Chastity, Young Marrieds, and Pregnancy

Post by **_Moniker** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:42 am

Huh. It almost seems like they will be cursed with a miserable life since they sinned.

Doesn't make much sense.

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:45 am

Moniker wrote:Huh. It almost seems like they will be cursed with a miserable life since they sinned.

Seems like the implication, doesn't it?

Post by **_Moniker** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:46 am

skippy the dead wrote:
Moniker wrote:Huh. It almost seems like they will be cursed with a miserable life since they sinned.

Seems like the implication, doesn't it?

Yup.

Post by **_Roger Morrison** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:47 am

Another good observation & question Beastie. GBH said:

I was reminded of this when I recalled a young man and a young woman who came to my office. He was a handsome boy and she was a beautiful girl. They were university students. Their future looked bright and beautiful. But they gave in to temptation. Now they were going to have a baby. Their dreams of the future literally collapsed. They would be married. He would work at a low-paying job with the meager skills that he had.

Tears filled their eyes as they talked with me. But there was no escape from the reality that faced them. Their lives had suffered an implosion, and a tower of dreams had come tumbling down.

One has to wonder at the dramatics exploding his imploding. What relevance does "handsome" and "beautiful" have to do with any instance, other than when casting a drama?

GBH is closing in on a century of life formed in premodern times and styles of leadership and pedagogy. I respect his seniority and past service but deplore the fact that he is allowed to practice his profession when his years have, by the very nature of "God's" creations, placed limitations on his perceptions and perspectives. His extended tenure is little less than an embarassement. That he is not allowed, by tradition, to step aside with dignity, is apt indication of the antiquity that shrouds LDSism.

As pointed out, "their towers of dreams", another over dramatization, would have suffered the same consequence with a 'ring'.

I can't help but wonder, "did this father-figure congratulate them on bringing another spirit into the world?" Or, did he leave them feeling guilty and in need of repentance for their disobedience?

In church-terms, premarital sex is not adultery, it is fornication. And, has through history probably consumated more families than not. Sorry no stats ;-)

Wonder if this couple availed themselves of sex-education & family-planning classes? Or if they were offered in their schools? Roger

Post by **_Who Knows** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:51 am

Yeah, I just got that issue as well. Good stuff.

Have you read the article about budgeting yet? Guess what THE #1 rule is? Yep, tithing. 1st, pay tithing. 2nd, etc.

Post by **_charity** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:02 am

beastie wrote:The point is that there is no reason the "bad" couple would HAVE to quit school and take a low paying job, if the "good" couple doesn't have to, either.

The only difference is the date of conception.

\

The point is that they often will end up that way. You cannot really speak to this issue, beastie, since you do not share the LDS concept that loss of chastity is a serious and often tragic event. So what, in the liberal culture of today with the example of celebrity couples who give only a passing wave at moral behavior. So what, in the number of "engaged" couples who live together years without ever bothering to marry. You yourself, have said on this board that you are living with someone, on weekends, at least, without being married. So it isn't a big deal to you. Your attitude biases you on this issue.

Post by **_Moniker** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:06 am

charity wrote:
beastie wrote:The point is that there is no reason the "bad" couple would HAVE to quit school and take a low paying job, if the "good" couple doesn't have to, either.

The only difference is the date of conception.
\

The point is that they often will end up that way. You cannot really speak to this issue, beastie, since you do not share the LDS concept that loss of chastity is a serious and often tragic event. So what, in the liberal culture of today with the example of celebrity couples who give only a passing wave at moral behavior. So what, in the number of "engaged" couples who live together years without ever bothering to marry. You yourself, have said on this board that you are living with someone, on weekends, at least, without being married. So it isn't a big deal to you. Your attitude biases you on this issue.

And yet those celebrities aren't destitute... hmm... perhaps sin has its rewards??? ;)

Post by **_beastie** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:12 am

I'm not talking about whether or not the behavior is a "sin", according to LDS theology, of course it is. I am talking about consequences of behavior - natural consequences, not God-invoked consequences. Besides, the "bad" couple got married and took responsibility, and I assume repentance was involved since they were discussing their situation with a spiritual leader.

I just want to know why in two young married couples, both in university, will only ONE couple suffer doom and gloom as a result of the pregnancy? Why will only the "bad" couple have to quit school and take a low paying job? If the "good" couple can somehow manage to continue higher education despite the pressures of having a young family, why couldn't the "bad" couple do likewise?

Post by **_Moniker** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:40 am

beastie wrote:I'm not talking about whether or not the behavior is a "sin", according to LDS theology, of course it is. I am talking about consequences of behavior - natural consequences, not God-invoked consequences. Besides, the "bad" couple got married and took responsibility, and I assume repentance was involved since they were discussing their situation with a spiritual leader.

I just want to know why in two young married couples, both in university, will only ONE couple suffer doom and gloom as a result of the pregnancy? Why will only the "bad" couple have to quit school and take a low paying job? If the "good" couple can somehow manage to continue higher education despite the pressures of having a young family, why couldn't the "bad" couple do likewise?

Duh! Because one couple sinned! ;)

That's the only difference. Apparently it makes all the difference in the world...

I actually think Charity's reply illustrates that she believes this. It makes no sense to us outside that mentality -- she's right -- because it is completely devoid of any sort of logic.

Post by **_charity** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:09 am

Moniker wrote:
beastie wrote:I'm not talking about whether or not the behavior is a "sin", according to LDS theology, of course it is. I am talking about consequences of behavior - natural consequences, not God-invoked consequences. Besides, the "bad" couple got married and took responsibility, and I assume repentance was involved since they were discussing their situation with a spiritual leader.

I just want to know why in two young married couples, both in university, will only ONE couple suffer doom and gloom as a result of the pregnancy? Why will only the "bad" couple have to quit school and take a low paying job? If the "good" couple can somehow manage to continue higher education despite the pressures of having a young family, why couldn't the "bad" couple do likewise?

Duh! Because one couple sinned! ;)

That's the only difference. Apparently it makes all the difference in the world...

I actually think Charity's reply illustrates that she believes this. It makes no sense to us outside that mentality -- she's right -- because it is completely devoid of any sort of logic.

It makes no sense to you that one couple which plans for marriage might have a step up on one couple who can't even plan not to get pregnant? I think it shows a difference in attitude and abilities between the two.