The Baron of Deseret

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 15: Conclusion

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14]

A few closing thoughts as we put aside dating and marriage for now.

The Baroness and I are friends with a married couple...a couple who probably won't be married too much longer...

It's the second marriage for both, and the relationship is a little...fractured to say the least. Examples:
The wife is going to school and asks her husband for help on her homework.  His response?  "Do it yourself!"

She mentions an old condo back in her hometown where she used to live, and wonders if they can use some of the money from his job to help pay it off, his response: "What? That's not my responsibility. You take care of it!"

When asked if she should continue going to school at all, his response: "Of course...then after the divorce you'll have something to do..."

The husband here is not necessarily abusive, only seems to have little interest in creating a 'relationship'.  One might wonder why he got married at all.  Things might be tolerable for a little while, but you know this marriage (barring a change of attitude) is destined to have a very short life span.  (Generally speaking, treating a divorce as inevitable essentially makes it inevitable...)

My thoughts on the matter: the wife is a strong woman and she'll survive a divorce. As far as the husband goes, I can't help think that someday he'll come to realize what he missed in his relationship with his former wife--he'll realize the great potential for happiness that marriage can bring, assuming you're willing to work (a little bit) towards creating an actual partnership. It may be years before it happens, but I think one day this guy will come to miss the benefits having someone close by to love can bring.

Loving someone is a privilege, I've discovered. One of the many stewardships that Heavenly Father has given us is the blessing to love some closely. Not just generally--like helping someone on the side of the road with a flat tire--but intimately, and throughout the remainder of your life. Giving of ourselves freely, and then finding that the whole becomes greater than the two parts. That's the blessing love and marriage brings to all of us, and it's a great privilege to have the opportunity to create an eternal marriage that's based on respect, admiration, and common goals.  Sadly, due to circumstance and attitude, many will not have that opportunity, yet the developing the capacity to love and serve others is an essential preparatory step for the day when/if that opportunity arises.

I am not an expert on building 'good' marriages--the Baroness and I (married three years this month) are still beginners from a time standpoint--but both of us understand the key to successful marriages can be found in gospel principles.  From the Proclamation on the Family:

Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

Now the time has come for us to put theory into practice.  We're planning on making it to the finish line...hope to see everyone there!

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 14: The Issue of Statistics...or why you shouldn't fear divorce

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13]

"Instead of studying for finals, what about just going to the Bahamas and catching some rays? Maybe you'll flunk, but you might have flunked anyway...that's my point."  -- Deep Thoughts (Jack Handey)

As discussed in the previous section, divorce is a reality and always will be.

Still, the statistics about divorces--even among Church members--can be pretty frightening. I'll bet just about everyone can name at least five couples they know personally who are divorced without breaking a sweat, and I'll bet virtually all Church members can name at least one temple-sealed couple who is now divorced.

Like all statistics, though, there's a right way and a wrong way to interpret them...

In college I had a female friend who had been dating her boyfriend steadily for a while. They were both nice, faithful people, got along well together, and were both mature enough that they'd probably do well if they got married. The problem was her boyfriend just couldn't make the commitment. After his parents got divorced, he said, and after seeing couple after couple among others he had met fall apart, he feels afraid of getting divorced himself...and thus afraid of getting married in the first place, even to his girlfriend whom he adores. Why go to the trouble of getting married if you're just going to get divorced later?

Looking at the raw numbers (divorce rate around 50% for virtually all couples) you could see the reason behind my friend’s (and others’) anxiety about getting married. After all, 50% is like flipping a coin: heads, your marriage makes it, tails it doesn't.

The problem is: it isn't like flipping a coin at all.

While the 50% figure is probably accurate, just quoting the 50% figure as it relates to you confuses cause and effect--it assumes a certain randomness to divorces when, in fact, divorces don't happen randomly at all. In other words, just because 50% of marriages happen to end in divorce, doesn't mean my marriage or your marriage has a 50% chance of ending in divorce--and therein lies the problem with statistics.

A professor in a college class may tell you the first day that historically only 15% of the students who take the class get A's. This, however, doesn't mean your chance of getting an A is only 15% (unless the professor is using a very strict bell curve for grading..or simply pulls final grades out of a hat at the end of the year...).  The means of determining your grade is not random--it depends on your individual effort in completing the homework, class projects, and tests through the course of the year. It may turn out that only 15% of the students end up making the effort to get an A, but that does not have a causal relationship with any one individual student in the class--that student either gets an A or doesn't according to his/her own effort and ability, not according to a random distribution.

So it is with marriages--they don't end because of some random flip of a coin...they end because of the actions of one or both of the partners. Therefore, the divorce rate is misleading because the figure is merely the numerical result of all collective marriage partners' individual decisions...not a cause of them. The only effect the marriage rate being high or low has on your marriage is affecting the number of other couples you know who have been divorced. (And this might not be an insignificant factor--it's quite possible the more couples you know who have gotten divorced themselves, the more likely you are to consider it yourself, since it seems to be the normal course of things. Of course, messy divorces could also work the other way--encouraging you to try harder so you don't have to go through what Brother Jones down the street did...)

The 50% divorce rate (give or take a percent) is probably accurate for marriages in general, and non-temple marriages involving at least one Church member. The actual temple marriage divorce rate is unknown (lower, I think…). Someone at Church HQ might have the stats, but in a sense they don't matter. Since divorces are not random, it really doesn't matter to me if the divorce rate happens to be 5%, 30% or 70%--the chances of my marriage lasting remain exactly the same.

Marriage is inherently an anxiety-inducing experience—and not just from fear of divorce either. You have someone new to care—and worry—about (even more when you have kids), plus you have a sense of vulnerability from knowing someone is going to get to know you—the good and the bad—better than anyone else alive, even your parents.  Still, to be afraid of trying because there's a chance of failure is just the kind of fear that we're here to overcome in this mortal life (see the "Deep Thought" above...).  Part of the marriage journey is being brave enough to make the jump in the first place and being willing to risk much for the sake of greater rewards...

Next: A wrap-up...for now.

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 13: Divorce

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12]

Imagine this situation: you’re cruising along across the snowy landscape with your partner, moving your skies in tandem. Things are looking good—you’ve made great progress and the finish line looks nearer and nearer by the day. Suddenly, your partner stops cold. He/she sits down on the ground and refuses to move. You, of course, can’t move either now, since your feet are tied together. You think: what's going on?  Why is this happening?  Sure, there have been little ‘bumps in the road’ along your journey before, but you’ve always managed to keep going towards your (supposedly) common goal. Nothing this serious has ever happened...

While your partner is sitting there, you can’t move—and you're not going to make it to the finish line... Your partner says he/she has some ‘issues’—and it’s not likely he/she'll be getting up and heading toward the goal any time soon (at least not with you…) Obviously, you’re going to have to deal with those issues before you can get going again—although what if this time the problems are too large to overcome? Would you be better off cutting your losses, accepting the tough ride back to the ski jump and starting over?

In computer science, we have what’s called the ‘halting problem’. In simplest terms, it goes like this: sometimes your computer slows down—due to memory or processor overload--and it takes a long time to finish whatever it happened to be doing.  And sometimes, your computer freezes—it gets caught in some predicament from which it will never return no matter how long you wait. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine which of these two situations is the case by any internal or external means. You might be waiting for hours without your computer doing anything, but it’s still impossible to prove that your computer won’t come back to life, eventually. (You’ll probably have hit the reset button by then, of course…)

In relationships, we have a similar problem. Sometimes issues arise in marriage that stop your progress in its tracks. It might be righteousness issues, it might be you and your spouse disagree on some major areas of the relationship, or perhaps you and your spouse just don’t get along in general.  In either case, you’ve stopped moving and you have to decide what the chances are that you’ll get started moving again in the near future. Like with computers, it’s impossible to prove that you won’t be able to start moving again, since sins can be repented of, personal problems can be overcome, disagreements can be resolved, etc... Yet, at what point can you not afford to wait around any longer?  Maybe the two of you just don’t like each other anymore and you think trying to move along with this particular partner is a waste of time.  But starting over again at the very beginning of the journey—waiting for another good opportunity to get married (if there is one…)? Is that really a better option?

There is no right answer to the question 'should I get divorced'? Divorce represents failure--there's no getting around it. Very, very few divorces are only one partner's 'fault'--most of the time they represent the failure of two people to do what it took to keep things together. Then again, if the relationship has already soured beyond hope of resuscitation, sometimes you can't just stand there beating a dead horse hoping it comes back to life. Sometimes people really are happier apart than together...

When have you reached that point of 'no hope'? No one can tell--like the halting problem in computer science, it's impossible to determine whether a relationship has any hope left of 'moving' again or not. In fact, in a corollary to Working Theory #2, we might theorize that any marriage will always have the chance of moving again, regardless of what's happened in the past. It just depends (as always) on whether the two partners are willing to do what's necessary to make it work. Again, we have the slippery medium problem—you don’t want to have ‘grass is greener’ syndrome and casually abandon relationships thinking you’ll find someone 'better', but you don’t want to tie yourself to a sinking ship that has no hope of sailing again either…

What are the causes of divorce? Statistics say most are due to financial reasons followed by sexual issues, infidelity, and the common (yet vague) 'irreconcilable differences'. In reality, though, these reasons may be catalysts, perhaps, but not causes of divorce. Poor couples have successful marriages all the time, while many rich couples do not--same with sexually active versus almost entirely celibate couples.

Speaking broadly, divorce is caused by sin and selfishness. Trials, struggles, and challenges that arise don't have to cause a rift in the relationship--only if one or both partners aren’t willing to deal with them properly. Many mixed-race relationships that have failed, for example, probably have ‘cultural differences’ at the heart of the problem. Yet, ‘cultural differences’ in itself is not a problem—only the inability of one or both partners to handle those differences respectfully and lovingly. When one partner blindly assumes his/her spouse will be abandoning his/her cultural identity and absorb themselves into the other’s culture and traditions--and later discovers otherwise—there’s definitely a problem here, but is it really the cultural differences themselves, or the attitude one takes toward them?

The subject of divorce is a difficult one to manage in LDS culture. Church leaders are caught in the bind of not wanting to encourage divorce even indirectly (by removing any negative stigma from it, for example) while still being compassionate and understanding towards those who find themselves divorced anyway.  Many divorced saints are left with a tangible sense of failure, and feel even more on the outside of the family-oriented Church than singles do. Yet, spending effort making sure divorced members feel ‘included’ in everything Church related might have the opposite effect of making divorce seem normal and ‘okay’, thereby increasing the temptation of still-married saints to consider it more seriously. It’s hard to say at what point accepting divorce becomes encouraging divorce, however subtly.

And yet, divorce cannot never be eliminated, even presumably in the next life. To do so would violate the principle of free agency. Plus, imagine the horror if divorce were outlawed completely… True, in some cases couples would be forced to face their problems and work towards overcoming them—but in other cases, one spouse would be able to mistreat the other without bounds, since, after all, they really can’t do anything about it. We discussed in the previous section how the ease of ending a relationship adds to the temptation to end it—but what about the opposite? Might just the possibility of divorce provide subtle pressure towards improving marital relationships in some cases, since each person knows his/her partner has the option of leaving if they aren’t treated properly?

Divorce is never a good thing—at best, it’s the least worst choice among many. Yet, it will always be a reality in this mortal life, and accepting that reality and learning how to avoid it is an essential part of the marital journey.

Next: Why, however, you should never fear divorce…

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 12: Living Together

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11]

The idea of living together before you get married follows the same principles as the sex-before-marriage issue, only on a wider scale. The philosophy is, of course, that living together helps you prepare for marriage by letting you 'try before you buy'--like test driving a car before you pull out the checkbook.

Once again, the theory here states living together first creates stronger marriages because (1) it helps couples get used to each other's foibles before the marriage license is obtained and (2) lets couples who discover they aren't suited for each other break up without the trouble of divorce. If that's true, then the divorce rate for couples that live together before getting married should be lower than those who don't, right? (Wrong...)

The reasons why couples who live together first are less likely to get married--and more likely to get divorced if they do--should be obvious if given some thought. The 'Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?' theory, of course--why get married at all if you're getting most of the 'benefits' of it without any of the commitment already? Even more than that, by getting the benefits early, you've removed any 'specialness' from the marriage and honeymoon--if you even get that far.  It's like opening your Christmas presents early and then sitting around bored when Christmas Day finally rolls around.   Living together inherently makes marriage less attractive, and more of a burden.

The psychological reasons behind why a couple would decide to live together in the first place are also indicative of a propensity to divorce after the fact. If a couple really believed that the relationship was going to last their entire lives, would they really consider living together first? The whole foundation of living together is the expression of doubt--the thought that "This might be a good relationship...but it's also quite likely that we're going to break up sometime, so why not make it less of a hassle when that day finally comes." In consideration of which, it's probably not surprising that many of the most ardent defenders of living together before marriage happened to have a bad relationship in the past and are a little 'gun-shy'. (Just peruse some of the online discussions of living together and see how many of them mention relationship 'horror stories' from their past)

The problem here is that the act of leaving the opening available actually makes the breaking up more likely to happen. The first time a couple gets into a serious disagreement--inevitable for any couple--one or both of them is going to think: "You know...this isn't going as smoothly as it used to be. We're not attached in any way, though--I could just leave tomorrow without much hassle. Maybe I should..." Having the commitment of marriage present in the relationship, on the other hand, creates a bond (bind?) between them which tacitly encourages them to try to work things out instead--since leaving isn't as easy. Leaving a convenient way out will give both partners the temptation to casually abandon the relationship if (or rather, when) the going gets tough. (Think of it as a conveniently placed ski lift beside the cross country ski area which allows you to abandon the path to relationship success and head back to the ski jump. Wouldn't the sheer ease and accessibility of it entice many who had momentarily grown weary of the journey forward to jump on it and 'try again'?)

From a moral standpoint, it's easy to say the 'problem' of living together boils down to just the chastity issue. A couple who lives together (and sleeps together) is essentially just as 'wicked' as a sexually active couple who still lives separately. The issue of living together goes deeper than that, though. In both cases, the problem isn't just noncompliance with the law of chastity, but rather a weakening of the bond between the two partners if/when they do get married--in the first case it's one of misplaced priorities and self-gratification, in the second it's a lack of faith in the durability of the relationship from the beginning. Even if a couple contemplating living together swore to their bishop that "We'll be sleeping in separate beds...really!", I doubt they'd get a green light from anyone.  It goes beyond just the chastity issue... Strong relationships are built from couples who have faith in their future and in their common goals--not to mention the desire and work ethic to make them happen.  Someone who's just standing there waiting for the first sign of trouble with one foot already out the door is essentially creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure for themselves...

Next: Divorce

The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 11: Chastity

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10]

Okay...let's talk about sex!

(No! Don't run away...!)

The "Law of Chastity" in LDS doctrine says basically that faithful Latter-Day Saints should wait until they're married to...you know. That means that in most cases, when a young man and young woman kneel across the altar in the temple to get married, the total amount of sexual experience between them is...well, zero.

This is a Bad Thing for many outside the Church, who solemnly announce raw statistics showing the large percentage of divorces caused by ‘sexual issues’ and say that pre-marital sex is not only ‘okay’ but actually helpful to a marriage.

Now, of course, in the secular world (and many churches, even) sexual relations before marriage is not only acceptable, but expected. A discussion of the moral aspect of chastity is beyond the scope of this series, though, and will be saved for another time. (You might read Jeffrey R. Holland’s “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments” for starters, here…)

It’s one thing to say couples can have sex before they are married, it’s quite another to say couples should have sex before they are married. Leaving the religious issues of chastity aside, let’s discuss this aspect of dating and marriage just from the secular standpoint.

The logic seems to be: shouldn't you see whether you are 'sexually compatible' before you make the commitment to get married? Wouldn't this cut down on the number of marriages that get divorced because of sexual issues?

I'm not denying there are a number of divorces that are due to sexual issues, but I think we're trying to solve the wrong problem here. Let's analysis this philosophy logically...

Suppose we have John and Jane Doe, two singles who say they require having sex with their potential spouses before they get married, as part of the 'getting to know you' process.

This implies that the married sexual experience is important enough to John and Jane that they want to use it as a top criteria for deciding on a suitable marriage partner, and thus need to know it ahead of time.

...which implies that should the sexual experience with person X NOT reach a certain 'quality', John or Jane would NOT be willing to marry him/her...despite any other redeeming qualities person X may possess.

So it appears the 'solution' to avoiding divorces due to sexual issues is simply have them sleep together first and then not get married at all--which may be like shooting a person now so he doesn't die of cancer later--but the real problem here is one of priorities. Should the 'quality' of the sexual experience between John/Jane and their spouses be so important that they'd be willing to abandon the whole marriage because of it? Is that the purpose of marriage...to have sex?

This idea seems to oversimplify--and cheapen--what marriage is about in the first place. It reduces it to the level of self-gratification--'My spouse is here to fulfill MY sexual desires...and I won't marry (or stay married to) someone who does not!'

Let’s go with this for a moment, though--suppose John and Jane do find a sexually compatible person to marry, are they home free now?

Unfortunately, no...because here's the next problem: sexual desires and capabilities can change over time, due to age, pregnancy, health reasons or any number of other factors. If John and Jane got married to person X because they happened to meet their sexual requirements before they got married, what happens if their sex life worsens--one, five, ten years down the road? Since John and Jane have placed the sexual experience so highly on their list of spousal requirements, wouldn't a decline in sexual 'quality' make them, in fact, far more likely to consider divorce (or, at least, adultery)? Then we have just the opposite of the marriage security the two of them having sex before they got married was supposed to be providing.

John and Jane have thus built their marriages on a very sandy foundation...because the odds are far against them that the sexual experiences they have early on will continue throughout the life of the marriage. Remember, marriages are designed to be 'till death do you part' (and beyond, even...)--measured in decades, not months--and the likelihood that a couple--any couple--will have the same sexual experience in their 60's and 70's as they did in their 20's is a little farfetched. (And, no, this is not an invitation for any of you who happen to be in your 60's and feel that you're an exception to write in and share. Please.)  Therefore, we have John and Jane almost guaranteeing themselves a big ‘bump in the road’ in their relationships, and they’re driving towards it full speed.

What would you think of a husband who says: "I love my wife...but if she ever started putting on weight and looking less attractive than she does now...I'm gone!"

Or a wife who says: "I love my husband...but if he ever lost his job and we started struggling financially...I'm gone!"

Isn't putting such a high priority on the sexual performance of their spouse more or less the same thing?

After consideration, it shouldn't be a surprise then that (contrary to the theory of these new age philosophers) couples who have sex before they are married do not have a lower divorce rate than those who do not (in fact, it's the opposite). Building secure marriages involves building them on firm foundations, and having a proper attitude towards sex both before and after marriage is one of the important steps.

Next: Living together...

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 10: A Personal Experience...

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9]

Before leaving the subject of 'temple walks' and brief courtships, let me share a personal experience and the impact it had on me. (tangent alert!)

In a previous section, I mentioned briefly a couple I knew who pulled the neat trick of getting engaged without ever dating. It’s probably no surprise that this was due to a ‘temple walk’.

Let’s call them: ‘David’ and ‘Alice’...

It was the second week of the fall semester at BYU some years back. Alice had just moved in the week before to the student apartment complex where David and I were living. I don't know whether the two of them had ever met in that period of time, before going with a group of people one evening on a temple walk. When they came back to the apartment complex, though, they were engaged—following some sort of 'spiritual experience' together. The wedding was quickly set for Thanksgiving weekend, a little over two months later.

Both David and Alice were friends of mine, and generally nice, solid people. I had known David since the previous semester—he was an RM who was reserved, yet sober, responsible and spiritually strong. I had met Alice also, before their engagement (I was the executive secretary so I knew everyone)—she was 18, a few months out of high school, but seemed mature for her age.

Both of them were solid, righteous Church members (as far as I could tell), and I probably wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow at their engagement (had it happened…you know, six months later or something...) but under the circumstances I had some serious questions--which, out of propriety I suppose, went unspoken: Why would the Holy Ghost play matchmaker with couples in this manner? Were they incapable of getting to know each other and decided for themselves through the course of the semester? (They were in the same complex, and the same ward, so they'd have plenty of opportunities to spend time together) Why would the Spirit take such an active role in getting these two people together, while seemingly remaining silent for most other couples, especially the older, single sisters whom (you would think) would be more in need of 'divine assistance' in finding a mate.

The questions increased a month later, when, as it happened, I was giving Alice a ride to work one day when David was absent. The focus of the conversation in the car was the upcoming wedding, of course, and Alice's comments in the car were universally along these lines: "I just can't believe I'm  getting married!", "My wedding day is almost here, I can't wait!", “I'm just so happy I'm getting married next month!"

I was struck by the odd tone of her comments. Notice that, without exception, the focus was entirely on one person--herself. At no time did Alice actually mention David in all of her comments about her upcoming wedding and marriage--it was all "I" this and "me" that...

Usually (you would think), an upcoming marriage is expressed in "we" terms, with emphasis on the person you're marrying: "I'm so glad we're getting married. I love David so much. He's such a great guy, and I'm so happy when we're together. I can't wait until we can finally be sealed together for eternity..."  (See what I mean?)

It occurred to me at that moment that I was sitting beside a girl who was more in love with the idea of being married, than she was with the guy she was marrying. Not surprisingly, I suppose, since she had only known him a few weeks and had agreed to marry him without ever dating him…or even talking to him much.

Now, of course, I have no idea if they are happily (or still) married today or not. That's not the point--as mentioned ad nauseum, every couple has a chance to achieve their full eternal potential regardless of the situation behind their getting married in the first place.

Still, there was something wrong here... I felt it then, and still think so now. Even if the two of them (as they seemed) were completely content in their decisions, this experience brought home to me quite powerfully then that this was most certainly not what I wanted in my own still-future marriage.

I love my wife. I am happy to be married, but most of all I'm happy to be married to her—because of who she is. And I'd like to think that she wanted to be married to me because of me, not because I was just some lump of tissue that was necessary to fill space on the other side of the altar.

It scared me to death to think of my potential eternal companion treating my presence as if it was just one more thing to check off of a list of Eternal Marriage Requirements. (Things you need to bring to the temple: (1) wedding dress (2) temple recommend (3) male Church member)   I wanted someone who marries me because she wants us to be together, not because the Spirit(?) told her we were 'supposed' to be together.  Someone who actually considers--and likes--the way I talk, think, and do things in my life, instead of--even worse than not liking it--not even caring about it.

I've often thought that if I ever asked a girl I had known only a few days to marry me...and she said yes, my response would be:

"'Yes'?  What are you...stupid?  You don't know me.  You don't know anything about me!  How do you know you're going to want to be with me for years and years on end?"

Okay...in real life I'd be a lot more tactful about it--but the point is: I wouldn't want to marry any girl who would want to marry me after just a few days, because I'd know she wasn't in love with me (there's barely enough time to decide if she liked me...)  She would be in love with something else--the more abstract ideal or goal of eternal marriage, perhaps--and I would just be someone who fulfilled a requirement--someone who filled the tuxedo and occupied the spot marked "Groom" on the floor...

Now (after I've just offended everyone out there who had brief courtships themselves...) let's me point out that this is obviously just my personal opinion.  I have no metric that says that my marriage is somehow better than David and Alice's--or anyone's--because of how we approached our courtship, nor can I tell any way in which the marriages of our many other friends who met only briefly before getting engaged are lacking in some way.  As mentioned, marriages succeed or fail based on what happens after the wedding, not before.   My point is only that I've encountered many relationships out there that seem to lack something intangible--a personal connection--that I felt was very important to me (and, fortunately, I found for myself with my wife)

End of tangent...

Next:  Chastity

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 9: The Spirit and "Praying to know"

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8]

The workings of the Holy Spirit can be mysterious--oftentimes receiving the right answers depends entirely on asking the right questions. As in all areas of life, the Holy Ghost plays a larger part in LDS dating and marriage than in the secular world. In this section, we'll discuss two specific--and similar--spiritual issues related to dating and marriage: (1) the use of 'spiritual experiences' to determine marriage partners, and (2) praying to know if your boyfriend/girlfriend is 'right'.

Spiritual experiences

 Among LDS college-age youth, you hear stories like these all the time:

"Bob and I went for a walk around the temple and felt the Spirit so strongly, we both knew it was 'right' to get engaged right that second..."

"Sherry and I went out for a couple of weeks, and I felt the Spirit every time she and I were together, so I know that she's the 'right' one to marry..."

"After I started dating Tommy, things in my life just started going better. I got a better job, I got better grades on my tests... I know that these were signs that Tommy is the 'right' one for me."

It's easy to view stories like these with a eye of skepticism. The issue of if/how the Holy Ghost works in regards to relationships is a hard one to discuss with any depth. After all, how can you judge whether person X or Y has really received a direct personal revelation from the Holy Ghost or not? It's hard enough discerning if you have received a answer from the Holy Spirit sometimes--let alone someone else.

Personal revelation and direct spiritual guidance are two of the primary doctrinal foundations of the LDS Church. One of the fundamental concepts of the gospel is that (to worthy Church members) the gift of the Holy Ghost is always there for the purpose of guiding you through many of life's important decisions. And what more important decision is there from a secular and a spiritual perspective than whom to marry?

Still...there are questions. You don't have to be a cynic to think that, while the Holy Ghost can and does work in the lives of worthy Church members, not every claimed 'spiritual experience' by a Church member is really from the Holy Ghost. Sometimes even credible spiritual experiences can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Example: 'Mary' goes to a dinner and a movie with 'John' on Saturday night, then goes to a Church fireside with 'Dan' on Sunday night. Later, Mary reflects that she had a much stronger spiritual experience when she was with Dan than John and surmises that that is a 'sign' that Dan is the right one for her to marry.

Well, gee...think about it.  Why wouldn't she have had a more spiritual experience on Sunday going to a fireside than just dinner and a movie?  I'm quite sure, given the context, that Mary and Dan conversed about more spiritual things at the time than Mary and John did--but is that really justification for Mary to conclude that it is the Holy Ghost telling her Dan is 'right' for her, not John?  Wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that it was just due to the circumstances they were in?  That the spiritual experience meant nothing more significant than...she felt the Spirit during a fireside?

"Temple walks" are another good example of spiritual experiences that can go awry. A number of couples who've met only briefly have gone for walks around the temple...and come back engaged--enough so that it's become a common joke around campus. (I'll share one such story in the next section...)

So you were walking around the temple with a member of the opposite sex and happened to feel the Spirit. You were walking around the temple!  The temple, as we're taught from primary on, is the House of the Lord, and the place for eternal marriage. Why wouldn't you (a) feel the Spirit and (b) be reminded of marriage?  Does this mean that you should necessarily marry the person who happened to be standing next to you at the time?

Note that I'm not discounting the possibility of personal revelation, especially around the temple. Only pointing out that just feeling the Spirit when you're with someone does not necessarily mean you should marry them...

Praying to Know

The second issue is when Church members deliberately seek out spiritual guidance in the form of personal prayer to know if your partner is 'right'. The spiritual experiences (if any) are not 'accidental' this time, but earnestly requested...although many of the underlying issues are the same. Like with many prayers, receiving the proper answer may require asking the proper question to begin with.

When you pray to know if person X is right for you to marry...what do you mean when you say 'right'?  We've already discussed that there are no perfect marriages, nor perfect partners, so 'right' cannot mean 'perfect'.  With our working theorem that any marriage can succeed, wouldn't that mean that any marriage partner can be 'right'--if you're willing to accept him/her?  What is it exactly that you are asking for?  Is it simply a 'yes, he/she's temple worthy' or 'no he/she's not' signal?  Or is it supposed to be a sign that this person is actually a very good match for you (fitting right in with "The One" theory...) If the latter, what criteria would even a omniscient God use to decide who's a good 'match' with whom? Beyond the worthiness issue, are you sure He cares that deeply about the who, versus the how and where you marry?  How can you tell if your 'spiritual witness' is really a message from the Holy Ghost, rather than just the good feelings you usually get when you think about someone you like a lot...?

In college, I was good friends with a girl who met a guy one summer, started dating him, prayed about it, got an answer that he was 'right', and was intent on marrying him.  Later, he started acting strangely (often rudely) and the relationship withered and died--leaving her in tears. Soon after that, she started an email/phone relationship with a guy in another state. After a few months of communicating long distance, she flew out to meet him in person for a week and came back engaged. She told me that this time she had also prayed to know if he was 'right' and had gotten an affirmative answer.

You can probably understand my skepticism when hearing this...because, of course, I had already heard this once before. How seriously could I take her assertion that the Holy Ghost had said her boyfriend was the 'right' one for her when she had said the exact same thing about her first boyfriend a few months before? Is the Holy Ghost playing a game?  Is He, perhaps, honestly telling her either marriage had the possibility of success even considering the character flaws of the first boyfriend? (Note: if any marriage can succeed, then the answer to this prayer would always be 'right'...right?)  Or...could it be that her 'answers' were just the good feelings she created herself when pondering guys whom she really liked (at the time) and wanted to marry, and had nothing to do with the Holy Ghost?  In either case, what good had praying to know if he was 'right' done her?

I have no idea whether her 'answers' were really from the Holy Ghost or not...just as I have no idea if the two of them (who got married soon afterwards) are happily married now or not. I do know that if they're happily married now it is because of what they've done after the wedding, not just because they married the 'right' person. I wonder about whether the guys and girls who are praying to know if their relationship is 'right' are even asking the 'right' question to begin with.  Are many of them simply deceiving themselves?

I freely admit I did not pray about whether my wife (The Baroness) was 'right' for me before we got married. I don't expect the Lord to give me direct guidance for decisions in which I already have the full capacity to make it myself.  And--under our working theories--I don't believe there is an absolute 'right' person for me...only imperfect people forming imperfect matches where I have to decide myself whether to make the leap and work at making it succeed. (I did pray, however, to help me adequately prepare to face whatever challenges lay ahead and to have the guidance to make our marriage succeed--not the same thing, of course...)

The impact of spiritual experiences and divine guidance in creating temple marriages will likely always be a mystery. I can't prove that the Spirit didn't play a direct role in some or all of the above stories. Still, I find it hard to accept all the spiritual experiences I hear about at face value. Doesn't it seem unlikely at least that all of the stories you hear were really due to the direct influence of the Holy Ghost? Isn't it possible that many of the spiritual experiences leading to marriage involved people who either (1) liked their girlfriend/boyfriend a lot and wanted the answer to be affirmative before they even asked, or (2) wanted to be married--to anyone--really badly and thus interpreted anything spiritual happening involving the opposite sex as conforming to their desires?

I believe in prayer, and in answers to prayer.  However, the trick to receiving and interpreting an answer to prayer is figuring out what you need to ask in the first place...

Next:  A 'temple walk' story and what I learned from it...

The LDS Guide to Dating & Marriage, Part 8: Discrimination and 'Acceptability'

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7]

I knew a guy who would not--under any circumstances--date a girl who was taller than he was.  Just wouldn't do it. I knew a Chinese girl who would not go out with non-Chinese guys, saying she felt a responsibility to marry within her own race.

Everyone, when trying to find the 'right' person to marry, will have to make decisions as to what to accept and what to reject. For a faithful, single Latter-Day Saint whose goal is temple marriage, some requirements (being a Church member and having a temple recommend) are fairly mandatory.  As noted previously, though, those two requirements alone are not very useful in choosing an eternal companion. In many cases, the question becomes, not "what do I want", but "what am I willing to accept"?  Are you willing to marry absolutely anyone who meets those two basic requirements?  What else is important to you, personally, in a husband or wife?

As previously mentioned, since there are no perfect people to choose from, everyone will have to accept some imperfections in their spouse. The trick is to (1) figure out what those imperfections are ahead of time (if you can) and then (2) decide if you're willing to 'accept' that particular imperfection in your spouse, even to the extent of having to put up with it throughout the entire marriage. (Don't fall into the trap of thinking, "I don't like that...but I'll get him/her to change after we're married."  Famous last words...) As the saying goes, you like someone because of who they are, you love someone in spite of who they are...

From a broader perspective, though, there are personal attributes and circumstances which are unrelated to 'imperfections', yet will create equally important dating decisions for which there is no obvious yes/no answer. Like the two people mentioned at the top of this post, everyone will have to make personal decisions above and beyond the basic recommend holding requirement, deciding what kind of person is 'acceptable marriage material' and what kind is not.

These kinds of decisions cannot be judged strictly on a 'right' or 'wrong' basis. You might reasonably claim that a guy who refuses to date a girl who's taller than he (or a girl with freckles, for example), yet meets all the other 'quality' requirements, is being too discriminatory.  Personally, I would agree...but here's the point: my opinion doesn't matter here, and neither does yours.

The problem is everyone has to be 'discriminatory' in some way when choosing a spouse (remember, we discounted the 'recommend and a pulse' philosophy...), and the line between 'too discriminatory' and 'not discriminatory enough' is not at all clear. (The egg on the rooftop problem again...)

One of the tasks we are given in this mortal life is to decide for ourselves what person--and what kind of person--we're 'compatible' with.  And in the end, we are all responsible for our own choice, including the marriage we create (or don't create) because of it. In that sense, Guy X who decides Girl Y (or vice versa) isn't 'acceptable' doesn't need to justify his decision to anyone...since he's the one who holds the ultimate responsibility for his own marriage.  If he says she is 'unacceptable', he doesn't need any other reason...

In the same vein, there are many who would claim dating only within a particular race is 'racist'. Yet, there are significant, documented advantages to marrying someone from the same country and culture as yourself--and since building a successful marriage is the ultimate goal, such a decision cannot be easily dismissed by outsiders as 'wrong'. Since each of us has to accept responsibility for the success (and failure) of the marriage(s) we enter into, we hold the absolute power to decide who is 'acceptable' to us and who isn't...and that right must be respected by others, since those others aren't going to be direct participants in the marriage after the vows are taken.

As everyone knows, my wife (The Baroness) is a Taiwanese native.  There are many in her culture and in mine who say we should have married within our own races.  And had we not gotten married because of the difference in race, there would also be many who would criticize that decision for being ethnocentric.  It's not my point to say which side is 'right' (although you can probably guess which side I come down on), only that neither of these groups matter in the end.  Only "The Baroness" and I matter, and our decision to marry (or not) is ours and ours alone.

It may be that most people will naturally meet and marry someone who is just like them in age, race, culture, and background--and the issue of 'acceptability' won't really come up. Many others, though, may have to make difficult decisions about dating and marrying someone 'different' than themselves, which will likely bring inherent challenges to the relationship. The real challenge is to determine whether those differences are acceptable or not...

For example, you might ask yourself: How easily would I consider marrying someone who:

(a) is from a different country than me

(b) speaks a different language than me as their native one

(c) is over ten years older or younger than myself

(d) has been married before and/or has children from a previous relationship

(e) is blind, deaf, or handicapped in some way.

Under our working theory #2, we've decided that "All marriages can succeed", therefore a marriage to any of the above would not guarantee failure. Yet differences in background and life situation will bring particular challenges to the marriage--making the trek to the finish line longer and harder.

The question is: is it reasonable to decide personally that (for example) "I will not consider marrying someone over twenty years older than myself, because that would bring more challenges to the relationship than I think is wise for the building of a successful marriage."?

A decision like this, while inherently judgmental in nature, cannot absolutely be condemned as being wrong--since each person is wholly responsible for the success of the marriage that follows. Likewise, it is also unfair to criticize someone who does decide to enter into such a 'challenging' relationship, since if they are committed, they have the potential to build a successful marriage just like everyone else.

The Baroness and I know several couples where one or both of them are on their second marriage, and/or have a difference in ages of twenty years or more. Those situations bring inherent challenges to the relationship, yet the couples we know are all happily married to this point and face those challenges willingly...even cheerfully! [One wonderful sister I know has a husband twenty years her senior, and says, in a moving display of self-martyrdom, that she prays daily his life will be extended and hers shortened so they won't have to be apart for any length of time...]

These factors show why deciding what you're looking for (and what you're willing to accept) in your future spouse is an extremely inexact science. You might never have had to consider whether you would date a girl in a wheelchair, for example, until you happen to meet one you can't seem to get out of your mind. Or you might not ever have considered marrying a guy from a different country...until you meet Pablo, a 23 year old convert from Brazil with a white-hot testimony of the gospel...not to mention an impressive physique and a smile that makes you feel weak in the knees.  As always, you're stuck with an impossible quandary--you don't want to be too picky and miss your chance at a happy marriage entirely, yet you don't want to make things too difficult for yourself by accepting a relationship filled with challenges you're just not prepared to handle...

As in all things, though, the principle of free agency applies here--each person decides for his/herself what to accept in a spouse, and then, for better or worse, accepts the consequences of those decisions...

Next: Knowing your potential spouse is 'right' for you...

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.

Ask a random LDS young woman to list, as above, her requirements for her future husband and one of the first things out of her mouth might very well be: "Well, he needs to be an RM, of course, and..."

Wait...stop. Take that off of your list. Right. Now. (You heard me...)

"What?" you protest, "you're saying it's better not to marry an RM?"

No...but let me ask you another question:  Why do you want to marry someone who's served a mission?

Well, you reply, RM's are hard-working, Christ-like, have a strong testimony, honor their covenants, and live righteously according to gospel principles.

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.

Stating what should be obvious: Just because someone is an RM doesn't make them (a) mature (b) responsible (c) righteous or (d) a worthy priesthood holder. Ask anyone who has served a mission (especially an RM sister) and they will almost without exception be able to name elders from their mission that fail in one or more of the above requirements...yet still returned 'honorably'.

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...)

Putting 'comes from an LDS family' for a requirement because you want someone who is (a) familiar with LDS doctrines and customs and (b) knows how to raise an eternal family creates the same problem.  If those things are important to you (and why shouldn't they be?) put them down instead, rather than obfuscate your real goal by using a standard that does not have a direct correlation with what you're really looking for.  (Converts--even recent ones--can be faithful husbands and wives, too...)

Committing the "A implies B" fallacy is like a guy saying he will only date Mexican girls because he wants a wife who can make enchiladas--thereby making the uneducated assumption, of course, that all Mexican girls can make good enchiladas, and all non-Mexican girls cannot.  Don't be one of the unlucky ones who discovers after the fact that the correlation between A and B wasn't as direct as you originally thought...

Next: The difference between what you 'want' and what you're 'willing to accept'...

The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 6: The Value of Time

[Previous posts in the series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5]

So there you are:  you’ve just met someone you like and you think they might make a suitable future spouse. Your common sense tells you, though, that you’d better spend some time getting to know him/her better before making a big commitment.
 
Okay, then…how exactly do you do that? Is there a list of specific questions you need to ask? A set order of things you need to do together? Is it going to require you to hire a private detective sooner or later?

There’s a ‘secret’ to getting to know another person…and in fact it's not really much of a secret at all: time.

Spending actual time together is really the only way to get to know someone, and no matter how hard couples try to fit the ‘getting to know one other’ phase of their relationship into a small period of days (or hours) there is no substitute for actual time. Why is that? Well, let’s make note of some important facts:

(1) People are very complex organisms.

Considering all the possible combinations of experiences, interests, and personality attributes, there’s just too much information to absorb about another person in a complete lifetime—let alone a few weeks of dating…

(2) There are important personality traits and characteristics about a person that you can’t learn just by talking.

Some things just won’t come out in casual conversation. Even the most forthwith and outgoing person can hardly share everything there is to know (and what's important to you) about themselves in a period of days—and when they do share things…guess what?

(3) People will naturally tend to share only the positive things about themselves

Most people for obvious reasons are going to want to put their best foot forward, and only let the less admirable characteristics of their personality show after the relationship has progressed past a certain level of comfort and familiarity. Whether consciously or not, any person is going to try to project a flawless persona towards others, especially when trying to get someone to like them. That’s why ascertaining someone’s true character—the good and the bad--can only be done after a certain period of time--and after you’ve had a variety of experiences together.

Example: ‘Julie’ is dating 'Jason' and wants to know if he "honors his priesthood". What could she do?

(a) She could ask him directly:  “Do you honor your priesthood?”  What if Jason says ‘yes’?  Does he really, or is he just saying that because he knows that’s the ‘right’ answer and wants Julie to like him?  What if Jason’s definition of ‘honor’ is different than Julie’s?

What if Jason’s reply is: “Not as much as I should…”? Is this an indication that Jason has ‘problems’ of some kind and Julie would be better off looking for someone else?   What if Jason is just a humble guy and cognizant of how his best efforts still fall short of perfection? In short, Julie’s question is pretty meaningless regardless of how Jason responds…

(b) She could ask other people: “Does Jason honor his priesthood?” Similar problem—do those people have the requisite knowledge of Jason to answer correctly? What if their definitions of ‘honor’ are different than Julie’s?

(c) She could find out herself: Julie will have to spend time with Jason, and witness herself how he honors his priesthood, according to her definition. It’s not likely that this will happen on the first date, nor perhaps on any one date in particular. But as Julie spends more time with Jason, talking and doing things together, his attitude toward church and other life responsibilities should become obvious. The problem is she won’t know when those ‘learning experiences’ will happen—and she certainly can’t plan for them to appear within a very short period of time.

This issue of time presents an inherent problem with relationships that are not built on spending time together—whether it is people who rush into things, or those couples that (out of necessity or desire) communicate primarily through phone calls, letters, or email.

Young women are often warned that a guy who is very nice to you during dinner--but not nice to the waitress--is not a 'nice guy'. It is a truism that people are almost always nice to people they like (and people they want to like them), but not always nice to people they don’t know, don't meet their standards in some way, or who annoy or inconvenience them somehow. But how, then, can you know how your potential companion treats other people, if you’re never around him/her with other people?

Phone/email conversations can be enlightening as far as revealing interests and personality, but the problem is: during such conversations the focus is entirely on you. A person talking with you can certainly choose his/her words carefully, because that is the only point of the activity. Less admirable character traits are unlikely to be revealed easily in a relationship that’s based almost entirely on phone conversations—because he/she will most likely be consciously controlling them. What is he or she like when they are not on the phone?

Corresponding primarily through letters or email is even worse, because those mediums allows the writing of rough drafts and constant editing before being sent, to portray just the right message. A person who is very eloquent and romantic when writing letters might be shown to be much less elegant when dealing with you in real life—but without that real life contact, how can you know? Relationships that lack the personal element are much more susceptible to ‘nasty surprises’ in companions, where character traits that, in fact, were inherent parts of their personality went unnoticed because of the primary medium of communication was so limiting…

There is no substitute for time.  How much time, though?  No one can say for sure--since each relationship is different...

Here's an experiment, though:  pick a handful of names from the present apostles or other GA's and look up their biographies.  See if you can find a mention of how long they knew their wives before getting married.  No, this isn't for the purpose of finding a 'magic formula'--X number of days/weeks/months of dating before you're prepared for marriage.  Rather, this is to note whether any of them have stories such as 'I met her last week and now we're engaged...' or 'We went for a walk around the temple last night and now we're engaged...'--stories you hear frequently among LDS youth nowadays.  Then, ask yourself whether that fact is significant in any way...

Next: What to look for in a future spouse...

Dating & Marriage, Part 5--Footnote

[This was written last week, but let's still give a nod to Mark "Foreshadow Boy" Hansen, who mentioned this topic in the comments to D&M Part 5...]

Defenders of short courtships say there really isn't a difference between dating for six months and being engaged for one, versus dating for one and being engaged for six. Works out to the same amount of time either way, right?  Therefore, they must be equivalent...

Not quite... The problem is being engaged puts the relationship on an entirely different level than just casually dating. Once you’re engaged, you have other responsibilities than just ‘getting to know each other’. You have to start planning the wedding and the reception, meeting the family, taking pictures, printing announcements—planning for the future, instead of worrying about the present. From an abstract standpoint, being engaged implies the decision about whether to be together has already been decided, not still under analysis.

To use our original example, when you're engaged, you and your partner have basically opened the starting gate and have already started sliding down the ski jump together. What happens if you start having doubts about the relationship? People who are just dating can break things off without too much trouble, but once you’ve already selected the wedding date, sent out the announcements, planned the honeymoon, and/or arranged for your future living quarters, there’s a lot of external pressure to continue. You've already made the committment (or appeared to) and you’ve added many external influences to your decision to stay together or not, which may not be in your best interest.  While still better than divorcing after the fact, breaking off an engagement can still carry a stigma and a loss of credibility.

It’s far easier to decide not to jump when you’re still at the starting gate and can just walk back down the hill. When you’ve already started sliding down the slope...it’s not quite so easy to stop, is it?

The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 5: 'Quickie' Courtships

[Previous entries in this series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4]

LDS courtships (at least inside of Utah and Idaho) are notorious for being very, very brief. Ask around in any local ward (single or married) and you’ll hear about any number of couples who can count the period of time between meeting and getting engaged in weeks (sometimes days), rather than in months or years.

(One couple I know pulled the neat trick of getting engaged before they had ever dated…more on them later in the series)

This seemingly cavalier attitude of LDS youth towards jumping into marriage (or at least into engagement) has caused no small amount of scorn and/or amusement from the secular world—although, truth be known, there are just as many couples outside the Church who jump into sexual relationships with their partners just as quickly after knowing each other for a few days (or hours)…the only difference is the lack of a marriage license. (Is this better or worse? See below...)

What factors lead to this 'quick to engage/quick to marry' phenomenon inside of LDS culture? Two of the factors have been discussed already in this series::

(1) The “recommend and a pulse ” attitude discussed in Part 2 —where the standards for a suitable companion are so basic (and low…) that it might only take a few days to see if your partner meets them. After that, why wait?

(2) "The One" theory (discussed in Part 3): Similarly, believers in “The One” are just as likely to jump into relationships quickly, since, obviously, if he/she is your predestined, perfectly matched, companion then you don’t need to waste time getting to know them in this case, either.  After all, every day you wait is one less you could have spent being married to your soul mate!

There are other possible factors at work, though, which may make LDS couples more susceptible to very fast-moving relationships:

(3) The Eternal Family:

LDS culture has placed great emphasis on marriage and the family—and not without reason. Families are the foundation of the plan of salvation, and are one of the primary keys towards reaching our fullest potential in the eternities. Marriage should be emphasized in the Church…and it is, although not without some ‘side effects’. One is the perhaps unavoidable stigma from not being married, which is felt in all corners of life by single saints and one of the key elements that may drive someone to rush into things when given the opportunity. If the emphasis on marriage does (in practice) create a stratification of Church members--those who 'belong', and those who are on the outside looking in--then it's natural for those on the outside to want to 'belong' themselves...as soon as possible. This is an issue the secular world does not deal with as much, since outside of the Church the expectation to marry is not as great--for men or women.  Someone who does not marry during their entire life is much less likely to feel a particular burden or failure.

Inside the Church though, members don’t have that luxury...  While Church leaders constantly emphasize (correctly) that women who do not have the opportunity to be married in this life should not feel they are of less worth as a person, and will still have all the blessings in the eternities they are worthy of--there can still be a tangible sense of failure and disappointment from (and around) many women who remain single for any significant length of time.

And if you’re a single guy in the Church? Well, you can forget about getting any sympathy from anyone…

Many singles who are approaching (or passed) the age of 30 have a very difficult quandary—the egg on the rooftop problem revisited: how to find a suitable mate without falling prey to desperation and settling for too little. It's understandable, then, that this feeling of being an outsider in the Church might make a frustrated single saint jump into a new relationship very quickly.

(4) Self-esteem and status

Similarly, the social aspects of marriage and engagement within LDS culture can play a role outside of sacrament meeting. Being ‘attached’ is a representation of one’s desirability, and of one’s perceived value—the “Look, someone likes me!” effect. The boost of self-esteem just having a boyfriend or girlfriend produces is often strong enough to keep a couple together, just for that feeling of companionship. Socially, guys and girls who have a 'steady' possess much greater status among their peers.  (Sometimes, oddly enough, someone having a boy/girlfriend will make them seem more attractive to others than they did when they were unattached.)

This isn't exclusively an LDS issue, since the need to feel loved (or liked, at least) is universal. The manifestations of it are slightly different, though. A guy who has a different gorgeous girl on his arm every week, or a girl who has numerous suitors surrounding her--who plays with them all, but commits to no one--may be considered the social ideal in the secular world.  Not so in the LDS world, where the emphasis on covenants and commitments means someone who 'plays the field' won't reach quite that same level of status, because in LDS society one doesn't date just to date (or to have sex...).  LDS dating is for the express purpose of finding a spouse, and if someone is dating constantly--but noncommittally--many outside observers would probably think he/she is either afraid of commitment, or there's something "wrong" with him/her such that no one sticks around for long.

Either way, dating around doesn’t have quite the same status as being in a committed relationship among Latter-Day Saints--which means you have to be able to 'finish the job'. Being engaged means 'someone likes me...and thinks enough of me to be by my side for eternity'--a significant distinction from someone just dating you for fun.  Are there relationships out there that have persisted (even to marriage) simply because one or both of them just liked the feeling of 'having someone around'? I wouldn't doubt it...

(5) The 'S' word

There's an obvious factor in the brevity of LDS courtships that shouldn't be ignored. The LDS law of chastity precludes sexual activity before the marriage license is signed--therefore, it should be no surprise that many LDS couples feel compelled to move that day forward as soon as possible. Contrast this with the secular world where couples can be engaged for two or more years, seemingly in no hurry to tie the knot--and why should they, when most of them are already sleeping together and possibly living together too?

While the impact of sex on a relationship seems clear when considering why LDS couples might have short engagements, it doesn't quite explain why LDS courtships would be so short. Would sex really be a factor in deciding to get engaged to a guy/girl you met a week ago?  You can imagine that a couple who's been together for a while would feel the urge to remove the chastity barrier as soon as possible, but it doesn't quite follow that this would cause that same couple to get engaged quickly after they've barely met. It seems that sex offers only an incomplete explanation for the haste in which some couples jump into a committed relationship together...

Or does it?

Is it possible that there's a significant number of Latter-Day Saint youth out there that are so hormonally driven to start sexual activity as soon as possible--but who are not willing to actually break the commandments to do it--that they marry the first person they can find...basically just to have sex without feeling guilty? A while back, I might have said no, but I've heard some singles talk about sex in such a focused--and impersonal--way that I wouldn't doubt the simple prospect of legalized sexual activity would carry a big influence on their decision to get married in the first place.

This idea creates a whole boatload of issues for discussion: if these couples really got married just for the sexual aspect--would they actually have been better off just breaking the law of chastity to begin with, without creating a brittle (yet 'righteous') marriage because of it?  On one hand, sexual sin is one of the most serious sins in the sight of God--but on the other hand, a relationship built entirely on physical attraction and urges seems almost inherently doomed to fail (remember Working Theory #2, though...).  A broken marriage would in most cases be far more devastating to all the parties involved than just a standard breakup.  Are the spiritual consequences of sin or the secular consequences of divorce more worthy of fear?

I don't have an answer for this one... If I had to choose, I might lean towards the 'don't get married first' philosophy, in that it is easier to pick up the pieces and start over (i.e. repent), and there's less 'collateral damage' (especially if there are children involved...)  On the other hand, as mentioned previously, the reasons one gets married in the first place cannot absolutely predict the success or failure of any one marriage.  Even if a couple gets married for the 'wrong' reasons, they still have the potential to be satisfied and happy--and they wouldn't have the sexual sin issue hanging over their heads, either... 

Next: The 'secret' to getting to know someone...

Dating & Marriage, Part 4--Footnote

Coincidently enough, Times & Seaons is having a discussion on divorce currently, which fits right in with the Dating & Marriage theme of this series.  (My series discussion of divorce is forthcoming...)

The comments from T&S mention a quote from Spencer W. Kimball which I had saved for later, but might work better now as a footnote:

While marriage is difficult, and discordant and frustrated marriages are common, yet real, lasting happiness is possible, and marriage can be more an exultant ecstasy than the human mind can conceive. This is within the reach of every couple, every person. "Soulmates" are fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price. -- Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball (1982) pg. 306

Note that Pres. Kimball discounts "The One" theory just as I do.  Also of note is his statement in the last sentence which supports my Working Theory #2: All marriages can succeed

Wait, though...he very specifically said 'almost any good man and any good woman'--implying that there are combinations which inherently cannot create a successful marriage.

I can't think of what those would be, though...   Far be it from me to presume to intrepret the words of a prophet, but I think he may have used 'almost' here just because of human nature--it's natural to automatically 'qualify' statements so as to avoid absolute words such as 'always' or 'never'.  It's common to stick 'almost always' or 'usually' instead of 'always'--and 'rarely' instead of 'never'--just because in most things it's easy to find at least one exception somewhere even if you can't think of one at the time.  (This saves embarrassment from hearing about--or thinking of--an obvious exception later...)

Pres. Kimball might have had a specific situation in mind for his use of 'almost', but the original source doesn't say what that might be, so I think it's possible he used 'almost' here in the sense that he's allowing for the possibility that an exception exists, but can't think of what that would be (I can't think of one, either...).

In a sense, the 'almost' is redundant, since the last phrase "IF both are willing to pay the price" acts as a pretty good qualifier by itself.   Of course, any marriage can fail if one or both aren't willing to do what it takes...but is there really a situation where a marriage will still fail even with both partners doing everything they can? (and I mean everything...)

Open questions for discussion, then:
(1) If Working Theory #2 is false--what characteristic or circumstance of one or both partners can you think of that would prevent the marriage from ever being 'happy' or 'successful' (however you want to define those terms...)  Remember, this is inherently flawed--not because of the actions of one or the other...
(2) Even though the focus of the series is on LDS marriages--does Working Theory #2 apply to all marriages, also?  In other words, if you have a devout Mormon, and a devout Muslim married to each other, for example, is this situation (or any other one you can think of) still capable of achieving happiness?  If not, why not?

The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 4: The Medium Between the Extremes

[Previous entries in this series:  Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3]

The previous two chapters demonstrate, in essence, the inherent difficulty in finding an eternal companion--because it requires you to find the slippery medium between the two extremes.

Imperfections and incompatibilities can lead to marital problems (often serious ones) after you've tied the knot...but you have to accept some imperfection in your spouse because there aren't any perfect people to choose from. Which imperfections should you accept, and which should you stay away from? Where's the happy medium between casually grabbing the first person who crosses your path, and waiting eternally for that Mr or Miss Perfect who never arrives?

See why trying to describe the 'How' of dating and marriage is inherently difficult?  It's like trying to balance an egg on the top of an angled rooftop without having it slide down either side.  Are you forced to either settle for too little, or stand there waiting for too much?

It's easy to list things you want in a companion...

Guys: "She's gorgeous, a great cook, loves giving massages and watching football.  Did I mention she's gorgeous?"

Girls:  "He's tall, dark, handsome, rich, does all the housework, loves romantic dinners, flowers, kisses in the moonlight, and curling up with me on the couch every evening to watch movies on Lifetime..."

...but then you have to ask yourself:
(a) does this person really exist?
(b) and if they did, would they really want to marry me?

Before we head into the rest of this series, let's list some working theories about marriage for future discussion:

In the previous section, I mentioned what we'll now call Working Theory #1: Any marriage can fail--no matter how well matched they are, nor how smoothly things were going at the beginning.

This may sound a little fatalistic, so let's temper that immediately with Working Theory #2: Any marriage can succeed.

This may be harder to demonstrate as true, but looking at it from the opposite angle: what combinations of personality, age, attitude towards religion, culture, or any personal characteristic would make it impossible for a particular marriage to succeed? Remember, impossible is a strong word... No matter how far away you are from the goal to begin with--the distance is still finite and the method of moving towards it is always available. If (and only if) both partners are willing to work at it, why couldn't any marriage turn out a winner?

As the saying goes: "Marry whom you love, then love whom you marry". If we consider (a) each son or daughter of God possesses the same inherent potential to be a celestial husband or wife and (b) we reject "The One" theory, then it seems clear that God may not, in fact, really care who we marry (outside of the obvious religious issue, presumably), but instead care about how we handle our marriage afterwards...

We have friends who have had their fair share of marital problems...yet everytime they go to the temple and pray about it, they receive confirmation that their being together is 'right'.  There are a number of ways to interpret this:
(1) Obviously, God isn't going to tell them to divorce...
(2) God might not have cared whether those two people got married in the first place, but since they did...the answer might be in terms of "You made your choice...now stick with it!"
--or--
(3)  It could be just a gentle reminder that the path to marital success lies directly in front of them, as it does for all couples regardless of the bumps along the way, and all they have to do is keep going...

Next week: How to get to know someone and what to look for...

The LDS Guide to Dating and Marriage, Part 3: "The One" Theory

[Previous posts in the series: Part 1 | Part 2]

In the previous post, we discussed having too low of standards for marriage partners.  Now let's consider the other extreme in regards to finding a spouse.

There's a certain theory held by a select percentage of the Church population--let's call it "The One" theory. The basic premise is: each person here on Earth has one perfect soul-mate--one person with whom we are perfectly compatible and whom we are destined to meet and spend eternity with in blissful happiness. (Presumably, these were arranged for all of us in the pre-existence...)

There can be only One, of course, and should we not take advantage of the opportunity to be with "The One" when presented to us, then we'll either be cursed to live a barren, lonely existence without a mate, or a ugly, miserable existence married to someone whom obviously is a less than perfect match.

What's the problem with this philosophy? Well...here's two:

One, no matter how good a ski jumper you are--no matter how