's Baptists," "no, that's SDA," "Pentecostals do that, not Methodists," "you're thinking of Catholics," or "I have no idea where you got that.")

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I'd say a third of the discussions consisted of me saying "no, that's Baptists," "no, that's SDA," "Pentecostals do that, not Methodists," "you're thinking of Catholics," or "I have no idea where you got that."

Kinda like this, only in reverse?

 

[NightSG]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Kinda like this, only in reverse?

Actually, most of that makes far more sense than some of the stuff they thought about Methodists, or Baptists for that matter.  (I mean, come on; I spent the majority of my youth actively avoiding Southern Baptists and SDAs whenever possible and I still know entirely too much about them.)

[wenglund]

Rape by deception appears to me to be a not-well-thought-through expansion of political correctness that, as expected, may turn back on itself, particularly as it relates to gender identity as well as transsexuals. I have heard stories where men were dating, and even married what they thought were women, only to discover intimately that they were anatomically male. It will be interesting to see whose side the Left supports when such cases are brought to trial on charges of rape by deception. Will they back their the sacred cow of gender identity and transsexuals, or will they back the PC rape by deception laws? I love it.

I have to also wonder if padded and push-up bras may be grounds for violation of the inane law in question?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, NightSG said:

I know one who, upon learning substantially more about the Church, realized that his girlfriend wasn't living up to anything near Church standards, and expected him to BS his way through a TR interview after a year of being coached by her on how to "act Mormon" in public.  How the missionaries, bishop, etc. hadn't gotten enough information through to him for him to spot that before baptism, (kid honestly thought LDS belief was that we shouldn't be seen drinking or smoking weed) I don't know, except that I suspect with the relatively low baptism numbers here, they just got a little too eager to dunk everybody they could as quickly as they could.  He hasn't become hostile to the Church, but he is openly hostile to the hypocrisy of certain groups of people within it.  (And really, after going to a Conference watching party where the hosts were spiking people's drinks with vodka, I can't blame him for that.)

Night,

You don't need to be telling us your life story.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's easy - the wife says "Ok, you've got me.  If you want to keep me, we do monthly temple dates."

He then chooses.

I might be inclined to go along with that suggestion.  But there are some women who figure, since she's married and slept with the man "voluntarily" that she's stuck with him.  To get a divorce would (to them) be a greater sin than his lie.  Not that I'd necessarily agree. But there is that school of thought. 

I don't know if they're still together or not.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, NightSG said:

I suspect he got a heavy dose of "well, that's what we say, but we don't really do all of it" from her the minute the missionaries left each time.  After all, how many people give a talk on the virtues of honesty and fairness on Sunday, then go back to their sales job Monday morning?  How many politicians are members?

 

Adding to that, I'm sure there are people with temple recommends who smoke a little weed/have a drink from time to time too. 

[Guest]

I am greatly saddened by what I'm hearing from @NightSG and @MormonGator.  What on earth are people thinking?  We teach it but don't live it?  What sense does that make?  Why spend so much freaking time and money (and I'm not just talking tithing) on a faith that you don't really believe in or actually live?  What would possibly be the motivation?

If I didn't have the faith and belief I do there is literally NOTHING I could think of that would motivate me to do all the callings, the lessons, the meetings, the whatever of being a Mormon.  If they don't really believe that's what you're supposed to do, then what on earth could motivate them to put up a false front?  What could they possibly have to gain from that?  I just don't get it.

Yes, I certainly understand those who have weaknesses.  And I know we all have something we're working on.  And those who are weak in the faith need the milk before the meat.  But to simply state, "Well, we're not really supposed to do all that." ???

SMH.

Let me spell it out clearly....  OH YES WE ARE!

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I am greatly saddened by what I'm hearing from @NightSG and @MormonGator.  What on earth are people thinking?  We teach it but don't live it?  What sense does that make?  Why spend so much freaking time and money (and I'm not just talking tithing) on a faith that you don't really believe in or actually live?  What would possibly be the motivation?

If I didn't have the faith and belief I do there is literally NOTHING I could think of that would motivate me to do all the callings, the lessons, the meetings, the whatever of being a Mormon.  If they don't really believe that's what you're supposed to do, then what on earth could motivate them to put up a false front?  What could they possibly have to gain from that?  I just don't get it.

Yes, I certainly understand those who have weaknesses.  And I know we all have something we're working on.  And those who are weak in the faith need the milk before the meat.  But to simply state, "Well, we're not really supposed to do all that." ???

SMH.

Let me spell it out clearly....  OH YES WE ARE!

 I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm not saying it's any insult to the church or it's members. I'm guessing that the overwhelming majority of members DO live in accordance with their temple recommendations.  

I never said that the members who have temple recommendations but smoke weed/drink alcohol are doing the right thing. I just said that I'm 100% confident that there are members out there with active temple recommends who do that. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by MormonGator

[Anddenex]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I am greatly saddened by what I'm hearing from @NightSG and @MormonGator.  What on earth are people thinking?  We teach it but don't live it?  What sense does that make?  Why spend so much freaking time and money (and I'm not just talking tithing) on a faith that you don't really believe in or actually live?  What would possibly be the motivation?

If I didn't have the faith and belief I do there is literally NOTHING I could think of that would motivate me to do all the callings, the lessons, the meetings, the whatever of being a Mormon.  If they don't really believe that's what you're supposed to do, then what on earth could motivate them to put up a false front?  What could they possibly have to gain from that?  I just don't get it.

Yes, I certainly understand those who have weaknesses.  And I know we all have something we're working on.  And those who are weak in the faith need the milk before the meat.  But to simply state, "Well, we're not really supposed to do all that." ???

SMH.

Let me spell it out clearly....  OH YES WE ARE!

I think @MormonGator and @NightSG are more pointing out the outliers of members who actually do and think the way they are specifying. In my youth, church dances, there were individuals who were baptized and then that same night were fornicating with one of the young women that introduced them to the Church. I would probably say, this is who they are pointing out -- the outliers -- who believe -- bear testimony -- but live lives contrary to what they are bearing witness of.

We have members, in Utah (Mormon capital), who don't think there is anything wrong with social drinking, and then renewing their temple recommend without any word to the bishop regarding their social drinking habit. I mean, in one city we even had "swingers" who felt this was not adultery as long as both couples agreed to it.

I, myself, agree with the bolded portion of your statement. These types of scenarios truly cause me to scratch my head and think, "What! How?!"

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

I think @MormonGator and @NightSG are more pointing out the outliers of members who actually do and think the way they are specifying. In my youth, church dances, there were individuals who were baptized and then that same night were fornicating with one of the young women that introduced them to the Church. I would probably say, this is who they are pointing out -- the outliers -- who believe -- bear testimony -- but live lives contrary to what they are bearing witness of.

We have members, in Utah (Mormon capital), who don't think there is anything wrong with social drinking, and then renewing their temple recommend without any word to the bishop regarding their social drinking habit. I mean, in one city we even had "swingers" who felt this was not adultery as long as both couples agreed to it.

I, myself, agree with the bolded portion of your statement. These types of scenarios truly cause me to scratch my head and think, "What! How?!"

Interesting.  How could social drinking not be against the Word of Wisdom?  Am I missing something?

[Guest MormonGator]

It's fun to point out Word of Wisdom sins and it makes us feel better about ourselves and more righteous than those wretched sinners, but I'm also sure there are people who go to the temple on Monday morning and while driving home yell, scream and give the finger to those who are driving in a way we don't like. And there are those who go to the temple Tuesday morning who haven't spoken to their brother in ten years, their sister in five years and hate everyone who they work with. And I'm sure there there are others who go to the temple Wednesday morning and lie about about tithing, lie on their income tax returns and worship money. Speaking of worship, I'm sure there are people who go the temple Thursday morning who don't really "have a testimony" about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ but go to church more for the social aspect. Notice a pattern?  

No one, not even temple recommend holding LDS are perfect. The Word of Wisdom is important, but so are other virtues as well. 

I'm going to the kitchen to get another beer. Be back later. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by MormonGator

[Anddenex]

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Interesting.  How could social drinking not be against the Word of Wisdom?  Am I missing something?

No, your not missing anything. Social drinking is against the Word of Wisdom.

[Grunt]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's fun to point out Word of Wisdom sins and it makes us feel better about ourselves and more righteous than those wretched sinners, but I'm also sure there are people who go to the temple on Monday morning and while driving home yell, scream and give the finger to those who are driving in a way we don't like. And there are those who go to the temple Tuesday morning who haven't spoken to their brother in ten years, their sister in five years and hate everyone who they work with. And I'm sure there there are others who go to the temple Wednesday morning and lie about about tithing, lie on their income tax returns and worship money. Speaking of worship, I'm sure there are people who go the temple Thursday morning who don't really "have a testimony" about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ but go to church more for the social aspect. Notice a pattern?  

No one, not even temple recommend holding LDS are perfect. The Word of Wisdom is important, but so are other virtues as well. 

I'm going to the kitchen to get another beer. Be back later. 

I wasn't asking in judgment, merely wondering how you get a temple recommend without lying.  I don't think they ask when you last spoke to your brother or if you've recently flipped someone off in traffic, but they do ask about the Word of Wisdom, don't they?