OK you potential Bishops out there

[DrumNFeather]

[QUOTE=Chapel-Hill-Coug;123788]That's for each individual to decide, isn't it? You can't decide that for them. Simple as that. QUOTE]

By demanding this information, aren't you, in effect, making that decision for the person with the past transgression?

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

[QUOTE=DrumNFeather;123791]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

That's for each individual to decide, isn't it? You can't decide that for them. Simple as that. QUOTE]

By demanding this information, aren't you, in effect, making that decision for the person with the past transgression?

Okay, based on your question, I think we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about sins or transgressions. I'm talking about working out maybe the most important facet of marriage in advance, by discussing prospects for intimacy, and disclosing any information that COULD come up later in a marriage for reasons both seen and unseen (and believe me, unseen consequences happen). I'm talking about past experiences, and their bearing on the relationship, and making sure all pertinent information is on the table. Details about past relationships is NOT pertinent information. There is no reason to make anyone "relive" anything. But if in general one party is still ashamed about past experiences, ding ding ding, there is your first potential problem to begin with. The discussion so far has been way too one-faceted. There is no reason to approach this as a "tell me about what you've done wrong" issue. The young man in question is wrong, IMO, to treat it that way.

And it is not as if this is a one way street. Likely both parties will have at least some experience, which will likely present NO problem. Both parties should feel like they can disclose what is necessary (no details necessary) and move on. If either party is either ashamed to do so, or demands details, then you just MAY have a problem, and in fact are MORE likely to have something come up after marriage.

No judgment involved. [I agree the young man is wrong here.]
No guilt involved. [If one party is ashamed then something is wrong].
No details involved. [If one party wants to know, then she'll never stop wanting to know and you have a problem].

Frankly I'd be shocked if I'm not in the large majority opinion on this issue. It's "the talk", for crying out loud. It is almost univerally recognized (geez, at leaast I thought) as the smart thing to do going into a relationship.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I'm well aware that there are far reaching consequences that exist beyond what has been mentioned.

Here's my question to you.

What difference would it make if you knew?

It sounds to me as though you've already made a determination that said sinner is incapable of getting past a past transgression. If that's the case, and you've already convinced yourself that he mentally couldn't get passed it, then how would you not hold it against him? How would it not impact every tough time that you faced in your marraige?

I think you are refusing to aknowledge the impact of forgiveness and the atonement in people's lives...and how truly wonderful it is when someone comes out of a bad situation (such as past sexual sin) and is able to forgive themselves and move on.

Why in the world would you want to make them relive that?

Well then you should go back and reread instead of just reacting. What I'm saying is based on practicality, and doesn't have anything to do with the person being a repentant, forgiven sinner. My point is simply that there is a POSSIBILITY that the reformed sinner is still facing serious consequences. They can be forgiven, and you can love them regardless, it still doesn't make stuff go away over night.

I've also never made any assumptions that those issues can't be overcome. However, it might take a lot of time and effort for that to happen. In which case I think that a spouse may be required to be unusually patient, sympathetic, and understanding, and it's unfair to ask them to be in that position without letting them know in advance what they're about to take on. I think it's selfish. If it's a problem for the future spouse, that's their decision, and I don't think anyone has a right to judge them for it.

If you're asking them to relive the issue it's because you're asking too many detailed questions, and have approached the topic in an inappropriate fashion.

I've had these conversations with guys I've dated, it wasn't a big deal (I didn't ask, it just became apparent, so they addressed it). Two minutes later I knew everything I would ever need to know about it, and in EVERY case they told me that they were glad I let them tell me. It wasn't a big drawn out conversation and no one was reliving anything.

[DrumNFeather]

[QUOTE=Chapel-Hill-Coug;123816]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Okay, based on your question, I think we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about sins or transgressions. I'm talking about working out maybe the most important facet of marriage in advance, by discussing prospects for intimacy, and disclosing any information that COULD come up later in a marriage for reasons both seen and unseen (and believe me, unseen consequences happen). I'm talking about past experiences, and their bearing on the relationship, and making sure all pertinent information is on the table. Details about past relationships is NOT pertinent information. There is no reason to make anyone "relive" anything. But if in general one party is still ashamed about past experiences, ding ding ding, there is your first potential problem to begin with. The discussion so far has been way too one-faceted. There is no reason to approach this as a "tell me about what you've done wrong" issue. The young man in question is wrong, IMO, to treat it that way.

And it is not as if this is a one way street. Likely both parties will have at least some experience, which will likely present NO problem. Both parties should feel like they can disclose what is necessary (no details necessary) and move on. If either party is either ashamed to do so, or demands details, then you just MAY have a problem, and in fact are MORE likely to have something come up after marriage.

No judgment involved. [I agree the young man is wrong here.]
No guilt involved. [If one party is ashamed then something is wrong].
No details involved. [If one party wants to know, then she'll never stop wanting to know and you have a problem].

Frankly I'd be shocked if I'm not in the large majority opinion on this issue. It's "the talk", for crying out loud. It is almost univerally recognized (geez, at leaast I thought) as the smart thing to do going into a relationship.

Ok...I can see where you are coming from and there was a bit of talking past each other that was going on. From my view it seemed as though some people were, and still are advocating a full disclosure type situation...which was the case with the young man in question.

As to your points, I think we agree more than we disagree.

My understanding of what you are saying (and please correct me if I am wrong here) is that past expereinces (read: relationships, both good and bad) are relevant to the discussion because they may have had an adverse impact on one's life, and any issues from that relationship are pertinent to the new relationship moving forward. This does not include sins or transgressions (your word: details) correct?

In terms of shame regarding past "experiences," I guess that is just a semantical argument. I read that to mean transgressions, and you seem to be suggesting that transgressions are out of scope for that category...which, again, I agree.

As for the Young man's "tell me what you've done wrong," approach...we agree again. That is the wrong approach in my opinion and it kind of leads into the last part of what you were saying, which is that there is certain information that is necessary and certain information that is not...and you're right, if someone wants to know that bad and can't get passed it, the relationship may be doomed to failure.

I think that who we are and how we approach relationships is a reflection of our past experiences, that's true. Past transgressions are certainly a part of that, but, in my opinion, not a necessary detail in building a relationship moving forward.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

[QUOTE=DrumNFeather;123833]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

My understanding of what you are saying (and please correct me if I am wrong here) is that past expereinces (read: relationships, both good and bad) are relevant to the discussion because they may have had an adverse impact on one's life, and any issues from that relationship are pertinent to the new relationship moving forward. This does not include sins or transgressions (your word: details) correct?

Sounds like we can mostly agree then. As to your question, I don't think it has to include sins or transgressions, but then again I don't personally acknowledge a category called "sin". Even if I did, why be ashamed *generally* about something that is behind me? If I were to still feel ashamed then I think there might be an intimacy issue in the first place. And again I'm not talking about the acts themselves, I'm talking about acknowledging that there is a history, and briefly and honestly assessing whether those experiences affect the individual's capacity for intimacy in any way. Even if it might, I don't see how it would be a big problem. But either way the possiblity should be brought up before marriage. If it comes up later though it could damage trust, which is why my feeling is: better safe than sorry.

[DrumNFeather]

[QUOTE=Chapel-Hill-Coug;123847]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

Sounds like we can mostly agree then. As to your question, I don't think it has to include sins or transgressions, but then again I don't personally acknowledge a category called "sin". Even if I did, why be ashamed *generally* about something that is behind me? If I were to still feel ashamed then I think there might be an intimacy issue in the first place. And again I'm not talking about the acts themselves, I'm talking about acknowledging that there is a history, and briefly and honestly assessing whether those experiences affect the individual's capacity for intimacy in any way. Even if it might, I don't see how it would be a big problem. But either way the possiblity should be brought up before marriage. If it comes up later though it could damage trust, which is why my feeling is: better safe than sorry.

And I certainly understand that point.

I read one of your posts from earlier in the thread, and I think that you are right that some might be making it too much about the sin, but in certain scenarios, this being one of them, the question was asked specifically about the sin and not about what potential baggage could come along with the sin. Perhaps that is implied in the question by the young man (still inappropriate) but in BYU 71s scenario, it was more about the sin than the issues surrounding the sin.

[cougjunkie]

BDB this is something you will never have to worry about, i can tell just by your quote at the beginning of this thread:

"IF you have to be shackled to them for eternity.........."

That you have a long ways to go before you ever get married, especially if that is how you view it.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

BDB this is something you will never have to worry about, i can tell just by your quote at the beginning of this thread:

"IF you have to be shackled to them for eternity.........."

That you have a long ways to go before you ever get married, especially if that is how you view it.

Ehhh...whatever. It's just easy for me to talk like that now because for the time being there's no one around that I'd be interested in seeing day in and day out, much less for the rest of eternity. Don't read so much into it.

Although, I will admit that "forever" is kind of a heavy-duty word. The idea of making that kind of commitment to another fallible mortal does give me some degree of hesitation.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I still don't think it's your place to decide what that person can and can't deal with when it comes to baggage, without consulting them about it first.

I never said it was my place to begin with unless you chose to translate something I said differently.

I simply said that at my age to expect someone not to have baggage of some kind,,,which incredibly some people in the dating world still expect from a person......I'm saying it's setting a person up for constant and repeated disapointment in the dating world.

To expect someone not to have even at least a little bit of baggage is not a rational nor realistic approach to dating in the LDS Singles 30+ World.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I never said it was my place to begin with unless you chose to translate something I said differently.

I simply said that at my age to expect someone not to have baggage of some kind,,,which incredibly some people in the dating world still expect from a person......I'm saying it's setting a person up for constant and repeated disapointment in the dating world.

To expect someone not to have even at least a little bit of baggage is not a rational approach to dating.

...and exactly how is that relevant?

Surely you're not suggesting that every older person that is dating should go in with the anticipation that the other person has been guilty of serious sexual trangression. Therefore, the repented should never have to disclose the fact that there may be some leftover emotional baggage from the experience. The other party should just expect it, and if they don't, it's their own stupid fault for being so naive as to not have anticipated that to be the case. Please tell me that's not the "logic" at play here.