Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 167812)

I would ask Friend A how many window's have been broken in his/her glass house throughout the course of his/her life.

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay (Post 167814)

For the record Friend A is my best friend, and friend A is not perfect, does not have a spotless past, and has dated many men with and without a tr. She is currently married to a man who does not have a spotless past. She has been telling me for years that marriage is hard, and it takes work, and when things get rough you want to be know that you have a spouse who keeps covenants and will stay and work through things, not someone who throws in the towell when the hard times come. Let me just be very clear that we are not the discussing the opinions of a self-righteous, unforgiving, judgmental woman.

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay (Post 167757)

to get the Guard's take on this as well.

How strict would you beon the temple recommend issue when dating? I had a very interesting discussion with two friends yesterday.
Friend A has always been a card carrying member, and is now married.

Friend B has been card carrying in the past, but now has turned into a bit of a Jack Mormon, and has never been married.

They are both in their mid-thirties.

Friend A believes that if someone does not have a TR they should immediately be dismissed as a worthwhile option. If at some point down the road they regain their TR at that point in time they MAY be considered a worthwhile option. However, Friend A believes that someone who has always had a TR should look for a companion without any kind of "history or baggage" to marry, and therefore the repentant suitor should still be denied consideration.

Friend B believes that not being a card carrying member is a yellow light, not a red light, and a series of questions should be presented to the individual in question, in order to ascertain why there is no current TR. Friend B believes that factors to take into consideration include:
Nature of the issue
Length of time sans a TR
Age of the individual in question
Degree of honesty and willingness to be open about the issue
Steps being taken to correct the problem
Friend B's conclusion is that unless the individual is doing nothing to address some very serious trangressions they should still be considered a viable option.

Friend A believes that there are people who keep covenants, and people that break them and if they're already breaking covenants, it's time to turn and run.

Friend B believes that good people sometimes break covenants, and are oft times looking for a reason or motivation to get things back on track and be who they really want to be.

I'm kind of torn on this one. I was completely unable to take a side on the matter. I can see both sides of the argument. So what's your take?

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay (Post 167757)

Friend A believes that someone who has always had a TR should look for a companion without any kind of "history or baggage" to marry, and therefore the repentant suitor should still be denied consideration.

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay (Post 167814)

For the record Friend A is my best friend, and friend A is not perfect, does not have a spotless past, and has dated many men with and without a tr. She is currently married to a man who does not have a spotless past. She has been telling me for years that marriage is hard, and it takes work, and when things get rough you want to be know that you have a spouse who keeps covenants and will stay and work through things, not someone who throws in the towell when the hard times come. Let me just be very clear that we are not the discussing the opinions of a self-righteous, unforgiving, judgmental woman.

Originally Posted by All-American (Post 167840)

I would say that it depends on the proximity of marriage in the relationship.

If a date is solely for the purpose of social interaction, the date need not even be a member of the church-- just somebody you'd get along with and have fun with. When narrowing the field, they ought to be fairly active, if not card-carrying. Once you are asking the terrible question "Should I marry this person or not," not only ought they to carry a recommend, but they should also have given sufficient demonstration that they have what it takes to make a marriage last for eternity.

Incidentally, if you were to gloss over a few details, I would say that I've dated both Friend A and B. I had suspected things wouldn't work out with Friend A well before they didn't, and I am still dating Friend B. Not a coincidence.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 167859)

This was the standard answer but now, there seems to be a silent creep in advice given. If after you pass through the optimal years for marriage the newer advice, and in my opinion sounder advice, is to recommend finding a compatible mate, member or not.

If you can have a good person as a mate, that is preferrable to being unmarried.

Originally Posted by SteelBlue (Post 167830)

This does not compute. Is she saying "don't do what I did"? Or did you just overstate her opinion initially?