Girls are licked cupcakes...

[_bcspace]

So where is the evidence about the Joseph Smith claim?

You think there was a claim? CFR.

Right here....

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?

Come on, Clerk, they're just emulating the Prophet Joe.

CFR

[_Jason Bourne]

Really ? Forgiveness?
So young men who have had sex can still go on a mission?
I thought the higher bar thing ruled them out?

Ok this is a fair point. The raise the bar deal will disqualify a young person from a mission for certain repeated activities. One could argue they still can be forgiven they just lose an opportunity. Yet it seems that there is a stigma attached. This raise the bar has frustrated me for a number of young people. One was a fellow who at 16 got a girl pregnant. He repented, and lived the LDS gospel well going forward. Yet is was still prohibited from serving because fathering a child is a total deal killer.

[_harmony]

Ok this is a fair point. The raise the bar deal will disqualify a young person from a mission for certain repeated activities. One could argue they still can be forgiven they just lose an opportunity. Yet it seems that there is a stigma attached. This raise the bar has frustrated me for a number of young people. One was a fellow who at 16 got a girl pregnant. He repented, and lived the LDS gospel well going forward. Yet is was still prohibited from serving because fathering a child is a total deal killer.

Fathered a child is different from had sex once.

Personally, I agree... a boy who fathers a child shouldn't be allowed to go, even after he repents.

I'm glad my son who put himself in this situation repented went prior to this new policy, but I can see where it's an individual thing. But I also know young men lie about their sexual activity, and those are the ones who are not being kept home by any change in policy. Honest ones like my son would be kept home.

This is just one more example of how the intentions of the Brethren can easily be thwarted by the actions of the members.

Either change the misisonary program, or get every bishop a lie detector.

[_Pokatator]

Fathered a child is different from had sex once.

Personally, I agree... a boy who fathers a child shouldn't be allowed to go, even after he repents.

I agree. It's pretty obvious that the young man is now a father and needs to be in the child's life not gone for the first 2 years.

[_Jason Bourne]

Fathered a child is different from had sex once.

Personally, I agree... a boy who fathers a child shouldn't be allowed to go, even after he repents.

Let me see. At 16 has sex, girl gets pregnant, they put the baby up for adoption. Boy repents and obeys law of chastity and is now 20 or so and wants to go on a mission. He has been a good priest is now an elder. You still think he should not go? If so we disagree.

I'm glad my son who put himself in this situation repented went prior to this new policy, but I can see where it's an individual thing. But I also know young men lie about their sexual activity, and those are the ones who are not being kept home by any change in policy. Honest ones like my son would be kept home.

Sure. I have seen some who lied, go and then confess in the MTC and get sent back home.

[_harmony]

Sure. I have seen who lied go and then confess in the MTC and get sent back home.

I've seen those who lie and continue to lie all through their missions. Who come home and report, get married in the temple, and go on to be elders quorum presidents and bishops. That doesn't redeem them from the lies.

Surely you aren't saying a lie confessed after a temple marriage would just get a slap on the hand? A lie of that magnitude (unless you think a lie told to conceal sexual sin has no magnitude?) ought to have long reaching consequences, don't you think? Or should it just be forgotten because of the passage of time?

But these were the bishop's sons, so maybe that makes it all okay.

[_Yoda]

Sure. I have seen who lied go and then confess in the MTC and get sent back home.

I've seen those who lie and continue to lie all through their missions. Who come home and report, get married in the temple, and go on to be elders quorum presidents and bishops. That doesn't redeem them from the lies.

Surely you aren't saying a lie confessed after a temple marriage would just get a slap on the hand? A lie of that magnitude (unless you think a lie told to conceal sexual sin has no magnitude?) ought to have long reaching consequences, don't you think? Or should it just be forgotten because of the passage of time?

But these were the bishop's sons, so maybe that makes it all okay.

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.

[_Jason Bourne]

I've seen those who lie and continue to lie all through their missions. Who come home and report, get married in the temple, and go on to be elders quorum presidents and bishops. That doesn't redeem them from the lies.

Hmmm

Well unless you can see in their hearts and know what they may have confesses to God and others I think it best to refrain from judging to harshly.

Surely you aren't saying a lie confessed after a temple marriage would just get a slap on the hand?

I am not sure what your point is. Missionary lies and goes, comes home after serving a decent mission, marries in the temple, is faithful, serves well, lives a good life, has repented in his heart then confesses transgressions pre mission? I doubt any church action would happen against him. I would guess he has lived his own hell for sometime.

Do I condone this course? Of course not!

A lie of that magnitude (unless you think a lie told to conceal sexual sin has no magnitude?) ought to have long reaching consequences, don't you think? Or should it just be forgotten because of the passage of time?

See above.

But these were the bishop's sons, so maybe that makes it all okay.

If they were, no. Do I really believe bishops sons often get special treatment. Not at all.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

It is up to the leader.

[_Pokatator]

Let me see. At 16 has sex, girl gets pregnant, they put the baby up for adoption. Boy repents and obeys law of chastity and is now 20 or so and wants to go on a mission. He has been a good priest is now an elder. You still think he should not go? If so we disagree.

Jason, your scenario just moved the goalposts. Adoption makes a big difference, then he is not required to be an active and ideally a full time father.