I have tried asking this question of Mormons in several
different ways, but cannot get a straight answer.

Say there is a young unmarried Returned Missionary who
goes out on a date and ends up engaging in some inappropriate
touching (consensual) -- and later relieves his pent up
frustrations via "self abuse."

He has thus broken two "chastity" commandments -- and, if
he fails to repent, he has broken a third -- and if he takes
the sacrament unworthily, he has broken a fourth -- and if
he does not report the incident(s) in his next TR interview,
he has broken a fifth, etc. etc.

My question (never yet answered) has been: In Mormon theology
has that transgressor fallen all the way back to "zero" in
his Eternal Progression --- or, can he eventually repent and
reinstate himself "up the ladder" at his former status in
progressing to celestialization?

I know it sounds like a stupid question -- but I've never
even gotten so far, in conversations with Mormnons, as to have
them admit that such youthful indiscretions exist among the LDS.

???

UD

I'm failing to see what the first sin was, or the seond or third for that matter. You said the touching was consensual. No sin there. And anything you do when you are by yourself on your own time is nobody's business but yours.

Misfit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm failing to see what the first sin was, or the
> seond or third for that matter. You said the
> touching was consensual. No sin there. And
> anything you do when you are by yourself on your
> own time is nobody's business but yours.

Perhaps you are correct -- but I'm trying to determine the
official policy of the LDS Church.

If I'm not wrong, it would be breaking the law of chastity,
for an unmarried person to lustfully touch the private parts
of another LDS.

Or, maybe I'm wrong in that basic assumption.

I've asked similar questions of Mormons, and the sort of
answers I get are: "Our kids never masturbate" and "We keep
ourselves pure, for marriage."

That tells me nothing about their doctrine of Eternal Progression.

UD

If you repent, it did not happen. It's like system recovery on a computer. Download bad shit that ruins your computer and you can undo it with system recovery to go back to where you were the day before you downloaded the stuff.

In repentance therefore you do go back to where you were on the ladder of celestialization.

Cristina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you repent, it did not happen. It's like
> system recovery on a computer. Download bad shit
> that ruins your computer and you can undo it with
> system recovery to go back to where you were the
> day before you downloaded the stuff.
>
> In repentance therefore you do go back to where
> you were on the ladder of celestialization.


So during the TR interview, when the Bishop asks,
"Have you observed the law of chastity?" The member
can simply say "yes," no matter what was repented
of in private?

UD

[DISCLAIMER: I haven't been in a Mormon meeting for 25 years]

My understanding is that you can repent of somethings in private, but some sins are serious enough that they require confession to the bishop in order to repent. Chastity violations fit into that category as do anything that could result in a church court. So one could not truly repent of sexual sins without involving the bishop.

In response to your original question: my understanding is that if the person were to truly repent (according to the proper Morg procedure which might involve some sort of church discipline) he would return to his previous place on the ladder of celestialization.

The technicality is that some "sins" must be reported to the bishop for repentance to be adequate.

But from all I remember a sexual sin short of intercourse is not one that has to be reported. So repentance can take place in private. And you can repent of having lied. And then be asked in a temple recommend if you have kept the law of chastity and the answer is yes. But the TR question really isn't like that--the question is more to the effect of "do you keep the law of chastity" not have you ever not been chaste. So it's a present state question not a have you ever question. Another question is whether there is anything that you should have reported to the bishop that you have not. Technically, as I said, only major sins of intercourse, abortion, adultery have to be reported for repentance to be effective.


It's like having a crime expunged from your record. I've heard it even said that a girl can say she is a virgin because it really never happened even if the Holy Ghost has cleansed her of the sin.

The virgin thing I mentioned might have been confusing. I meant that also once you repent of something with a bishop's involvement, you can say forever to everyone else that it never happened.

Cristina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The virgin thing I mentioned might have been
> confusing. I meant that also once you repent of
> something with a bishop's involvement, you can say
> forever to everyone else that it never happened.

Perhaps it begins to explain why Mormons have told me,
"We keep ourselves pure for marriage" -- and "our kids
never masturbate." If repentance negates such acts,
then I suppose that those LDS were telling me the truth.

If the Holy Ghost flees away the moment an unmarried LDS
girl allows a boy to touch her intimately; then I suppose
the Holy Ghost returns in full strength after repentance,
and the young lady can honestly (?) say she has kept
herself pure for marriage.

Seems like a bit of a cover-up to this outsider, though.

I was given the impression that practically EVERY Mormon
kid arrives at marriage having never experienced orgasm,
nor even a lusty thought.

Have I been misled?

UD

My ex bf was Mormon - now serving his mission. He most certainly has experienced orgasm. By himself and with me. And I can tell you for damn sure that many of the Mormons I know do not practice 'chastity'. Mostly the males are the ones that break this rule. It's very rare I hear of a Mormon girl ever having acted unpure.

and who would want to!! :)
and i would even lick a previously licked cupcake....just put on some fresh frosting!! :)

Well I think he means by Mormon standards, because according to Mormons, there IS something wrong with all those things.

Although I personally say--- Who cares what Mormons have to say about any of that? None of it is true anyway!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 05:30PM by melissa3839.

melissa3839 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...Who cares what
> Mormons have to say about any of that?

I just wanted to get a straight answer -- since the policy
does not seem to be published anywhere, and the Mormons
keep giving me the run-around, when I ask such stuff.

UD

I agree with you Misfit, BUT he wasn't asking us what we think. He was asking what Mormons think and what the doctrine is.

So, the first "sin" was touching someone whom you're not married to. The second is relieving your sexual tension with rosy palm. The third, fourth, and fifth are not repenting, taking the sacrement unworthily, and lying in future TR interviews.

To answer that question as I understand it, that person is not Celestial worthy. Mormon doctrine teaches that sexual sin is only slightly less serious than murder. So if this person does not humble himself and submit to the churches formula for forgivness with the proper priesthood authority, then he is in trouble if he dies in his sins. Remember, if you even THINK about doing it, you are as guilty as if you have actually done it!

However, it also depends upon the individual bishop. I confessed similar "sins" to a bishop years ago and the only thing he was concerned with was "Did you engage in sexual intercourse?"

Then, on the other hand, I had a bishop ask me if I masturbate during an interview to attend a church dance.

But the official doctrine is ABSOLUTELY no sexual conduct or thoughts before marriage. After marriage ONLY with the person to whom you are married, and even then there are restrictions.

It's so ironic that a church that is so afraid of and obsessed with sex was all started by a creep so that he could cheat on his wife!

mormon411 Wrote:
...
> It's so ironic that a church that is so afraid of
> and obsessed with sex was all started by a creep
> so that he could cheat on his wife!

So I've been told --
But your answer provides me with the best info I've yet had.
The "transgressor" does indeed go back to level "zero," until
all the necessary repentance, etc. is carried out.

But that still leaves my greater question unanswered. Say that
the young fellow finally goes to his Bishop, confesses the
mutual petting, confesses the masturbation, confesses having
gone a long time without repenting, and confesses having
lied in his last TR interview.

At THAT point, does the Bishop simply tell the guy that he
is restored in his celestial progression, at his previous
level of achievement -- or, is he busted down to deacon and
made to work his way back up to elder, etc?

UD

These questions are governed by whatever policy is in the General Handbook the bishops use at the time it happens.

But Uncle Dale, masturbation is not one of those sins that has to be confessed. I have never heard it being in the list. I think the Miracle of Forgiveness used to list the sins that needed confession.

Masturbation is like smoking a cigarette, very, very bad, but not necessary to confess.

Young men are asked in interviews to make them feel bad but not placed on probation nor released of their priesthood. ANd consensual touching as I understand it is short of a violation of the law of chastity requiring release of the sin from the bishop.

The answer would be different if the facts were that he had intercourse. Then yes, he loses his priesthood or has it placed on hold for a time until the bishop feels his repentence is complete.

Otherwise the line outside the office would not allow time for helping the poor.

>
> Masturbation is like smoking a cigarette, very,
> very bad, but not necessary to confess.
>

Were you even Mormon? These two things, especially smoking cigarettes, were definitely considered serious enough for confession in interviews in my experience AND in everyone I knew. Bishops, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, often brought up masterbation. Smoking would have made you unworthy in callings, temple attendance, exercise of priesthood, etc. You would have had to confess that.

This isn't a cut and dried doctrinal question.

The reason, IMHO, you cannot get a serious answer is because the whole situation is in a mishmash and it's embarrassing for the TBMs to have to say it.

For example, I've noticed that the Plan of Salvation, when mapped out (and we've all seen these diagrams) is completely convoluted. There is no "my yoke is easy and my burden is light" in the Mormon Plan of Salvation. IN fact, there is no plan, you'll hear them refer back to local authorities for a "case by case" decision with those who are "more familiar with the individuals."

Which means, if you are a publisher of secret documents, the condom breaking is rape. If you are Joey Duh SmithYoung, they're only interested if you spilled seed in the sacred vault. In other words, it's political, kinda like the game of Life.

Imagine you have violated the Law of Chastity but have played your Repentence card and your conscience is clear. You can answer YES when asked if you are chaste, because it is very clear in canonized scripture that forgiven sins are wiped clean and "he remembers them no more."

So the question becomes, what constitutes a valid Repentence card for sexual "sin" (said touching if you are going to use their definitions). The Church of Jesus Christ would be all about what Jesus said about such things, right? Well, I believe he said, "He who is without sin throw the first stone" and he invalidated the harsh stoning death of an adulterous on the condition she went and sinned no more.

But that isn't good enough for the Brethren, no sir, they want details and they want the power to forgive without the time consumption required of Catholic priests who have to listen to housewives confessing to gossiping about the neighbors. Presumably, they only want the good stuff,i.e, impeachable stuff. Jesus didn't seem to want details at all...but he did take names. Their names, the hypocritical bastards.

I know you're looking for a logical answer as though there were a laddar to the CK, but it is political and it is subjective, and that's the truth. The Plan of Salvation is concentric circles which lead to insanity if you try to tease them into a "path" with the word logic involved anywhere.

Keep us posted on what you find and who tells it to you! Inquiring minds want to know!


Anagrammy

When I lived briefly in Utah Co., I noticed there were a lot of marriage notices in the paper for LDS teens/ya's, where the couple were both seminary grads, but not rm's.

I thot at the time, "these kids are prolly having sex, so didn't want to go on missions. But I also doubted that they were in the bishop's office, repenting their heads off, before their marriages. Maybe I'm wrong, but there seemed to be some community acceptance of seminary graduation as the new acceptable "bar setting" for LDS youth who were not so fanatical about the church.

So if I am right, and few of these young marriages started with a confession- and repentance-fest, then these youths were technically not forgiven. They prolly didn't care, cuz they were not real active anyway at that age.

But later, when their families began to grow, many of them would want to go back to church and become established as good LDS. The question in my mind was, did these couples THEN decide to confess or repent? I had to answer myself, in all honesty it is unlikely they would do so. Too many problems and headaches involved in that. If the bishops didn't push them to confess (and why should they open that can of worms, and risk offending all those kids' active LDS families), they prolly just started to become active again, and if allowed, they would become members in good standing and even receive temple recommends eventually.

Of course, the BIG problem is, that without the official repentance process, these couples would still be "in their sins". According to LDS doctrine, such corrupted saints are unworthy to hold positions or attend the temple.

My guess is that there are tens of thousands of such couples in the Utah church. Then add to that all the rm's that also never confessed their transgressions before or during their missions, and you have a very-unhappy-valley. Filled with corrupt, hypocritical saints, who do not have the "spirit of God". They would not have the pure "powers of the priesthood" to build the kingdom. So the kingdom would decline.

LDSInc., hung on their own petard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/12/2010 06:09PM by hello.

How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

One bishop would say, "dude, be careful. Don't do anything that would require a disciplinary counsel."

Another bishop would act like your eternal soul was damned, run you through all kinds of crap, and make sure you feel miserable about it all.

There are no definitive answers to your questions.

jpt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> There are no definitive answers to your questions.

Sigh! -- You must be right.

The last time I asked an LDS what the official Church doctrine
was, he told me to "Read the Standard Works, and then stay
tuned for any additional revelation from the Living Prophet..."

That did not answer any of my questions -- but it did shut me up.

UD

IIRC the language that they used was "certain sexual sins" require confession. Maybe I have forgotten already but that is what I remember. I assumed going all the way required confession and probably petting. But I wasn't always sure. I had BPs and SPs who asked if you had ever masturbated. Ever. So I assumed that it was one that required confession. But did that mean if you were a chronic masturbator you needed to confess but not if it was an occasional blip? I don't remember anyone talking about it openly or really defining the parameters.

As mentioned above, it seems to be a moving target...it also depends on the authority you are having the interview with, I had a bishop who wasn't that hung up on masturbation or light petting. If it became heavy petting then it was more involved. I also had one who was a Nazi about everything. If you were trying to go on a mission then the standard became even more picky. I am sure these "standards" also have changed a lot with time. In my day, if you had done any heavy petting before a mission, you might have to visit with a GA. If you had gone all the way, you definitely had to see a GA and confess. I doubt if they did that for average folk, but for prospective missionaries they did.

Maybe there are so many kids in Utah having sex now there aren't enough authorities to hear the confessions. They are too busy analyzing real estate deals and answering questions from the members. ;)

Question: They always tell us we shouldn’t become sexually involved, but they never tell us the limits. What are they?

Answer: Any sexual intimacy outside of the bonds of marriage—I mean any intentional contact with the sacred, private parts of another’s body, with or without clothing—is a sin and is forbidden by God. It is also a transgression to intentionally stimulate these emotions within your own body.10
. . . . . . . . . .

Question: How do you go about repenting if a sexual sin is committed? What sins should you tell the bishop? UAdd a Note

Answer: All of the sexual transgressions we have discussed require sincere repentance with the participation of the bishop. Should you have done any of this, repent now.

http://lds.org/liahona/1997/09/serious-questions-serious-answers?lang=eng

So glad I don't belong to that mess anymore.

Once you've been through the temple, if you commit any of those moral sins that have been mentioned above you may go through the repentance steps but you will always - ALWAYS - have a little check mark next to your name if you are going to be considered for future church leadership positions.

I have a friend who went back for a TR after not having one for several years and the Stake Presidency STILL remembered after several years a past legal incident he had been involved in (non church related) that caused the SP to seriously consider not granting the TR.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2010 09:06AM by kookoo4kokaubeam.

I think there are at least three reasons you can't get an answer to your question from Mormons. First, most Mormons have next to no understanding of the theology of their own religion. Those people don't know what you are asking.

Second, I think your question is a bit flawed theologically, and therefore confusing. I don't think your assumption that eternal progression is strictly linear is correct, even in the nuttiest schools of nutty legalistic Mormonism. Furthermore, and I can't believe I'm even bothering to say this because the theology is so stupid and nonsensical, (and maybe you understand this - I just can't tell by your question) the concept of attaining celestial glory and the concept of eternal progression are related, but separate. By definition, the process of eternal progression will continue for those who reach celestial glory.

Third, and most importantly, Mormons have a very strong cultural and religious sensitivity to discussing "past transgressions." Doing so is highly discouraged by church leaders. Both leaders and the culture in general strongly encourage Mormons to maintain an image of perfection, especially to non-Mormons. Because of this, talking about youthful indiscretions makes Mormons very uncomfortable.

If nobody reports it, then it didn't happen. If a tree falls in the woods with nobody around, does it still make a sound?

Ron

I may be missing something, but some of these comments don't make sense to me. Maybe its because it is in regards to Mormon specific extra rules or something.

{Quote} there is a young unmarried Returned Missionary who
goes out on a date and ends up engaging in some inappropriate
touching (consensual) -- and later relieves his pent up
frustrations via "self abuse." {End Quote}

The first thing mentioned is inappropriate touching. I am assuming that you are referring to making out touching breasts, ect. Technically this is not breaking the law of chastity because the two people described here are not involved in sexual intercourse or oral sex which would fall into the realm of fornication according to the scriptures. Technically there is no Bible scriptures that speak out against making out or copping(sp) a feel or kissing. I would point out that in the New Testament Jesus clearly stated that "if you look upon a woman to lust after her then you have committed adultery already in your heart" and that would be something that would be necessary to repent about.

This is something that I have some knowledge about because I used to be an assistant Pastor of a Christian Church.

I don't worry about these things anymore as a Agnostic.

Biblically there is no rule or commandment against masturbation and no Pastor or Christian leader would even ask you about it. Except perhaps the more extreme conservative ones.

he can eventually repent and reinstate himself "up the ladder" at his former status in progressing to celestialization.

This can happen even if he is excommunicated from the church. If he follows the repentence process as outlined by his bishop he can have all temple blessings reinstated and pick up where he left off.
The only sexual sins that need to be reported to the bishop are those commited with another person. The discipline for such things can vary greatly depending on the circumstances, the age of the member, and his leadership position in the church. These things are handled on a case by case basis.
The only time a member should not take the sacrament is if his bishop has specifically told him not to. Otherwise he can decide for himself whether or not to take it.