The "soul mates" quote, out of context

[Katya]

"Soul mates" 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. (Spencer W. Kimball. "Oneness in Marriage," Ensign, Mar. 1977, 4)

Board Question #61643 reminded me of how much I hate the this quote (but my rant is only peripheral to the topic being discussed in that question, so I'm posting it here instead of in Reader Response).

It's not the talk I dislike. Taken as a whole, it's still pretty relevant, 30+ years later. What I dislike is when the above quote is taken out of context and used to browbeat single Mormons.

Taken on its own, the quote pretty much states that you should be able to get married to (almost) anyone and have a happy and successful marriage if you (and your spouse) are good people and "are willing to pay the price" (which presumably translates to "work hard at the marriage").

Therefore, if you are NOT married, especially if you are of an "advanced" age and are not married, it must be because you are putting your own (selfish) desires above hard work and righteousness.

However, I maintain that this is not the correct interpretation of the quote, and that the greater context of the of the talk proves this. For starters, the paragraph that this quote comes from is arguably directed at people who are already married. (The five paragraphs before it certainly are.) And the preceding two sentences are as follows:

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.

Taken in that light, the quote sounds less like "suck it up and get married, single slackers" and more like "So you got married and now the honeymoon's over and life's gotten kind of hard. Don't worry that you somehow made a mistake and didn't find your 'soul mate.' If you're both willing to work at it, you can find happiness."

However, it could still be the case that both interpretations are implied, so I now present another quote:

[T]here must be the proper approach toward marriage, which contemplates the selection of a spouse who reaches as nearly as possible the pinnacle of perfection in all the matters which are of importance to the individuals.

There are a number of other quotes in the talk that counsel singles to be wise in choosing a mate and to choose someone who is righteous and hard working, but I find this quote striking because it acknowledges that there will be things which are important to YOU, as a specific individual, and that you should select a partner with those things in mind. And giving even a small nod to that kind of individuality is enough to convince me that President Kimball never meant to imply that any two righteous people ought to be able to get married.

QED

[NerdGirl]

I completely agree.

[Dragon Lady]

I've always interpreted it to mean, You CAN marry anyone and still be happy, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD. The point not being that you should just go out and marry anyone, but that when push comes to shove and you're in a marriage, or considering marrying someone who is perfect in every way except X, you CAN be happy, even when it's not perfect.

[Katya]

I've always interpreted it to mean, You CAN marry anyone and still be happy . . .

Mmm, I disagree even with that. I know plenty of people I would be (or would have been) completely miserable with. But I also didn't get anywhere near to marrying any of them, so maybe it works out to the same thing, in the end.

[Dragon Lady]

I guess phrased in another way, you choose who you marry. Then once that decision is made and you're married, no matter who you married, you CAN be happy, even if it's not perfect. There's too much of people getting into marriage and THEN saying, "Oh, I don't think (s)he was the right one. I'm not happy. It's too hard. Let's just get divorced." Like you were saying, the quote isn't telling you to go out and marry anyone. Rather it's saying that once you've made that sacred covenant, you can be happy in it no matter what, so long as both of you are willing to work.

[Tao]

I've always interpreted it to mean, You CAN marry anyone and still be happy . . .

Mmm, I disagree even with that. I know plenty of people I would be (or would have been) completely miserable with. But I also didn't get anywhere near to marrying any of them, so maybe it works out to the same thing, in the end.

mmmm, but if they were doing all that they can do holding up their end of the deal, would you say the same? Or, to put it another way; is your perceived misery a product of something inherent in them or something that they do that could potentially change? If the former, could you give examples? This is assuming the given 'righteous and willing to pay the price' categories are met, of course.

[Katya]

I guess phrased in another way, you choose who you marry. Then once that decision is made and you're married, no matter who you married, you CAN be happy, even if it's not perfect. There's too much of people getting into marriage and THEN saying, "Oh, I don't think (s)he was the right one. I'm not happy. It's too hard. Let's just get divorced." Like you were saying, the quote isn't telling you to go out and marry anyone. Rather it's saying that once you've made that sacred covenant, you can be happy in it no matter what, so long as both of you are willing to work.

So, if you put a reasonable amount of thought into choosing who you marry, you can make that marriage work? (Is that a fair compromise between our points of view?)

[Katya]

I've always interpreted it to mean, You CAN marry anyone and still be happy . . .

Mmm, I disagree even with that. I know plenty of people I would be (or would have been) completely miserable with. But I also didn't get anywhere near to marrying any of them, so maybe it works out to the same thing, in the end.

mmmm, but if they were doing all that they can do holding up their end of the deal, would you say the same? Or, to put it another way; is your perceived misery a product of something inherent in them or something that they do that could potentially change? If the former, could you give examples? This is assuming the given 'righteous and willing to pay the price' categories are met, of course.

I think the misery would be due to incompatibility of personality and I don't think that the incompatibilities would be factors that could or should be changed. If I give a specific example, I suppose you could argue that it's something that could be changed under a broad definition of "righteous and willing to pay the price." I don't feel like quibbling over that, so I suppose we'll have to disagree.

[Dragon Lady]

I guess phrased in another way, you choose who you marry. Then once that decision is made and you're married, no matter who you married, you CAN be happy, even if it's not perfect. There's too much of people getting into marriage and THEN saying, "Oh, I don't think (s)he was the right one. I'm not happy. It's too hard. Let's just get divorced." Like you were saying, the quote isn't telling you to go out and marry anyone. Rather it's saying that once you've made that sacred covenant, you can be happy in it no matter what, so long as both of you are willing to work.

So, if you put a reasonable amount of thought into choosing who you marry, you can make that marriage work? (Is that a fair compromise between our points of view?)

Yes. I definitely agree with that.

[vorpal blade]

I remember our discussing this once before. http://www.theboardboard.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1116

[Tao]

I think the misery would be due to incompatibility of personality and I don't think that the incompatibilities would be factors that could or should be changed. If I give a specific example, I suppose you could argue that it's something that could be changed under a broad definition of "righteous and willing to pay the price." I don't feel like quibbling over that, so I suppose we'll have to disagree.

Heh. I'm not so sure we do disagree. I'm not poking at your point of view to find fault, but to help me better establish my own. As vorpal blade pointed out, my views on the subject seem to align with yours rather well on the whole. What I'm now wondering is the condition of the specifics, to more fully understand the "almost" in President Kimball's quote.

[Marduk]

I certainly do. The more Christlike we are, the easier it is to love anyone. The better we understand them, the more we love them. It is impossible to love someone you cannot tolerate. So if we feel incapable of loving anyone, it is as much a reflection of our own inadequacies as much as it is a reflection of "incompatible personalities."

[Katya]

I certainly do. The more Christlike we are, the easier it is to love anyone. The better we understand them, the more we love them. It is impossible to love someone you cannot tolerate. So if we feel incapable of loving anyone, it is as much a reflection of our own inadequacies as much as it is a reflection of "incompatible personalities."

I think there's a big difference between being able to love someone as a brother or sister in Christ and having complementary personalities such that you can cooperate on everything in the way that spouses need to be able to do. (It's also worth noting that—with apologies to Whistler, because this is mostly informed by pop psychology—I'm very interested in personality theories and in how couples and groups do or don't work well together and a lot of my opinions in this area are informed by that interest.)

[Marduk]

A difference in degree, certainly, but I don't think a difference in kind. Or at least, if there is, it isn't entirely irreconcilable.

[Katya]

A difference in degree, certainly, but I don't think a difference in kind. Or at least, if there is, it isn't entirely irreconcilable.

If you look at a sports team, different people have different strengths and attributes and so play different positions and have different responsibilities in the team. Would you argue that it would be better if the positions or if the players were randomly assigned? That it's simply weakness on the part of the players that causes them to naturally gravitate towards different functions and responsibilities within the team?

(Also, why does it matter? I.e., what is the greater significance if one of us is right and one of us is wrong?)

[Marduk]

My apologies again, Katya, for the lateness of this reply.

Let me try to explain how I feel, why I feel that way, and why that is significant in a larger context.

Whether or not a sports team is successful depends far less on the individual strengths and weaknesses of the players, and far more on their capabilities together. In other words, teams that perform well interact better together, understand each others' strengths and weaknesses, and know their own responsibilities and how that contributes to the team's overall performance. This is called "chemistry" usually, and is often used (in an albeit extremely simplified way) to explain why teams with many stars are sometimes less successful than had been predicted.

What does this have to do with marriage? Lets say I hate the opera. My wife loves it. Would it have been easier for me to be with someone who doesn't like the opera? Someone with whom I share more common interests? Perhaps. But an equally valid response is for me to learn to appreciate the opera. Certainly this is what is meant when we talk of any two people being able to have a successful marriage; no two humans are sufficiently different that they cannot adapt to the quirks of the other.

You make another argument, which is, why should we have to change? This is a harder question, certainly. But it boils down to the same thing; in order to adapt myself to the personality of another person, it requires understanding why that person acts the way they do. When I understand someone, it is only another short step to loving that person. And, to be trite (but accurate) for a moment, Jesus said love everyone. Hence, the same method that I use to love those around me is what would ostensibly allow me to adapt to a large variety of different spouses.

As to the larger point, why does this matter? Because it is the crux of the gospel. Our commandment is to love everyone as He does, and in order to do so, fully, we must fully understand everyone. We cannot love that which we do not understand. If we perfectly love everyone, we could have that marital relationship with anyone. That is a side effect, if you will, of completing what is our most important task in this life.

[Dragon Lady]

While I mostly agree with you, Marduk, I have to still kind of side with Katya on this. It's one thing to learn to like someone else's interests, it's quite another to figure out how to adjust to someone else's personality quirks. Especially ones that are very different from your own. I mean, imagine a Vorpalette Blade. Could you marry her and find happiness? (Or Vorpal, could you find happiness with a Mardukess?)

[Ramoplot]

Here's another thing to consider, though: what happens in the situation where you find out about some personality quirk that you think is horribly annoying when you're either married already or seriously close to doing so? Do you back out because of that?

I think that not being able to adjust to someone else's personality quirks is a personality quirk as well. Usually when I think "personality quirk" I don't think character flaw but rather some oddity. In that case I think it's part of life that we have to learn to accept and not judge other people for not fitting into the mold of what we think is "quirky" or not. And often "quirks" are more cultural differences than anything...

Now I'm not saying you should marry someone you have fundamental differences with (like if you disagree about whether or not the peanut butter knife can be used in the jam jar). But I think that Marduk is right that

no two humans are sufficiently different that they cannot adapt to the quirks of the other.

trying to understand --> empathy --> love

[Katya]

Here's another thing to consider, though: what happens in the situation where you find out about some personality quirk that you think is horribly annoying when you're either married already or seriously close to doing so? Do you back out because of that?

You get to know them well enough before you get engaged that you're confident that you are generally compatible. (And yes, there are some things that would be deal breakers if you found out about them, at any stage, but I wouldn't call those more serious flaws mere "personality quirks.")

[Katya]

As to the larger point, why does this matter? Because it is the crux of the gospel. Our commandment is to love everyone as He does, and in order to do so, fully, we must fully understand everyone. We cannot love that which we do not understand. If we perfectly love everyone, we could have that marital relationship with anyone. That is a side effect, if you will, of completing what is our most important task in this life.

I agree that we should love everyone. I disagree that loving everyone perfectly means that we could have an optimal marital relationship with everyone. (And I'm feeling worn out by this argument, in general, so I'll leave you the final rebuttal.)