Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gadianton Slayer
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6109
Location: A Sound Mind

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Gadianton Slayer »

tmac wrote: May 1st, 2022, 9:00 pm Now see if you can find anything that can actually be attributed to God about fornication.

Prophets and scribes from start to finish have always had their own opinions, on a variety of subjects, just as they do now.
Well, you claimed that the scriptures say very little about fornication. I showed several examples that do… would you like more?

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8010

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Niemand »

Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:09 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 6:45 am
ransomme wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 5:00 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 3:26 am As I say above, I think we made marriage too complicated. There are a lot of couples who live with each other for years on end, and never have a formal ceremony.

The irony is we're probably doing sealing work for some people who are recorded as married in documents, but who either had little to do with other or were playing away while married, while some couples who lived together for twenty or thirty years won't get sealed in the temple due to lack of official documents.
To marry is not complicated. Whatever is customary to let others know that two are married sufficeth.
Depends.

I know someone in our ward who was recently married over in the USA to a foreigner and the British authorities won't recognise it despite him and her producing heaps of relevant paperwork.

I also knew a couple who couldn't afford to marry here because they didn't have money for a licence. It would have been a bad match anyway.

This is without going into the cultural side. The average wedding here costs £20,000, and it tends to be the women who want to spend the money. Catering, venues all the rest. I know someone who had a fancy wedding divorced two years later. Western society breeds this need for expensive weddings among women.

A lot of men feel legally threatened by marriage. That's another reason. I know I do. I could marry someone then she would divorce me and bankrupt me completely because the law would be on her side. This happened to my own father.
What nationality was the "foreigner" your ward member married in the US?
Filipino. Go figure. But they've both done it all by the book, multiple documents from both parties.

I've joked with him that if he brought her in illegally then it would have been plainer sailing. He agrees. In fact, I've talked about this with several immigrants in the ward and there is resentment among some of them that if you come in the proper way, you can get worse treatment than someone who comes in illegally.

We saw this recently with Brexit. Whatever 9ne's views on it, there have been some ridiculous anomalies. One of our stake members is German, married to a local, naturalised, integrated, fluent in English and with two adult Scottish children. Immigration has been chasing after her, although she too has always been above board. She has barely used the NHS apart from the dentist, so she has little paper trail. I think hundreds of people could write her a character reference including me.

It's kind of ridiculous - if you're Ukrainian or Syrian, you'd get given a house and benefits, and if you're a terrorist, they let you stay due to having a cat (which happened).... but if you're a foreigner and abide by the rules, they cause you hassle.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2540
Location: Reality

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by tmac »

Gadianton Slayer wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:38 am
tmac wrote: May 1st, 2022, 9:00 pm Now see if you can find anything that can actually be attributed to God about fornication.

Prophets and scribes from start to finish have always had their own opinions, on a variety of subjects, just as they do now.
Well, you claimed that the scriptures say very little about fornication. I showed several examples that do… would you like more?
The vast majority of thoughts on this subject are nothing more than personal opinions.

What has God actually said on the subject?

And what was His very first commandment to mankind when His first mortal children entered "the World"?

Think about it -- what are God's very highest objectives and priorities?

In His hierarchy of commandments, which have the highest priority, and what is the corresponding gravity of "sin"?

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11221
Location: England

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Robin Hood »

Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:44 am
Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:09 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 6:45 am
ransomme wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 5:00 am

To marry is not complicated. Whatever is customary to let others know that two are married sufficeth.
Depends.

I know someone in our ward who was recently married over in the USA to a foreigner and the British authorities won't recognise it despite him and her producing heaps of relevant paperwork.

I also knew a couple who couldn't afford to marry here because they didn't have money for a licence. It would have been a bad match anyway.

This is without going into the cultural side. The average wedding here costs £20,000, and it tends to be the women who want to spend the money. Catering, venues all the rest. I know someone who had a fancy wedding divorced two years later. Western society breeds this need for expensive weddings among women.

A lot of men feel legally threatened by marriage. That's another reason. I know I do. I could marry someone then she would divorce me and bankrupt me completely because the law would be on her side. This happened to my own father.
What nationality was the "foreigner" your ward member married in the US?
Filipino. Go figure. But they've both done it all by the book, multiple documents from both parties.

I've joked with him that if he brought her in illegally then it would have been plainer sailing. He agrees. In fact, I've talked about this with several immigrants in the ward and there is resentment among some of them that if you come in the proper way, you can get worse treatment than someone who comes in illegally.

We saw this recently with Brexit. Whatever 9ne's views on it, there have been some ridiculous anomalies. One of our stake members is German, married to a local, naturalised, integrated, fluent in English and with two adult Scottish children. Immigration has been chasing after her, although she too has always been above board. She has barely used the NHS apart from the dentist, so she has little paper trail. I think hundreds of people could write her a character reference including me.

It's kind of ridiculous - if you're Ukrainian or Syrian, you'd get given a house and benefits, and if you're a terrorist, they let you stay due to having a cat (which happened).... but if you're a foreigner and abide by the rules, they cause you hassle.
The Gernan in your ward obviously didn't register for residency when EU citizens were asked to do so. The government embarked on a long advertising campaign to encourage EU nationals to do so, but many didn't. The criticism was that the public info adverts were in English and many migrants couldn't understand. That doesn't appear to be the case with your fluent English-speaking friend.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8010

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Niemand »

Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 8:01 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:44 am
Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:09 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 6:45 am

Depends.

I know someone in our ward who was recently married over in the USA to a foreigner and the British authorities won't recognise it despite him and her producing heaps of relevant paperwork.

I also knew a couple who couldn't afford to marry here because they didn't have money for a licence. It would have been a bad match anyway.

This is without going into the cultural side. The average wedding here costs £20,000, and it tends to be the women who want to spend the money. Catering, venues all the rest. I know someone who had a fancy wedding divorced two years later. Western society breeds this need for expensive weddings among women.

A lot of men feel legally threatened by marriage. That's another reason. I know I do. I could marry someone then she would divorce me and bankrupt me completely because the law would be on her side. This happened to my own father.
What nationality was the "foreigner" your ward member married in the US?
Filipino. Go figure. But they've both done it all by the book, multiple documents from both parties.

I've joked with him that if he brought her in illegally then it would have been plainer sailing. He agrees. In fact, I've talked about this with several immigrants in the ward and there is resentment among some of them that if you come in the proper way, you can get worse treatment than someone who comes in illegally.

We saw this recently with Brexit. Whatever 9ne's views on it, there have been some ridiculous anomalies. One of our stake members is German, married to a local, naturalised, integrated, fluent in English and with two adult Scottish children. Immigration has been chasing after her, although she too has always been above board. She has barely used the NHS apart from the dentist, so she has little paper trail. I think hundreds of people could write her a character reference including me.

It's kind of ridiculous - if you're Ukrainian or Syrian, you'd get given a house and benefits, and if you're a terrorist, they let you stay due to having a cat (which happened).... but if you're a foreigner and abide by the rules, they cause you hassle.
The Gernan in your ward obviously didn't register for residency when EU citizens were asked to do so. The government embarked on a long advertising campaign to encourage EU nationals to do so, but many didn't. The criticism was that the public info adverts were in English and many migrants couldn't understand. That doesn't appear to be the case with your fluent English-speaking friend.
That was the registration stuff. And it is something else when a German of all people thinks it was bureaucratic. She had to get her dentist and optician to say she was bona fide. But they were ready to deport a respectable immigrant of around thirty years, married to a local, while those who incite violence or come in illegally seem to get an easier ride.

You can bet that a lot of the Ukrainians coming in just now will have little to no documentation, and some will say their papers/ID were destroyed in the war. In some cases it may be the truth. No one will bat an eyelid.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11221
Location: England

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Robin Hood »

Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 8:06 am
Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 8:01 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:44 am
Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:09 am

What nationality was the "foreigner" your ward member married in the US?
Filipino. Go figure. But they've both done it all by the book, multiple documents from both parties.

I've joked with him that if he brought her in illegally then it would have been plainer sailing. He agrees. In fact, I've talked about this with several immigrants in the ward and there is resentment among some of them that if you come in the proper way, you can get worse treatment than someone who comes in illegally.

We saw this recently with Brexit. Whatever 9ne's views on it, there have been some ridiculous anomalies. One of our stake members is German, married to a local, naturalised, integrated, fluent in English and with two adult Scottish children. Immigration has been chasing after her, although she too has always been above board. She has barely used the NHS apart from the dentist, so she has little paper trail. I think hundreds of people could write her a character reference including me.

It's kind of ridiculous - if you're Ukrainian or Syrian, you'd get given a house and benefits, and if you're a terrorist, they let you stay due to having a cat (which happened).... but if you're a foreigner and abide by the rules, they cause you hassle.
The Gernan in your ward obviously didn't register for residency when EU citizens were asked to do so. The government embarked on a long advertising campaign to encourage EU nationals to do so, but many didn't. The criticism was that the public info adverts were in English and many migrants couldn't understand. That doesn't appear to be the case with your fluent English-speaking friend.
That was the registration stuff. And it is something else when a German of all people thinks it was bureaucratic. She had to get her dentist and optician to say she was bona fide. But they were ready to deport a respectable immigrant of around thirty years, married to a local, while those who incite violence or come in illegally seem to get an easier ride.

You can bet that a lot of the Ukrainians coming in just now will have little to no documentation, and some will say their papers/ID were destroyed in the war. In some cases it may be the truth. No one will bat an eyelid.
No, there must be more to this story. There is no way she could live in the UK for years, be married to a Brit, give birth to and raise children, pay taxes, own or rent property etc, and struggle with the online registration form. I know many Poles that had no problem with it. Something is missing from this story.

anonymous91
captain of 100
Posts: 438

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by anonymous91 »

Wolfwoman wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 3:12 am As discussed briefly on another thread, birth control has vastly changed our society. Take birth control methods away for a second. Now, if you have premarital sex, you had better be prepared to take care of any children that come from your sexual experiences. That is the seriousness of sex, and why it's best to only do it with the person you're married to.

Now there are interesting stories in the Bible, like Tamar and Judah. They were not married, but apparently he was in the wrong much more than she was, because she was trying to fulfill the law to multiply and replenish the earth.

Take a look at the original D&C section 101 on marriage. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... s-1835/259

Marriage should be performed publicly. This is to celebrate with your family and friends, but also to show them and everyone publicly that you are married. And can now engage in sexual relations legally and create children and all of that.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. :)

I completely agree with this ideally. The Catch-22 is to find someone who is compatible with you, and that both of you will ultimately be happy.

Unfortunately, I've seen miserable marriages and divorces that have happened because of incompatibility in showing affection, including sex. When you put someone that wants daily affection (kisses, hugging, etc) and expects regular sex from their partner, with someone who is not at all affectionate and thinks that once every couple of months is cool for sex, just to get it over with, that's a recipe for disaster.

One question, is how do young people navigate this issue while retaining their virginity? Further compounding this situation, is that the church keeps making any acts of affection taboo outside of the bonds of marriage. Just recently at BYU there was a talk encouraging the young people to ask their dates if it is alright to kiss them, talk about killing the mood. During my lifetime they constantly railed against necking, petting or anything that even came close to it.

Some young people in the church today, decide the best avenue is to not even show any affection, and save that for marriage. The church is responsible for scaring young people away from little to any affection prior to marriage.

So, that really leaves young men and women at the mercy of fate to choose a compatible partner. That's just one issue that young people are facing when getting married today.

Now, they have to deal with a whole host of other issues that were recently created, such as:

- Vetting your partner to see if they agree that LGBT+ is a sin. That it should not be condoned, embraced or encouraged. Too many young people think there is nothing wrong with this lifestyle, and buy into all of the lies. There are too many people that believe that this is not a sin, and crazy enough think that God made them that way. SMH

- Vetting people that willingly give up their personal freedoms when they go along with every whim from the arm of flesh. We've seen this during this plandemic. People wearing masks, taking a so-called vaccine, booster shots and didn't even ask why, just went along with the show. There were also those that mocked, ridiculed, and shamed those of us that refused to go along with the monkey show.

- Seeing where that person's faith is rooted. Is it rooted on the rock of Christ, building a strong foundation. So, that when the winds of change come, they won't be swept away. Is it instead based on the LDS organization, indoctrination from weekly repetition, faith-based on the arm of flesh (i.e. Follow the Prophet). So, when the LDS organization announces some insane doctrine that obviously goes against everything you believe in, where will you end up?

Those that have their faith firmly bound to Christ, will not be affected. We will be disappointed, that this is the direction that the LDS organization chooses to go in, but we also can acknowledge that this is foretold in the scriptures. Our faith is solid and is not based on the arm of flesh. On the other hand, when you base it on an imperfect organization (CoJCoLDS) and imperfect men then when the winds come (as they inevitably will), you are going to experience your entire world collapse. When this happens, many people just decide to throw out religion altogether and claim to be an atheist. Seen it happen to many times.

Not to mention a few other obvious issues today. Such as feminism, the liberal agenda, emasculation of men, doing away with traditional roles in marriage, abuse in marriages (both male & female can be the aggressor), and on and on it goes.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is making marriage so difficult in today's world. Satan is doing his best to sow contention everywhere he can. The nuclear family is constantly under attack. There is also a constant effort to divide us against our neighbors, be that through any and all means necessary. It is truly sad that we live in a world where people are literally proud (yet another sin) to identify as their sin, yet deny who they truly are, sons and daughters of God.
Last edited by anonymous91 on May 2nd, 2022, 10:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8010

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Niemand »

Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 8:10 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 8:06 am
Robin Hood wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 8:01 am
Niemand wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:44 am

Filipino. Go figure. But they've both done it all by the book, multiple documents from both parties.

I've joked with him that if he brought her in illegally then it would have been plainer sailing. He agrees. In fact, I've talked about this with several immigrants in the ward and there is resentment among some of them that if you come in the proper way, you can get worse treatment than someone who comes in illegally.

We saw this recently with Brexit. Whatever 9ne's views on it, there have been some ridiculous anomalies. One of our stake members is German, married to a local, naturalised, integrated, fluent in English and with two adult Scottish children. Immigration has been chasing after her, although she too has always been above board. She has barely used the NHS apart from the dentist, so she has little paper trail. I think hundreds of people could write her a character reference including me.

It's kind of ridiculous - if you're Ukrainian or Syrian, you'd get given a house and benefits, and if you're a terrorist, they let you stay due to having a cat (which happened).... but if you're a foreigner and abide by the rules, they cause you hassle.
The Gernan in your ward obviously didn't register for residency when EU citizens were asked to do so. The government embarked on a long advertising campaign to encourage EU nationals to do so, but many didn't. The criticism was that the public info adverts were in English and many migrants couldn't understand. That doesn't appear to be the case with your fluent English-speaking friend.
That was the registration stuff. And it is something else when a German of all people thinks it was bureaucratic. She had to get her dentist and optician to say she was bona fide. But they were ready to deport a respectable immigrant of around thirty years, married to a local, while those who incite violence or come in illegally seem to get an easier ride.

You can bet that a lot of the Ukrainians coming in just now will have little to no documentation, and some will say their papers/ID were destroyed in the war. In some cases it may be the truth. No one will bat an eyelid.
No, there must be more to this story. There is no way she could live in the UK for years, be married to a Brit, give birth to and raise children, pay taxes, own or rent property etc, and struggle with the online registration form. I know many Poles that had no problem with it. Something is missing from this story.
The problem was that she was a stay at home mother and rarely used the NHS. Apparently they want a big paper trail, proof the person has been domiciled in this country all the time etc... a lot of documentation for practically

She did get it sorted out after a while, but it was very complex.

Immigration in the UK is full of double standards. I think they can catch up to you if you are resident in the same area for a long time.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:57 am
Gadianton Slayer wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:38 am
tmac wrote: May 1st, 2022, 9:00 pm Now see if you can find anything that can actually be attributed to God about fornication.

Prophets and scribes from start to finish have always had their own opinions, on a variety of subjects, just as they do now.
Well, you claimed that the scriptures say very little about fornication. I showed several examples that do… would you like more?
The vast majority of thoughts on this subject are nothing more than personal opinions.

What has God actually said on the subject?

And what was His very first commandment to mankind when His first mortal children entered "the World"?

Think about it -- what are God's very highest objectives and priorities?

In His hierarchy of commandments, which have the highest priority, and what is the corresponding gravity of "sin"?
I'm curious to get your take on this from the Savior:

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.

User avatar
Wolfwoman
captain of 100
Posts: 257

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Wolfwoman »

anonymous91 wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 9:55 am
Wolfwoman wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 3:12 am As discussed briefly on another thread, birth control has vastly changed our society. Take birth control methods away for a second. Now, if you have premarital sex, you had better be prepared to take care of any children that come from your sexual experiences. That is the seriousness of sex, and why it's best to only do it with the person you're married to.

Now there are interesting stories in the Bible, like Tamar and Judah. They were not married, but apparently he was in the wrong much more than she was, because she was trying to fulfill the law to multiply and replenish the earth.

Take a look at the original D&C section 101 on marriage. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... s-1835/259

Marriage should be performed publicly. This is to celebrate with your family and friends, but also to show them and everyone publicly that you are married. And can now engage in sexual relations legally and create children and all of that.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. :)

I completely agree with this ideally. The Catch-22 is to find someone who is compatible with you, and that both of you will ultimately be happy.

Unfortunately, I've seen miserable marriages and divorces that have happened because of incompatibility in showing affection, including sex. When you put someone that wants daily affection (kisses, hugging, etc) and expects regular sex from their partner, with someone who is not at all affectionate and thinks that once every couple of months is cool for sex, just to get it over with, that's a recipe for disaster.

One question, is how do young people navigate this issue while retaining their virginity? Further compounding this situation, is that the church keeps making any acts of affection taboo outside of the bonds of marriage. Just recently at BYU there was a talk encouraging the young people to ask their dates if it is alright to kiss them, talk about killing the mood. During my lifetime they constantly railed against necking, petting or anything that even came close to it.

Some young people in the church today, decide the best avenue is to not even show any affection, and save that for marriage. The church is responsible for scaring young people away from little to any affection prior to marriage.

So, that really leaves young men and women at the mercy of fate to choose a compatible partner. That's just one issue that young people are facing when getting married today.

Now, they have to deal with a whole host of other issues that were recently created, such as:

- Vetting your partner to see if they agree that LGBT+ is a sin. That it should not be condoned, embraced or encouraged. Too many young people think there is nothing wrong with this lifestyle, and buy into all of the lies. There are too many people that believe that this is not a sin, and crazy enough think that God made them that way. SMH

- Vetting people that willingly give up their personal freedoms when they go along with every whim from the arm of flesh. We've seen this during this plandemic. People wearing masks, taking a so-called vaccine, booster shots and didn't even ask why, just went along with the show. There were also those that mocked, ridiculed, and shamed those of us that refused to go along with the monkey show.

- Seeing where that person's faith is rooted. Is it rooted on the rock of Christ, building a strong foundation. So, that when the winds of change come, they won't be swept away. Is it instead based on the LDS organization, indoctrination from weekly repetition, faith-based on the arm of flesh (i.e. Follow the Prophet). So, when the LDS organization announces some insane doctrine that obviously goes against everything you believe in, where will you end up?

Those that have their faith firmly bound to Christ, will not be affected. We will be disappointed, that this is the direction that the LDS organization chooses to go in, but we also can acknowledge that this is foretold in the scriptures. Our faith is solid and is not based on the arm of flesh. On the other hand, when you base it on an imperfect organization (CoJCoLDS) and imperfect men then when the winds come (as they inevitably will), you are going to experience your entire world collapse. When this happens, many people just decide to throw out religion altogether and claim to be an atheist. Seen it happen to many times.

Not to mention a few other obvious issues today. Such as feminism, the liberal agenda, emasculation of men, doing away with traditional roles in marriage, abuse in marriages (both male & female can be the aggressor), and on and on it goes.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what is making marriage so difficult in today's world. Satan is doing his best to sow contention everywhere he can. The nuclear family is constantly under attack. There is also a constant effort to divide us against our neighbors, be that through any and all means necessary. It is truly sad that we live in a world where people are literally proud (yet another sin) to identify as their sin, yet deny who they truly are, sons and daughters of God.
Even if you vet them before marriage, there's no guarantee that they won't change their mind after marriage. I've seen plenty of people change their religious beliefs, their political persuasion, their beliefs about LGBTQIAP, etc. after marriage. Heck, some people even come out as gay or they do sex change surgery AFTER they got married.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2540
Location: Reality

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by tmac »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 10:06 am
tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:57 am
Gadianton Slayer wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 7:38 am
tmac wrote: May 1st, 2022, 9:00 pm Now see if you can find anything that can actually be attributed to God about fornication.

Prophets and scribes from start to finish have always had their own opinions, on a variety of subjects, just as they do now.
Well, you claimed that the scriptures say very little about fornication. I showed several examples that do… would you like more?
The vast majority of thoughts on this subject are nothing more than personal opinions.

What has God actually said on the subject?

And what was His very first commandment to mankind when His first mortal children entered "the World"?

Think about it -- what are God's very highest objectives and priorities?

In His hierarchy of commandments, which have the highest priority, and what is the corresponding gravity of "sin"?
I'm curious to get your take on this from the Savior:

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.
That's exactly it. Christ specifically said adultery, but most Mormons don't seem to understand the difference.
Last edited by tmac on May 3rd, 2022, 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 11:45 am I'm curious to get your take on this from the Savior:

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit adultery;

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer none of these things to enter into your heart;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your cross, than that ye should be cast into hell.
That's exactly it. Christ specially said adultery, but most Mormons don't seem to understand the difference.
[/quote]
And you stopped at adultuery? No wonder we're so messed up.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2540
Location: Reality

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by tmac »

Yes, no wonder we're so messed up, and even Mormons have so little interest in procreation these days.

What red-blooded single young man does not look upon a beautiful, single maiden (as opposed to a "woman" which implies married) and does not lust after her? That is how God created him. To not have such thoughts and feelings would not be natural.

It's not Adultery unless he's lusting after a married woman, or a married man doing the lusting.

Contrary to popular misconception, we have no record that Christ has ever said that it is wrong for a single man to lust after a single woman. If He hadn't created males that way why would they ever get with females, marry, be fruitful and populate and replenish the earth?

Obviously Christ knew what He was talking about, and chose His words carefully. Clearly He understood what adultery was whether most Mormons understand the difference or not.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11231

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Original_Intent »

Usually, the moral lessons of the ages have survived for millennia for a reason. I believe we set those aside at our peril.

But marriage as a church or government authority speaking some words over us originated as a control mechanism. I believe there were many centuries of marriage being pretty informal, but binding. I think sleeping around, even as a single with other consenting singles is a bad idea and disrupting to society. Abortion being one of the more serious outcomes, but also many other harms to the two individuals involved, and to society as a whole.

I also think that if there were not a lot of societal taboos, we would have lots of 14-year-olds boinking and aborting any unwanted children.

I believe there was a time when our society in the U.S. and other places, there was at minimum an expectation that if a baby was created, the dad would "do the right thing" and marry the girl, and that both mother and father would make an honest effort at providing the child with as good of an upbringing as they were capable of providing. Fornication in such an environment is a lot different than fornicating with the expectation that any offspring will be aborted, or that men have a lot of "baby-mommas". I'm not defending ANY sex outside of marriage as OK, but there is a difference between whoredoms and sleeping with someone that you have a committed relationship to.

User avatar
Reluctant Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7798
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Contact:

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Reluctant Watchman »

tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 12:30 pm Yes, no wonder we're so messed up, and even Mormons have so little interest in procreation these days.

What red-blooded single young man does not look upon a beautiful, single maiden (as opposed to a "woman" which implies married) and does not lust after her? That is how God created him. To not have such thoughts and feelings would not be natural.

It's not Adultery unless he's lusting after a married woman, or a married man doing the lusting.

Contrary to popular misconception, we have no record that Christ has ever said that it is wrong for a single man to lust after a single woman. If He hadn't created males that way why would they ever get with females, marry, be fruitful and populate and replenish the earth?

Obviously Christ knew what He was talking about, and chose His words carefully. Clearly He understood what adultery was whether most Mormons understand the difference or not.
I'm a little surprised you can't differentiate between sexual attraction and lust. Nor the idea of abstinence.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3041

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Serragon »

First: No action is always immoral or moral. Even cutting off the head of a drunk man who is not threatening you is not always immoral.

Second: As is the case with many positions of the church, they have placed their morality on whether those with power and/or credentials authorized the activity. An example below:

Scenario 1: Two people elope against the wishes of their family. They go to Las Vegas and "get married" in secret with no ceremony and no celebration and without consent from their family. They then engage in sexual intimacy. The church recognizes this marriage and considers there to be no violation of the Law of Chastity.

Scenario 2: Two people in the US have courted for a while and have approval for marriage of all families involved. They have a ceremony where their vows are witnessed by all and a large celebration ensues. They do not get a license from the state where they live. They then engage in sexual intimacy. The church does not recognize this marriage and considers this a violation of the Law of Chastity.

Marriage is about vows, commitments, and family. Not about licenses.

User avatar
NeveR
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1122

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by NeveR »

I think loveless connection is a sin, whether licensed by temple marriage or not, and, as a corollary, a LOVING, faithful union of heart, soul and body is a marriage whether licensed or not.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2540
Location: Reality

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by tmac »

Reluctant Watchman wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 1:51 pm
tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 12:30 pm Yes, no wonder we're so messed up, and even Mormons have so little interest in procreation these days.

What red-blooded single young man does not look upon a beautiful, single maiden (as opposed to a "woman" which implies married) and does not lust after her? That is how God created him. To not have such thoughts and feelings would not be natural.

It's not Adultery unless he's lusting after a married woman, or a married man doing the lusting.

Contrary to popular misconception, we have no record that Christ has ever said that it is wrong for a single man to lust after a single woman. If He hadn't created males that way why would they ever get with females, marry, be fruitful and populate and replenish the earth?

Obviously Christ knew what He was talking about, and chose His words carefully. Clearly He understood what adultery was whether most Mormons understand the difference or not.
I'm a little surprised you can't differentiate between sexual attraction and lust. Nor the idea of abstinence.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but in the end God's opinion is the only one that really matters, and we have no record that He has ever addressed this issue.

We do know, from His own words, that one of His single highest priorities is to have as many physical bodies as possible procreated to provide mortal tabernacles for the spirits He has created.

I'm not sure many of us have a very good grasp of God's true priorities. If He was ultra-concerned about this, wouldn't He have said something more about it?

User avatar
Lexew1899
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3362
Location: USA

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Lexew1899 »

762X545 wrote: May 1st, 2022, 5:55 pm We don't teach our kids enough about it as it's been seen as some sort of taboo subject for too long.
Sexual reproduction is something you would think comes pretty naturally. Although you can read about stories from fertility experts that report some socially sheltered individuals don’t understand the basics. People copulating in the females belly button, urethra, etc. Typically they will ask people how they are having sex for this reason, to make sure they’re actually doing it correctly.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newswe ... %3Famp%3D1
There are well documented cases of this happening to many royal families throughout history also. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and King Leopold of Belgium. My wife said she read about this being more common among LDS couples decades ago. No one ever sat them down to tell them how it worked. Even people who just laid in bed together, thinking that was sex.

User avatar
tmac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2540
Location: Reality

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by tmac »

It definitely helps to grow up on a farm.

User avatar
Jamescm
captain of 100
Posts: 441

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Jamescm »

I've generally viewed such stories with skepticism. The pull is too strong, and the physical sensations are too consistent and focused. Put a boy and a girl together and they will figure it out before long, no matter how sheltered or uneducated. If it weren't the case, the Church and past societies wouldn't need such powerful restrictions and taboos against it. I can't say for sure about women, but there is a 0% chance that even the most testosterone-deprived pencil-neck boy isn't going to at least accidentally figure out that "sometimes that gets hard when I see girls" and "moving it when it's hard feels good". Things will slowly roll from there.

I think it's just stuff people make up to entertain other people and make them say "Wow! They must be really sheltered lol they don't even know how THAT works!"

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6337

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Sarah »

tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 5:48 pm
Reluctant Watchman wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 1:51 pm
tmac wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 12:30 pm Yes, no wonder we're so messed up, and even Mormons have so little interest in procreation these days.

What red-blooded single young man does not look upon a beautiful, single maiden (as opposed to a "woman" which implies married) and does not lust after her? That is how God created him. To not have such thoughts and feelings would not be natural.

It's not Adultery unless he's lusting after a married woman, or a married man doing the lusting.

Contrary to popular misconception, we have no record that Christ has ever said that it is wrong for a single man to lust after a single woman. If He hadn't created males that way why would they ever get with females, marry, be fruitful and populate and replenish the earth?

Obviously Christ knew what He was talking about, and chose His words carefully. Clearly He understood what adultery was whether most Mormons understand the difference or not.
I'm a little surprised you can't differentiate between sexual attraction and lust. Nor the idea of abstinence.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but in the end God's opinion is the only one that really matters, and we have no record that He has ever addressed this issue.

We do know, from His own words, that one of His single highest priorities is to have as many physical bodies as possible procreated to provide mortal tabernacles for the spirits He has created.

I'm not sure many of us have a very good grasp of God's true priorities. If He was ultra-concerned about this, wouldn't He have said something more about it?
Multiply and replenish the earth does not mean that each individual is commanded to have as many children as possible.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3560
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Durzan »

Original_Intent wrote: May 2nd, 2022, 1:31 pm Usually, the moral lessons of the ages have survived for millennia for a reason.
Yeah... propaganda! :P

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3560
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Durzan »

Jamescm wrote: May 3rd, 2022, 9:16 am I've generally viewed such stories with skepticism. The pull is too strong, and the physical sensations are too consistent and focused. Put a boy and a girl together and they will figure it out before long, no matter how sheltered or uneducated. If it weren't the case, the Church and past societies wouldn't need such powerful restrictions and taboos against it. I can't say for sure about women, but there is a 0% chance that even the most testosterone-deprived pencil-neck boy isn't going to at least accidentally figure out that "sometimes that gets hard when I see girls" and "moving it when it's hard feels good". Things will slowly roll from there.

I think it's just stuff people make up to entertain other people and make them say "Wow! They must be really sheltered lol they don't even know how THAT works!"
Maybe... maybe that particular guy was asexual. IE no sexual attraction whatsoever... It does happen.

User avatar
Jamescm
captain of 100
Posts: 441

Re: Posing a moral ethical question: is premarital 'love' ALWAYS a sin

Post by Jamescm »

I suppose more to the topic... Where is "marriage" supposed to begin at? A legal authority? What is the source of legal authority? According to the Lord, the Constitution of the United States is divinely inspired. By the Constitution, authority comes from the bottom and goes up, it doesn't come from the top. We have the right of association, which right comes from God and not someone in a white building with a round top surrounded with one-way streets. Why do the prophets of the Lord acquiesce to government leaders and not the people who form the source of their authority?

Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said that God “joined [Adam and Eve] as husband and wife. … Neither we nor any other mortal can alter this divine order of matrimony. It is not a human invention” [“Why Marriage, Why Family,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2015, 52].)

Side thought: The manual that came from sure spends a lot of time asserting how "equal" a husband and a wife are, but doesn't say much about unity, submission, faith in one another, families being blessed and directed by priesthood authority, or the need or reality of having a presiding head of household. It talks a lot about how "equal" they are, but not so much what each offers that the other lacks.

Governments do not license marriages because we need the government's permission to be married, they license marriages because we collectively realize that the social and economic benefits of marriage are real and worth being recognized, organized, and protected. But the right to be married comes straight from God to us.

This is not an attempt to justify pre-marital sexual activity, this is a question about Church consistency in the nature of marriage itself. If the Church only recognizes and encourages marriage according to government standards, it can not maintain a different definition or form of marriage from what government says marriage is. Again, this is not an attempt to justify marriage that is not between one adult man and one adult woman, this is a question about Church consistency in the nature of marriage itself.

Post Reply