What do LDS men think of non-virginal women?

[_karl61]

The whole thing just shows what a scam the church court system is because it has nothing to do with the person's attitude but has to do with the personality of the stake president or the bishop.

But in arguing this with someone who understands neither the court system or Church doctrine in general, where can this go? Excommunication has much to do with the attitude and circumstances of the sin, not just the sin itself. I've been intimately involved with this process and I'm telling you, in all candor, that you do not know what you are talking about.

The disposition of a church court case is mediated by the Spirit. Without that, and Priesthood authority,the church court could not exist at all.

The truth is, is that the Church can't handle the truth. The Church does not discipline people as harshly if that person has stopped doing what they did, waits a whilel and then confesses. So if an RM is having sex with his girlfriend, stops for one year and then confesses, he is dealt less severely then if he was truthful about his behavior when he was doing it.

If you tell the Bishop about last friday night, and then two weeks later tell him about last saturday night, and then two weeks later tell him about last sunday night. That person will be dealt with more severely than a person who has sex twenty five times in six months, stops and then confesses it a year later. The fact that the first person is more truthful and is living more of a chrisitan ideal by confessing his sins doesn't matter to the church. I was the former and was excommunicated. My friends were the later doing it for six months, stopping and then telling a year and a half later, and then being disfellowshiped or put on probation. But if they had monthly meetings and told the truth they would have likely been excommunicated. Being truthful to the church when you are a young adult is not always the best thing when you are there for a alot social things. The fact that the more truthful are dealt with more severely shows that it is a scam. You can test the priesthood and see if they walk their talk with patience and long suffering and then find out they can't. Their lips say one thing but there heart does something else. The truth is that they can't handle the truth and don't want to be around a person that is sick even though it is christan philosophy that we are all sick. This wasn't one stake president. This was three in a row from 75 to 85 in the Cypress stake. This is how it was done. My friend the BYU football player was an RM had oral sex with a non member girl one time. The stake president told him that if it happens again they would have to hold a high council court. Later when he got engaged to an LDS girl he told me things were kind of getting carried away but told me he was not ready to talk to our stake president about it. He was working the system. The more honest you are the more severely you are dealt with - it's sad as one person here posted that this church makes good people do bad things meaning that only in the church culture are young adults so afraid to talk about what is really going on in their life for fear of punishment. They fear the Church more than the Christan God.

As to your experience is different from mine: if I tell you I was on normandy in june 1944 and all hell was breaking loose. And you tell me you were on normandy in june 1944 and came in and it was peaceful and tell me I don't know what I am talking about who is telling the truth.

[_Jason Bourne]

Really, more stories styleguy?

Perhaps there were cases that he was aware of. I doubt this was routine but it has happened. See below.

Do you expect me to buy into this kind of thing yet again? T

Course not. You never believe any thing ever that could be negative about the Church even if it could be true. You even still deny BY taught Adam God and that Joseph Smith had an relations with Fanny Alger and neither of these are denied by any apologist worth their salt.

he only way anybody can ever be rebaptized is if they've been excommunicated, and premarital relations are only excommunicatable offenses depending on the attitude of the individual involved and circumstances of the sin. There is no doctrine or policy in the Church, and there certainly never was in the seventies (I was in San Diego at the time, a teenager, and never heard of such a thing), requiring rebaptism for a female because they were pregnant.

There is not doctrine I agree but it has happened. I grew up in Utah. I never ever saw any youth in the 70's, which was when I was a teen, ex'd for sexual activity. Not once. But then when I was in my early 20's and married and I moved east the stake and ward I was in ex'd or disfellowhsipped a number fo teens that were sexaully active. I do not know the circumstances of them except one and the discipline seemed egregious in that case. Now are you going to call me a liar because if you do you will be bearing a false witness against me.

Keep up the pose man. Quite entertaining

I am starting to wonder who the real poser is here.

[_Jason Bourne]

It is important to remember that one stake president with a personal "agenda" can have quite an influence on a given area.

So can exmormons with an agenda, and individuals like D. Michael Quinn.

What is his agenda. Have you read his books?

Edit: I checked on the other thread where I asked and see you answered none. One wonders how you determine that he has an agenda when you have not read through one of his books.

[_moksha]

It is important to remember that one stake president with a personal "agenda" can have quite an influence on a given area.

So can exmormons with an agenda, and individuals like D. Michael Quinn.

What is his agenda. Have you read his books?

Edit: I checked on the other thread where I asked and see you answered none. One wonders how you determine that he has an agenda when you have not read through one of his books.

I think Coggins is referring to Quinn having breakfast at 7:30 every morning and then proceeding from there. This is opposed to the Nehor's agenda of world domination. Coggins knows that books are merely an interference with a priori knowledge.

[_Moniker]

I had to bump this thread because directly over it was a thread (with images) with a few "non-virginal women" on display. It just was too umm... something for me not to try to distance it.

:)

[_ludwigm]

What do LDS men think of non-virginal women? I tell You what do they should think:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant;
...
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
...
8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
...
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph,
...
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
...
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

The commandment says nothing about non-virgins. They don't count.
It is written in the Scripture.

[_Gazelam]

I was really pissed off at infumus's statement that the church is more harsh on the women than the men, then Dan says this:

???

This is so opposite to what I've observed. I've more frequently seen the opposite--the guy excommunicated and the girl perhaps only put on probation--on the beliefs, first, that the initiative for such behavior must come from the man, and, second, that he holds the priesthood and is therefore more accountable. Such disproportionate discipline is particularly likely for male returned missionaries. When they get involved in sex outside marriage, it's generally with a girl who hasn't been on a mission, and therefore hasn't gone through the temple. The guy is considered more accountable because of the ordinances he's received and covenants he's made.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for bringing in some reality to the discussion. You are perfectly in line with the doctrine of the church.

Jeffrey R Holland stated:

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry drugstore psychology would have us say, "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete control over his life--his mind, his will, his entire future."

To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man--for our purposes probably a priesthood bearer--and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.

Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as the sun sets and rivers run to the sea.

Note the prophet Jacob's straightforward language on this account in the Book of Mormon. After a bold confrontation on the subject of sexual transgression among the Nephites, he quotes Jehovah:

For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land. . . .

And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people . . . shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction. [Jacob 2:31-33]

http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gill ... /Souls.htm

[_The Nehor]

It is important to remember that one stake president with a personal "agenda" can have quite an influence on a given area.

So can exmormons with an agenda, and individuals like D. Michael Quinn.

What is his agenda. Have you read his books?

Edit: I checked on the other thread where I asked and see you answered none. One wonders how you determine that he has an agenda when you have not read through one of his books.

I think Coggins is referring to Quinn having breakfast at 7:30 every morning and then proceeding from there. This is opposed to the Nehor's agenda of world domination. Coggins knows that books are merely an interference with a priori knowledge.

by the way, I'm still looking for henchmen, any volunteers?