OK you potential Bishops out there

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by DrumNFeather

I'm not sure how appropriate it is to know a fiance's past transgressions...if the person has truly repented and has been forgiven, then the Lord (throuh proper authority) has seen fit to forgive and allow the person to move on. When dating and making decisions about maraige, you fall in love with who they are, not who they were 5 years ago.

I don't agree with that. I don't think you need to know every nitty-gritty detail of every little transgression. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with asking about some of the big ones either. Not because it's a question of worthiness, or forgiveness, but because there are sometimes still consequences for those sins. Who wants to get blindsided by your husband's ex-girlfriend showing up one day with his 6 year old illegit son wanting to collect on child support? It happened to one of my cousins.

I dated a guy who told me on our second date that he just wanted me to know upfront that that particular scenario was a possibility for him, and if I couldn't deal with it there wasn't any point in continuing to date. I still dated him, but in retrospect I probably wouldn't again. Not because I felt like he wasn't worthy, or because I was afraid of having to pay back child support, but because I think his little walk on the wild side had some consequences (not std's) that were a lot to deal with. To his credit he was very open about it, with me. I know his wife has struggled with some of that stuff, and in retrospect I'm not sure I'm cut out to take that on. Probably why we broke up three times. Anway, I assume he was just as open with her as he was with me. So she knew what those issues were, and decided she could handle it. Which is totally fair. I know a few girls that have all kinds of lingering issues from previous trangressions, and I don't think it would be wise for someone to marry them without being aware of what those issues are.

Although honestly, I don't know how you could date someone without figuring it out. After a couple of weeks it's obvious. At a minimum I'd think you'd at least suspect.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I don't agree with that. I don't think you need to know every nitty-gritty detail of every little transgression. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with asking about some of the big ones either. Not because it's a question of worthiness, or forgiveness, but because there are sometimes still consequences for those sins. Who wants to get blindsided by your husband's ex-girlfriend showing up one day with his 6 year old illegit son wanting to collect on child support? It happened to one of my cousins.

I dated a guy who told me on our second date that he just wanted me to know upfront that that particular scenario was a possibility for him, and if I couldn't deal with it there wasn't any point in continuing to date. I still dated him, but in retrospect I probably wouldn't again. Not because I felt like he wasn't worthy, or because I was afraid of having to pay back child support, but because I think his little walk on the wild side had some consequences (not std's) that were a lot to deal with. To his credit he was very open about it, with me. I know his wife has struggled with some of that stuff, and in retrospect I'm not sure I'm cut out to take that on. Probably why we broke up three times. Anway, I assume he was just as open with her as he was with me. So she knew what those issues were, and decided she could handle it. Which is totally fair. I know a few girls that have all kinds of lingering issues from previous trangressions, and I don't think it would be wise for someone to marry them without being aware of what those issues are.

Although honestly, I don't know how you could date someone without figuring it out. After a couple of weeks it's obvious. At a minimum I'd think you'd at least suspect.

The problem with prying into the "big ones" is it leads to more questions and questions lead to wanting more details...which leads to more questions,,,which leads to jealousy and a big fight and bad feelings.

If someone could ever just say yeah..."I did this" and leave it at that fine...but that rarely is what ends up happening and the end result is typically resentful feelings towards each other.

I do think if someone has a history of substance or physical abuse then that is without question something that needs to be addressed, but in the case of sexual sins before marriage....a simple yes or no ought to suffice....the problem is....it rarely does suffice or satiate ones curiousity. It often makes the interrogator thinking they have a right to know more than they actually do.

People are always saying they want to be in a relationship where they won't have to re-live their past....and quite frankly,,,if they've gone and applied the Atonement in their life....outside of a simple yes or no.....they shouldn't be forced to re-live it again.

[MikeWaters]

This reminds me of someone I worked with in the past. He had been involved in a lot of pretty out there sexual stuff. He had been single, but was basically a swinger. Groups, etc.

His wife doesn't know about his past.

Because of his past involvement in that scene, he knew about a particular woman who was also in the workplace and had been in that scene. She started dating a nice guy, and of course he never told the guy about her past, but he probably wondered if he would have wanted to know (they broke up).

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

The problem with prying into the "big ones" is it leads to more questions and questions lead to wanting more details...which leads to more questions,,,which leads to jealousy and a big fight and bad feelings.

If someone could ever just say yeah..."I did this" and leave it at that fine...but that rarely is what ends up happening and the end result is typically resentful feelings towards each other.

I do think if someone has a history of substance or physical abuse then that is without question something that needs to be addressed, but in the case of sexual sins before marriage....a simple yes or no ought to suffice....the problem is....it rarely does suffice or satiate ones curiousity. It often makes the interrogator thinking they have a right to know more than they actually do.

I'm sure that's a possible scenario, but would you rather have that happen after the wedding? Might as well be beforehand so you both know what you're getting into. Although if you've dated a guy that does have that past, and a guy that doesn't, there really shouldn't be any need to ask.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This reminds me of someone I worked with in the past. He had been involved in a lot of pretty out there sexual stuff. He had been single, but was basically a swinger. Groups, etc.

His wife doesn't know about his past.

Because of his past involvement in that scene, he knew about a particular woman who was also in the workplace and had been in that scene. She started dating a nice guy, and of course he never told the guy about her past, but he probably wondered if he would have wanted to know (they broke up).

I hope he had a battery of std tests before the wedding. That's a perfect example of details that don't need to be shared, but unless she's kind out out to lunch, I'd bet money that she knows that he has some kind of a history.

[FMCoug]

Answer: None of your damn business.

I would then proceed to rip the guy a new one about the inappropriateness of his question and why the fact that he wants to know (from her or me) shows he does not undertand the gospel of Jesus Christ or the Atonement.

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So then why wouldn't you just ask her? Why in the world would you go to a bishop and ask him (and actually assume he would answer even though he promised her confidentiality)? Aren't you: 1) assuming she will lie to you (not a good basis for a relationship), and then assuming that that lie is sufficient to break things off; and 2) hoping the bishop will break his promise to her to keep things confidential (thereby making him a liar)?

How in the world does that make any sense? The guy is a nutcase. Oh, and he thinks he is going to be a GA someday, so he is even crazier than that. He will be one of those guys in 30 years that starts calling himself the prophet and picks up a bunker next to Tex's.

Uhh...okay. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension. I think I was VERY clear that I felt it going to the bishop with the question is entirely inappropriate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

Uhh...okay. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension. I think I was VERY clear that I felt it going to the bishop with the question is entirely inappropriate.

Heh. Obviously you are a novice at dealing with Cali Coug.

Cali, if I ever become prophet, you will be the first guy I revoke all his blessings from.

[Clark Addison]

Come on, why is there even any discussion on this. It was addressed pretty clearly by Elder Jack Weyland in Charly

Aren't you guys familiar with the scriptures at all?

[DrumNFeather]

[QUOTE=Black Diamond Bay;123553]I don't agree with that. I don't think you need to know every nitty-gritty detail of every little transgression. But I also don't think there's anything wrong with asking about some of the big ones either. Not because it's a question of worthiness, or forgiveness, but because there are sometimes still consequences for those sins. Who wants to get blindsided by your husband's ex-girlfriend showing up one day with his 6 year old illegit son wanting to collect on child support? It happened to one of my cousins.

QUOTE]

I think it is fairly obvious that if a transgression includes a child, or a disease, that the person would want to disclose that information to a potential spouse because it is a tangible part of that person's life. (Which actually happened in the case I mentioned on forgiveness).

Perhaps I'm not giving "people" enough credit, and maybe there should be some disclosure, but I just don't see what the point of doing that would be, other than "digging up bones."

If someone has repented and moved on from a serious sin, why make them relive it and face new consequences for a sin he or she has already repented for, and been through that very difficult yet rewarding process. Seems excessive to me.