DiscussMormonism.com

Hi all,

I could ask my bishop this question, but I want to know sooner than later...
I was engaged earlier this year to a man whom was a returned missionary, but had not attended the temple for at least 10 years. We were sleeping together and had planned on a civil ceremony.
Long story short, I broke up with him less than 9 months ago (at which time we were sleeping together), and I found out that he got married last week and it was a temple marriage.
Was he lying through his teeth to get a temple recommend? Or could he possibly have been considered temple worthy in such a short amount of time?
This has really been bothering me...

Eh, he probably lied.

Don't worry about him anymore.

Not worried about him, just curious as to what the rules are. I'm a member of the church, but have never attended the temple.

Was he lying through his teeth to get a temple recommend?

Seems possible based only on the information given. Fornication after having served a mission (it's not the mission, it's the temple covenants, the mission being an exacerbating factor) even though there has been a period of years of inactivity usually results in disfellowshipment at the least. Notice that I am assuming inactivity which means not going to Church much in addition to not attending the temple.

It really is up to the Bishop, but assuming he confessed his sin with you to the Bishop, it is possible the Bishop may consider ten years of inactivity long enough to think that he was sinning against a "lesser light" after that time. In addition, while a year of disfellowshipment or other penalty may have been prescribed, nine months is often long enough for good behavior during that time. Usually, "good behavior" is not communicated until the Bishop feels the time is right. Your ex could have planned a temple marriage in a year but moved up the date the instant his disfellowshipment was removed.

So if your ex was honest and repentant, I'd say the time frame involved is on the very bleeding edge of possibility. Ultimately though, it's none of anyone's business and yes, such things will vary somewhat from Bishop to Bishop and from Stake to Stake and from circumstance to circumstance. So your Bishop will not be able to answer to your satisfaction with regards to the particulars of your ex's case and no, every case will not be treated the same across the board. But he will be able to answer as to the particulars of your own case should you choose to do so.

Repentance from fornication typically takes about a year. So it really could've been either way, in my opinion. If he just came back to the church, then chances are they wouldn't want to lose him again and just gave him a "free pass," more-or-less, for what happened when he was inactive.

On the other hand, if he had been an active, churchgoing member (as opposed to a recommend holder), then yeah, chances are good (but not quite 100%) that he fudged the truth.

Dr. Shades wrote:Repentance from fornication typically takes about a year. ..

it should be noted that the "one year" is measured from the actual transgression, not confession of the transgression (per handbook of instructions). And the one year is typically reserved for a "serious" transgression whereas some calendars might see 3 years.
However, ultimately it is the determination of the Bishop and/or Stake President.
So, while it is possible that he may have been less-than-truthful with the church authority, it is also possible, and likely, that he was completely honest and 9 months or so was deemed sufficient due to other circumstances.

What's interesting to me is that he was given a recommend approximately 6 months after we had been together. I know this because he told me he had a disciplinary counsel and then a week later he attended the temple with his new fiancé. The actual temple marriage didn't happen until a few months after he was given the go ahead.

ekate wrote:What's interesting to me is that he was given a recommend approximately 6 months after we had been together. I know this because he told me he had a disciplinary counsel and then a week later he attended the temple with his new fiancé. The actual temple marriage didn't happen until a few months after he was given the go ahead.

like i said, it is possible that he was less than honest but it is possible, and permitted by the handbook, that an exception was made and/or his repentance was deemed appropriate.
As it also possible that the circumstances are not exactly as you portray them...not to insult you, but rather to accentuate the idea that there are not enough "facts in evidence" for a more determined response.
I agree with the above poster which encourages you to forget about him and the situation, your involvement with him may influence your judgment without cause.

You don't have to believe that what I'm telling you is factual or not, but that's why I posted the question. I wanted answers to questions I had about temple worthiness and the rules that go with it. I don't know because I have never had a temple recommend, not because I have always been unworthy, but because I have never sought after one.

ekate wrote:You don't have to believe that what I'm telling you is factual or not, but that's why I posted the question. I wanted answers to questions I had about temple worthiness and the rules that go with it. I don't know because I have never had a temple recommend, not because I have always been unworthy, but because I have never sought after one.

Is he related to someone fairly high up the church food chain? Relatives of Mormon royalty often aren't held to the same standard as everyone else.