Chastity, Young Marrieds, and Pregnancy

[_Scottie]

No, it makes no sense to assume that a couple that has sex will go on to have a miserable, destitute life. Likewise it makes no sense to assume that those that do plan on getting married go on to have great riches.

It isn't the sex. It's the planning part. It's the planning NOT to have sex. It is the ability to organize, to plan, to anticpate problems, to solve problems, to set goals, and overcome obstacles to meet those goals.

I'm not detecting a whole lotta passion in that planning.

Harmony, it's how you handle the passion. Those who can are smarter and have better self control. Those qualities are important in success in anhy endeavor.

You mean, be smart and marry WAY too young where your chances of divorce are close to 100%? That kind of smart?

Oh, and then have kids as quickly as possible? That kind of smart?

[_Roger Morrison]

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.

\

#1. 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 # 2. 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. # 3. Your attitude biases you on this issue. (Bold added by RM)

Hi Charity, respectfully Sis, your position on this subject is no less prejudiced than anyone elses # 3. It is even less based on fact, as you allude in # 1. OTOH, your assumption is more a matter of LDS type cultural conditioning that presupposes the evils of carnal, sensuous & devilish humans to be THE motivator of our species. IT IS NOT!

# 2. In the grand scope of things, "...loss of chastity..." is probably one of the least important "losses" a person experiences. That a false seditious interpretation of Mormon morality places it next to murder is a heinous absurdity deserving spiritual, intellectual revue. Do you care to engage in such a an objective discussion?

To begin, can you present "loses" that You might consider "tragic events" in one's life, or in the larger human society, that might Trump, or come close to trumping "loss of chastity"? Warm regards, Roger

Articles of Faith 13: "...we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

[quote]

I messed this up a bit with the 'quote' thing. However, Charity, will you please address my previous post as requested?

Secondly, will you also consider that many folks "hope" for Christian tolerance, as exemplified by Jesus--no pound of flesh--just go, and "sin" (an archaic word) no more. Many "have endured" the demeaning Red-Letter treatment of misguided religious folks into the present-days.

That most, if not all here, or in most other places, seek the same lovelies and praiseworthies, that have little relevance to Joseph Smith, LDSism or religion in general. They have to do with benevolence, empathy, love unfeigned and acceptance of one another as-is, where-is. Not relegating them to a lower status in this life, or its iffy extensions simply because they don't measure up to edicted standards. Does this make any sense to you at all, Charity? Roger

[_charity]

Sorry, Roger, I missed your post. So hee it is.

Hi Charity, respectfully Sis, your position on this subject is no less prejudiced than anyone elses # 3. It is even less based on fact, as you allude in # 1. OTOH, your assumption is more a matter of LDS type cultural conditioning that presupposes the evils of carnal, sensuous & devilish humans to be THE motivator of our species. IT IS NOT!

And what is your bias based on?

# 2. In the grand scope of things, "...loss of chastity..." is probably one of the least important "losses" a person experiences. That a false seditious interpretation of Mormon morality places it next to murder is a heinous absurdity deserving spiritual, intellectual revue. Do you care to engage in such a an objective discussion?

In whose grand scope of things? What revue? You don't accept God's pronouncments. He doesn't accept yours. Impasse.

To begin, can you present "loses" that You might consider "tragic events" in one's life, or in the larger human society, that might Trump, or come close to trumping "loss of chastity"? Warm trgards, Roger

The loss of Heavenly Father's presence is the ultimate tragedy. It doesn't matter what the larger human society says. The larger human society accepts almost any degraded behavior. Presidents committ sexual infidelity in the Oval Office while talking on the telephone to a senator and he is lionized. Enron executivies cheated thousands of workers out of their pensions and they still had their lavish parties surrounded by "friends." O.J. Simpson murdered two people and is still on the A list. I don't think much of "larger human society's" standards.

And just for your information, sexual immorality is one of the biggest causes of suffering today. The spread of AIDS, the breakup of families, the victimization of individuals are great tragedies even among this larger human society.

Part II

Secondly, will you also consider that many folks "hope" for Christian tolerance, as exemplified by Jesus--no pound of flesh--just go, and "sin" (an archaic word) no more. Many "have endured" the demeaning Red-Letter treatment of misguided religious folks into the present-days.

That is sad. Repentance is a process between the person and the Lord, and the appropriate Church leader if called for, and the individuals who were injured because of the sin. Which is not an archaic word, except for this "larger human society" and please don't disregard my disrespect for their standards. Nobody deserve the A treatment.

That most, if not all here, or in most other places, seek the same lovelies and praiseworthies, that have little relevance to Joseph Smith, LDSism or religion in general. They have to do with benevolence, empathy, love unfeigned and acceptance of one another as-is, where-is. Not relegating them to a lower status in this life, or its iffy extensions simply because they don't measure up to edicted standards. Does this make any sense to you at all, Charity? Roger

They aren't relegated to any liower status in this life or the next, by me. I have stated before, I don't think the telestial, terrestrial, or celestial kngdoms are a matter of good, better, best. I think they are just DIFFERENT for where people want to be. If you wouldn't be happy in the celetial kingdom why would you feel bad you didn't get to go there? And why would I feel bad for you if you were exactly where you would be the happiest?

[_Sethbag]

Every Primary child memorizes this. I don't know of any person who doesn't know that it is wrong to lie about their moral cleanliness.

Indeed. But nobody says dishonesty is next to murder, do they? Style Guy has a good point. If people are able to recognize that the church is never giving them the whole story, and leaving important and material facts out of it, and that individual is facing shame and guilt and family torment because they "slipped up" and whacked off in the shower, or their hand brushed across their girlfriend's breast sort of not really by accident, which do you think they are going to take more seriously, the 2nd only to murder thing, or the "not quite telling the whole story" thing?

[_guy sajer]

From BYU Magazine Winter 2008

True to the Faith – by Gordon B. Hinckley

We Believe in Being Chaste

I observed a very interesting thing the other day. In Salt Lake City, early on a Saturday morning, the Key Bank Building was brought down with a series of well-placed detonations. It all happened in three or four seconds, with a great cloud of dust that rolled to the northwest. The process is called an implosion, in contrast with an explosion.

The building was constructed nearly 30 years ago. I suppose construction extended over a period of at least a year, maybe two. Now it was gong in seconds.

That, my friends, is the story of so many lives. We nurture them ever so carefully over a period of years. Then we find ourselves in highly charged circumstances. Mistakes are made. Chastity is compromised. There is an implosion, and a ball of dust is all that is left.

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.

So why is it that having to get married and have a baby at a very young age will doom their futures, and result in a low-paying job, when if the same couple had reversed the order, and done nothing different except by marrying first and then getting pregnant, they would be celebrated by this same prophet? Still in school. Still young. Still struggling to support a family they’re ill equipped to support. Why in the world does the church push this scenario on its young people when it clearly recognizes how damaging the circumstances can be if the pregnancy preceded marriage?

And this scenario is distinguished from the one in which the recently returned missionary marries a 20 year old gal whom he's known for all of 4 months who then proceeds to get pregnant 3 months later just how?

[_Jason Bourne]

From BYU Magazine Winter 2008

True to the Faith – by Gordon B. Hinckley

We Believe in Being Chaste

I observed a very interesting thing the other day. In Salt Lake City, early on a Saturday morning, the Key Bank Building was brought down with a series of well-placed detonations. It all happened in three or four seconds, with a great cloud of dust that rolled to the northwest. The process is called an implosion, in contrast with an explosion.

The building was constructed nearly 30 years ago. I suppose construction extended over a period of at least a year, maybe two. Now it was gong in seconds.

That, my friends, is the story of so many lives. We nurture them ever so carefully over a period of years. Then we find ourselves in highly charged circumstances. Mistakes are made. Chastity is compromised. There is an implosion, and a ball of dust is all that is left.

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.

So why is it that having to get married and have a baby at a very young age will doom their futures, and result in a low-paying job, when if the same couple had reversed the order, and done nothing different except by marrying first and then getting pregnant, they would be celebrated by this same prophet? Still in school. Still young. Still struggling to support a family they’re ill equipped to support. Why in the world does the church push this scenario on its young people when it clearly recognizes how damaging the circumstances can be if the pregnancy preceded marriage?

It seems to me that sure, they could get married, he and or she could still go to college and make a go of it.

Heck that was me. Married at 22. Wife was 23. Yes she was done with college but me, I did not have one year in. We married. I had a job as an assistant manager at a fast food joint. She worked in a low paying job. It was what her degree was in but that filed does not pay much. After one year our first baby came along. Three months later I decided I needed to get qualified to make some money. I started collage at 24 years old. Number two came. After one year of college I dropped out for a time to work for about a year and half. Then I went back. Had two years in and number three came. Continued in school while working part time, and my wife worked. We were broke. Finished at started in my career at 28.5 years old. I think from there I have been fortunate to be fairly successful.

So yea, this young couple can still get married and move on to success.

[_The Nehor]

Every Primary child memorizes this. I don't know of any person who doesn't know that it is wrong to lie about their moral cleanliness.

Indeed. But nobody says dishonesty is next to murder, do they? Style Guy has a good point. If people are able to recognize that the church is never giving them the whole story, and leaving important and material facts out of it, and that individual is facing shame and guilt and family torment because they "slipped up" and whacked off in the shower, or their hand brushed across their girlfriend's breast sort of not really by accident, which do you think they are going to take more seriously, the 2nd only to murder thing, or the "not quite telling the whole story" thing?

Liars get top billing on most "Who's Who in Hell" lists in scripture.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think you don't understand the age group that is being addressed about postponing marriage. I have been involved with YW's leadership positions for years. Girls in YW are constantly told to educate themselves. I know boys are counseled to prepare themselves for occupations where they can support their families. The whole don't date until you are 16 is to keep young people from getting into serious relationships too early.

There are two groups who are being addressed with the "don't postpone" advice. One is those couples who are already romantically involved. Once young peole start to get serious about each other, it is far better to marry than to string out a romantic relationship until they become unchate, whether or not they become pregnant. Our children were always encouraged to have long courships and very short engagements. The second group is comprised of those who are seriously postponing marriage/babies until long range career goals are met. This advice is meant for those couples who think that they must have the 4,500 sq. foot home, the 2 SUV's and a big bank account before they can "afford" children.

Yes I agree. But Beastie's points are still valid. And this was in BYU magazine. In both cases they are young, there are kids and so on.

[_beastie]

One of the criticisms leveled against the LDS church by former believers, and by some current members, is that it engages in scare tactics to keep their young people chaste. Of course, it’s doctrine that sexual sin is next to murder in seriousness, although I hope that even those who embrace that doctrine would recognize the wide variance of acts that constitute “sexual sin”, and an engaged couple slipping up prior to the wedding is far different than a deliberate adulterer.

Next the “licked cupcake” or “chewed gum” or the board with the nail hole were common object lessons – and may still be for all I know – and these teachings give the clear – and, according to LDS doctrine – erroneous - idea that once having sinned, the individual can never be fully restored to purity, and this one mistake has ruined their entire lives. This is yet one more example of that erroneous teaching. This couple was clearly repenting, they were seeing a spiritual leader, they had confessed, they were getting married. But their lives, according to God’s spokesman on earth, are still ruined. Totally. Destroyed. Imploded.

The difference between the couple that fell and the couple that kept it zipped until their marriage isn’t in the ability to plan ahead. The only plan most very young couples have when they are at the altar in the temple is to be married and then have sex. You think all those girls who get pregnant within their first year of marriage actually planned it that way? Please. They were just rolling the dice and going without BC because they thought it was what the LORD wanted them to do, thanks to his prophet who keeps telling them not to delay children for career or education.

So if this young couple’s life is in ruins, like an imploded building, then the only thing that imploded it was a lack of self control when it came to having sex. It wasn’t lack of planning or even lack of faith. It was lack of self control when it came to having sex. It isn’t even having the child, because that factor is the same in the “good” couple. So I guess what you, charity, really need to demonstrate to defend this is that people who have premarital sex experience less success in life, in general, than those who do not. Can you do that? I doubt you’ll even try, because it’s a ridiculous proposition.

[_Jason Bourne]

We hold our breaths when young couples, without much or most of their occupational education completed , get married. We hope they will be fine, but we are realistic. We hope that since they have decided freely to marry (not ahead of an unintentional birth) that they have considered how to meet all the demands that will be placed on them, mainly for the young man to become prepared occupationally to support a family.

No we do not hold our breath. We are quite fine and even encourage young (21-25) year old couples to marry and start a family andnot wait for college to be done or career started. Where do you get this idea from ?