« The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 6: The Value of Time | Main | The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 8: Discrimination and 'Acceptability' »
The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 7: The "A Implies B" Fallacy
[Previous posts in the series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6]
Many have put forward the suggestion that young women (and young men, too), when reaching marriageable age should write down specifically which things they are looking for in a mate, seal it up, and look at it again only when they are seriously considering marrying someone to see how they match up.
This suggestion is fine...except for the obvious problem that in order to do this, you first need to decide exactly what it is you want in your future spouse. Let's discuss this question next--specifically, let's discuss a trap to avoid: The "A implies B" logical fallacy.
No...but let me ask you another question: Why do you want to marry someone who's served a mission?
Okay, then...why don't you write those down, instead?
One of the dangers in picking 'requirements' for your spouse is the "A implies B" fallacy, where what you really want is B, but you list A instead, because you think that A equals B in each and every case.
You cannot assume that the 'bad' missionaries get weeded out by (a) not going on a mission in the first place, or (b) being sent home early, and thus whomever gets off the plane in the end is the 'cream of the crop'. Most 'bad' missionaries don't do anything bad enough to get sent home (which is totally at the discretion of the mission president, anyway--and many never send missionaries home), but that doesn't mean that completing the two year term automatically gives them the qualities of a worthy husband.
And, of course, the other side of the coin is there are many guys who have not served a mission but fulfill all of the above 'requirements'. One of the most Christ-like guys I ever met was the fiancé of a friend of mine who, at 24, hadn't served a mission due to a serious bout with cancer in high school, but you could literally feel his testimony and spirit every time he opened his mouth. Any girl who crossed him off her list as a unsuitable marriage candidate because he "wasn't an RM" would be extraordinarily stupid. (He's married now, obviously, so that doesn't matter...but there are many others like him...)
Next: The difference between what you 'want' and what you're 'willing to accept'...
January 14, 2005 in Essays | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/18231/1671467
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 7: The "A Implies B" Fallacy:
Comments
I think my Mom's idyllic vision of my future involved me marrying a woman returned missionary who was from an LDS family. My Mom is a returned missionary so she's a little biased on this matter.
My mission president (at the end of my mission) asked me to create a list of things I wanted in my future wife and also to designate a time by which I wished to be married. This exercise immediately seemed a bit artificial to me. I knew I hadn't dated enough to know much about the opposite sex or a meaningful relationship. And I didn't want to feel compelled to get married by a specific deadline.
I fulfilled the assignment but I knew I'd never view that list as a strict compass on the matter. I ended up getting married almost a decade later to a pre-med Chinese-American convert to the Church. I never could have predicted the way things happened or the specific type of person I'd marry. Consequently I'm glad I wasn't trying to follow strict and utterly specific details about my future wife as I was dating.
Posted by: danithew | Jan 14, 2005 1:23:12 PM
I think a good exercise would be to write the list, seal it up, and instead of opening it before you marry, open it with your spouse a couple of years after you've been married, and point out all of the ways in which your companion falls short.
Posted by: gst | Jan 14, 2005 1:30:48 PM
I should have added that my wife found the list my mission president made me write. She laughed about it because she's almost nothing like the person I described. Fortunately I knew that even when I was writing that list.
I also remember stealing one of the so-called wifely characteristics from a fellow missionary's list. He wrote that his future wife should be "adventurous." That sounded good so I added it to my list -- without having any clue as to what that was supposed to mean. Maybe I should have asked him what he meant by that one.
Posted by: danithew | Jan 14, 2005 1:34:08 PM
Baron,
I fully endorse what you have to say. My close friend was up for a mission just barely after they issued the new "raise the bar" standards, one of them being that if you've attempted suicide you're not going. My friend's suicide attempt was long before these rules were imposed (or even declared), and is now psychologically sound. He has friends that had piles of sex, repented, and went (shortly before he did), but here he is, perfectly worthy and willing to go, and they don't let him. His parents said this almost broke their testimonies. I love that you say, "why don't you write those down then?" Brilliant.
Posted by: Rusty | Jan 14, 2005 2:47:55 PM
Dan, I might add that I'm among that group of people that if I wrote a list and stuck to it, I wouldn't be married to my wife. And I'm fine with that.
Posted by: Rusty | Jan 14, 2005 2:50:19 PM
Nice idea to drive to the core of what really matters to one. A couple of minor thoughts from me. One is that the wife-made enchilada seeker would be silly not to concentrate his attention on the Mexican girls. I say that even considering the example of my non-Mexican aunt who became a serviceable Mexican wife to her Mexican husband by learning from her sisters-in-law.
Second, and related, is that superficial preferences can still be preferences, even if not requirements. I remember a saying from an old roommate from Mesa and his relatives: "Only An Arizonan." It was said half-way jokingly, but only half-way; there was a genuine desire being expressed.
Posted by: John Mansfield | Jan 14, 2005 4:57:10 PM
The odd thing about LDS girls and the RM issue is how little effort most of them actually put into checking...
One of the girls I dated in college said that her ex-boyfriend had told her he was an RM, and she only found out (much) later that he wasn't.
I had to laugh at that, because I know how easy that is to do--since no one ever checks...
("Oh, yeah...I served my mission in Taiwan. Speak Chinese? Uh, of course I can: 'ching cheng ping pong kung pao'... See?")
That wouldn't have worked on the Baroness (a Taiwanese native), of course, but your average LDS girl wouldn't know any better. No one really checks...because (presumably) no one thinks that that's something someone would lie about--naively ignoring the fact that if there are many girls who only date RMs, then a guy looking for some 'action' with a girl he's interested in has an obvious motive to lie about it...
Posted by: The Baron | Jan 15, 2005 10:19:24 PM
Well, I just gave in and linked to this essay, I think it is a good one.
Posted by: Steve Marsh (Ethesis) | Jan 16, 2005 6:18:35 PM
I made a list, but of my own volition. The first woman I dated after my mission met all but two things on my list. She didn't speak French and she didn't have red hair.
Posted by: Kim Siever | Jan 17, 2005 9:04:42 AM
I knew a guy (not LDS but a theology student) who seemed to know Christian theories more than want to live them. He dumped a girl after finding out that she wasn't a virgin. It didn't matter than she had confessed her sin and repented and hadn't done it again. He wanted someone pure. I asked him if that was fair - that if God had forgiven her why he couldn't, he didn't have an answer and could only say that he wanted someone for whom he'd be the first.
Posted by: Renee | Jan 21, 2005 10:47:01 PM
I think a lot of people have some of the same problems as that Christian guy - it's easy to say you'll be Christlike and forgiving. But it's a more difficult thing to actually DO. Despite that - it makes me really sad when I hear of guys like that.
And as far as "RM's" go,...psh. My sister married and divorced an "RM". He served an "honourable mission"(granted, before the Bar was raised), and they married in the temple, but he still ended up being a shmuck (to put it nicely.) My whole family learned this lesson the hard way - A person's CHARACTER is MORE IMPORTANT that their titles or past recongnitions. She's now engaged to an amazing man who is very Christlike (although not LDS) and treats her AND her children like an angel. Truly the important things...
Posted by: Dorothy | Jul 17, 2006 3:13:35 PM
Well I am not LDS but my boyfriend is and he wants a wife that will wait for him and marry him in the temple. I wasn't raised with a religion and I have similar standards for a husband that a missionary qualifies under, my boyfriend already has these qualifications so if he leaves on a mission he won't be changing much. Am I selfish to not want him to go just because I believe he is already an RM in my mind and I can’t stand to live without him for two years?
Posted by: natalie | Jun 26, 2007 9:44:37 PM
$6,643 with NO list, NO money, and WITHOUT placing any ads
Posted by: Players With Money on Squidoo | Apr 8, 2008 12:25:03 PM
