I already posted this on the board, but I kind of wanted - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Black Diamond Bay · 12-28-2007, 09:12 PM

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?

12-28-2007, 09:12 PM	#1
Black Diamond Bay Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: California Posts: 1,000	I already posted this on the board, but I kind of wanted 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?