Sexual sin outside of marriage

Frankly your problem seems to be (or maybe it’s just your boyfriend’s problem) that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want there to be a temple wedding without doing what’s necessary to get there – but what you need to do is somewhat clouded by your point of view. Simply put, you and your potential husband can’t expect to be not living the law of chastity and get married in the temple, and to remain abstinent is likely not a goal based in reality.

I like Ray’s three options, and would also not recommend #3 – but it is your choice. The first option presents you with the challenge of shaking what you might perceive as an ironclad law or rule of the church. Truth is, the scriptures don’t really talk about any prescribed length of time for repentance. Repentance is really between you and God. So, as Ray says, if you can shake that idea that you need to be celibate for a year to be worthy of the temple and can remain celibate for more than a few days, you can be worthy to enter the temple much sooner than a year. Remember, the questions don’t ask if you have lived the law of chastity or tithing or whatever for any specific period of time – the question starts with “Do you….”

If you and your potential husband aren’t going to be able to wrap your heads around option one, then go for option 2. Seriously, your families probably suspect you’re not living the law of chastity – that’s why people get married so quickly in this church. IMO, it is an unrealistic goal for you to live the law of chastity for a year unless you have no physical or face-to-face contact in that time (which in itself is pretty unrealistic).

Finally, you can’t let strangers here make this decision for you. The decision really needs to be yours and his, not ours.

Incidentally, I would have given the first two of Ray’s options also. The main point of the law of chastity is to only create children in a committed relationship, in which both parents intend and covenant to be there for the duration (whether this pans out or not later). It’s one reason that in the middle ages, couples could have church-sanctioned sex (if not officially sanctioned, understood as acceptable in all local parishes) if they were betrothed and had a “handfast” marriage, meaning they promised to wed. That’s not to say it’s exactly right – handfast marriages were also cold comfort for the female if they never officially married afterward – but they were considered to be sufficiently committed not to qualify for fornication any more.

A lot of good advice here. It is really your decision and your boyfriends. Consequently, this decision is not also your parents or your best friends, your bishops, any of is here etc. you must make a realistic decision that you and your future husband can live with independently chosen outside of others or you could make the a hasty or unrealistic decision for the wrong reasons(other people) and regret it later inside of marriage. As marriage has vastly(and I do mean vastly changed since biblical times or even 200 years ago. The complexity of it is this. Women married(actually betrothals; a signed payment for the wife that was contractual in the law of the land for Jews but was considered married at that point before the ceremony and consummated at that point before the marriage ceremony) after puberty, as such for most of history there was no waiting period after puberty. So for most of human history there was no control with hormones because there was no need for it since you got married after puberty anyway.

Ariella Butler

Betrothal (eruvin) was done as early as three because it offered protections to the children under the law (they would not be lead into slavery with their parents, and several other things). The actual marriage (kiddushin) would not take place until they were both at the age of being able to have children, usually 14 for a girl. This was common age throughout the world, where most people did not live beyond age 35.

Nov 17, 2013

What it means is that now with people getting married much later after puberty we have conducted a very new social experiment that does some good but fails miserably the longer past puberty the person gets). 5 years is a good shot, 10-20 years after puberty that a person will wait on a wide cultural scale has never been carried out or successful by any culture.

This is to point out that there is a lot of good reasons for waiting but the longer a person gets past puberty the more harm then good it does. Hence a good reason to get married early, but a rushed marriage is even worse.

It’s your call, but I would not make the call based on what “others will think”. It’s you and your life and your boyfriends that You guys have to live with(not them).

I provided historical context so you can see the cholas he you face is far from unusual, it’s actually very very common even in LDS(since yes we are rather human too). People just don’t parade there shame, usually that’s gossip(something we shouldn’t do but sadly do).

There is no shame in getting civilly married first(regardless of what others might say). But it may or may not be the best avenue for you. If a couple really loves each other then a year of civil marriage isn’t going to change anything that wouldn’t have already changed without it.

The choice is yours and your boyfriends alone. Be respectful to each other and each other’s feelings, honestly talk about it together and go from there. These are just my own thoughts though, consider your own and your future husbands.

Best of wishes and prayers.

My wife is about as orthodox as it gets. When I explained this post to her, she said:

I would tell them to get married. They can work toward the temple. If they don’t get married, they might not ever make it to the temple.

1) Go ahead and plan a temple wedding and abstain from sex for a month or so. Don’t worry about confession, since you will be able to say you are following the Law of Chastity when you have the temple recommend interview. Seriously, if investigators are having sex and get married to be able to be baptized, they aren’t “punished” in any way for it after baptism – and the only reason they can’t be married in the temple immediately is to give them time to understand the covenants they will make there.

Of the three choices this would be my pick. It makes everyone happy, including you and your soon to be groom. Dont worry about the past. The whole point of repenting is that you can move on with your life. If i focused on all the terrible things i did before i repented, i probably couldnt get out of bed in the morning. Life is too short. Like Ray said, set a temple date SOON, abstain for a month or two, get married, and move on. If you have too much guilt to do this then get married civilly. Dont worry about others think, since they wont be part of your marriage. Focus on what you two want and communicate about it.

I’d get married civilly first, then wait the year for the temple… since any sex you have in that time is considered okay and doesn’t violate chastity.

Yes, Yes, And yes to the above.

A one year waiting period is not gospel doctrine. It is a guide and for good reason. But I know couples who have messed up and six months later were in the temple sealed. How? A bishop has discretion.

Can you show you are striving to live the gospel and making agreements with your loved one to avoid situations and show your bishop you are anxiously engaged with the goal to attend the temple? If so, without excuses, The Lord doesn’t require perfection, but a willing heart.

Don’t put more pressure on yourself or give yourself more lashes than needed.

Strive to be right with God. Not perfect. When you understand God’s plan, it helps put church rules in perspective, and also helps to discern between traditions (absolute 1 yr waiting period) with actual rules (sincere repentance).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk