Girls are licked cupcakes...

[_Pokatator]

They need to make that a primary song.

Too bad they didn't have primary when Joseph was a little boy

[_The Nehor]

There is no difference between adultery and fornication Harmony.

Baloney. There is a world of difference between adultery, which carries a sacred covenant, and fornication, which carries no covenant, at least not for an unendowed member, which is what we're talking about on this thread.

My good grief, Gaz! Adultery is an excommunicatable offense; fornication for the unendowed is not. Surely you know this!

Harmony is spot-on here, Gaz. You owe the lady an apology.

While fornication by an unendowed member is not necessarily an excommunicable offense in some cases it is. In most cases this only happens with repeated offenses but Church action is subject to the discretion of the Priesthood Leader.

[_Jason Bourne]

There is no difference between adultery and fornication Harmony. I would have thought that a seasoned member of the church would know that. Perhaps if you took the time to stop muttering against your church leaders you could hear the sunday school lesson.

Well Gaz it seems that no less than JFS was not listening in SS either. He seems to disagree with you:

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Pg.310-311) "There are said to be more shades of green than of any other color, so also we are of the opinion there are more grades or degrees of sin associated with the improper relationship of the sexes than of any other wrongdoing of which we have knowledge. They all involve a grave offense -- the sin against chastity, but in numerous instances this sin is intensified by the breaking of sacred covenants, to which is sometimes added deceit, intimidation or actual violence.
Much as all these sins are to be denounced and deplored, we can ourselves see a difference both in intent and consequence between the offense of a young couple who, being betrothed, in an unguarded moment, without premeditation fall into sin, and that of the man who having entered into holy places and made sacred covenants, plots to rob the wife of his neighbor of her virtue either by cunning or force and accomplish his vile intent.
Not only is there a difference in these wrongs, judging from the standpoint of intent, but also from that of the consequences. In the first instance the young couple who have transgressed can make partial amends by sincere repentance and by marrying. One reparation, however, they cannot make. They cannot restore the respect that they previously held for each other; and too often as a consequence of this loss of confidence their married life is clouded or embittered by the fear that each has for the other, having once sinned, may do so again. In the other case, others are most disastrously involved, families are broken up, misery is forced upon innocent parties, society is affected, doubt is thrown upon the paternity of children, and from the standpoint of gospel ordinances, the question of descent is clouded and pedigrees become worthless; altogether, wrongs are committed both to the living and the dead, as well as to the yet unborn, which it is out of the power of the offenders to repair or make right.
Sometimes an argument is advanced to limit the provisions of the law of God, as given in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, both with regard to punishment and to forgiveness to those who have entered the House of the Lord and received their endowments. This is not possible, as so many of these provisions were given in revelations published several years before the Saints were permitted to receive these holy ordinances, indeed, before any temple was built. The law as given, we believe to be general, applying to all the Saints. But undoubtedly when, in addition to the actual offense against the laws of chastity, covenants are broken, then the punishment for the double offense will, either in this life or that which is to come, be correspondingly greater and more severe." -- Juvenile Instructor, Nov. 15, 1902, Vol. 37, p. 688.

[_JoetheClerk]

"the man who having entered into holy places and made sacred covenants, plots to rob the wife of his neighbor of her virtue either by cunning or force and accomplish his vile intent."

Joseph Smith?

[_Gazelam]

Leave it to Harmony to argue shades of a color.

Chastity and fidelity are eternal principles. All people are intended to be marrried and enter in to the patriarchal order.

Where fornication and adultery are concerned, If you are not cheating on a current spouse, then you are cheating on the spouse you are one day meant to be with. In both cases you are abuseing your creative power and allowign your passions to control you. You are meant to master the elements of your body, not allow them to master you.

When you present your body to God, you are meant to present it clean, with you as its master. In control of the elements that constitute it. Being Carnal is reveling in chaotic forces and wallowing in the abuse of sacred things. Of this sort, there will be no entrance into the fathers house.

[_Yoda]

Leave it to Harmony to argue shades of a color.

Chastity and fidelity are eternal principles. All people are intended to be marrried and enter in to the patriarchal order.

Where fornication and adultery are concerned, If you are not cheating on a current spouse, then you are cheating on the spouse you are one day meant to be with. In both cases you are abuseing your creative power and allowign your passions to control you. You are meant to master the elements of your body, not allow them to master you.

When you present your body to God, you are meant to present it clean, with you as its master. In control of the elements that constitute it. Being Carnal is reveling in chaotic forces and wallowing in the abuse of sacred things. Of this sort, there will be no entrance into the fathers house.

Harmony was not arguing the fact that they are both sins. She was arguing the severity of the sins and how they are handled from a Church perspective. They are handled differently, Gaz.

Both are sins which can be repented of. As long as repentance occurs, you can enter the Father's kingdom, and it is if the sin never occurred.

It is the consequences of these sins from a Church perspective that were being argued. You implied that they were both handled in the same way...that there was no difference. There is. You also went on to imply that "if she were a member of the Church, she should know the difference."

First of all, the inference was an insult. Harmony is a long-standing member of the Church, as am I.

Secondly, her point was valid.

[_moksha]

"the man who having entered into holy places and made sacred covenants, plots to rob the wife of his neighbor of her virtue either by cunning or force and accomplish his vile intent."

Joseph Smith?

That stuff is all in the past.

[_ludwigm]

Actually, it does state in the Church Handbook of Instructions that church courts are optional for sexual sin if "there has been a significant amount of time" that has passed. It doesn't specify what that significant amount of time is.

Two hair (=two piece of) in the soup is a significant amount.
On somebody's head it is not.

[_Jason Bourne]

Leave it to Harmony to argue shades of a color.

Chastity and fidelity are eternal principles. All people are intended to be marrried and enter in to the patriarchal order.

Where fornication and adultery are concerned, If you are not cheating on a current spouse, then you are cheating on the spouse you are one day meant to be with. In both cases you are abuseing your creative power and allowign your passions to control you. You are meant to master the elements of your body, not allow them to master you.

When you present your body to God, you are meant to present it clean, with you as its master. In control of the elements that constitute it. Being Carnal is reveling in chaotic forces and wallowing in the abuse of sacred things. Of this sort, there will be no entrance into the fathers house.

I do not think Harmony is arguing against anything you said here. Simply there are degrees of seriousness and it is clear the a prophet of God agrees with her. Why don't you address the comments I posted by JFS Gaz? I seems often to me that for you and BC it is the gospel according to Gaz or the gospel according to BC.

[_Inconceivable]

and boards with permanent nail holes and chewed pieces of gum. No amount of repentance can apparently make them clean or whole again. They are stained forevermore by their association with a guy who kissed or screwed them.

How come the guys aren't held to the same standard? Too many of these 'young Priesthood holders' get girls pregnant and are not held accountable. Too many of them introduce these girls to sex and life experiences and the girls come out 'tarnished and trashed' but nothing happens to the little pollinating player. He gets off scott free while she is now a slut.

How about some payback and accountability for these oversexed little slobs?

Getting back to the OP...

Before I went on the mission, I dated a Mesa girl that had had sex a few years previous with a boy at her highschool. Everyone in her ward appeared to be aware of what she had done (predominantly Mormon school, small town mentality). When she confessed to her bishop, he told her that though The Church and God could be forgive her, she had lost her virtue. It was irretreivable. She would never become whole again. She was devastated.

She would express to me how a few of the married women would look away (shunning her) and some of their husbands would give her an extra gaze like she was a peice of candy while walking down the hall at church. She was treated like an outcast or second class Mormon among her peer group as well. The way she has been treated has affected her attitude and behavior since then. I really grieve for her because of the stigma that was attached to her at such an early age. To me, she was a very talented, beautiful, kind, sensitive and caring person. I just didn't have the capacity to see what they saw.

This has always bothered me that people can be so amazingly ignorant of the principle of repentance as taught by Jesus.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them,
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
(New Testament | John 8:7 - 11)

"Licked cupcakes" - I thought Jesus was the only one that took a scar into the eternities.