Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Yeah, Katya, that source doesn't say either way. I'm still inclined to believe that the 6% given is for sealing cancellations. However, now that I take a closer look at the data, perhaps the most damning part is that it is thirty years old.

Also, agreed on that last point. I'm recalling back to a discussion on interracial marriages and similar statistics for those, as well.

Marduk wrote:However, now that I take a closer look at the data, perhaps the most damning part is that it is thirty years old.

Yeah. One would have expected a lower divorce rate back then, anyway.

wired wrote:Let me start with this: I disagree pretty often with Genuine Article, but I almost always disagree with Portia. That may be coloring my comments so try to adjust for my bias.

Portia wrote:Cf here.

Wow, Genuine Article was very harsh without knowing the woman's side of things. She's not looking to film a four-hour special for the E! network: from what we can understand, she has every intention of staying married once married. So to call the hundreds of millions of people who get married legally (without just looking to cash in on community property laws and a rock), to call them opportunists and commitment-phobes just seems stupid.

I don't think GA called "the hundreds of millions of people who get married legally... opportunists and commitment-phobes" or anything close to that. You might be inferring it from, "Saying she wants a civil ceremony is tantamount to saying she's already looking for a way out for when your relationship goes south." But I think the context that the questioner is giving makes the inference absurd. The girl has an option between two types of marriage: a temple or a civil. She wants to take one that has less commitment associated with it for fear things won't work out. That makes her situation markedly different from the people I think you're asserting GA is attacking - those who get married civilly without a temple marriage. In the overwhelming number of those, people aren't contemplating a choice between types of marriages.

This man's going to be in a lot worse straits if his girlfriend gets strong-armed into a temple wedding she's not ready for because she feared losing the man she loves than otherwise. My parents weren't sealed until they were 30, and trust me, there was no louder cheerleader for this happening than pint-size, eight-year-old Portia. It was probably the happiest day of my childhood. But as an adult, I totally understand that though they had been "worthy" since I was about 3 (my dad joined the church and my mother "reactivated" herself), they just might not have been "ready." Their civil marriage was far from a "starter marriage:" they take the "in sickness, in health, for richer, for poorer" stuff more seriously than anyone I know. My grandma's marriage, where she convinced a clearly uninterested guy to get baptized and get married in the temple: was that a starter marriage? You betcha! Implying causation from correlation is a dangerous game, my friend.

You really are very condescending in your writing ("You betcha!" "my friend!"). That is my biggest complaint with your posts and when you were a writer. It does nothing for your argument, it only turns off people who might otherwise listen to your argument.

Is GA saying every temple marriage is not a started marriage? No. Is he saying every civil marriage is a start marriage? No. Is he saying the situation posed ("she wants to postpone a temple wedding because she wants to be sure we'll last.") is a starter marriage? Yes. And whether you think that is an accurate assessment, it is a far cry from what you're implying he is doing.

What if her parents' divorce is only the tip of the iceberg?

Fair. GA probably should have suggested that he figure out the underlying problems a little more.

What if the temple freaks her out?

Not part of the question and also irrelevant. She hasn't said no temple marriage, she's said we start with one and then move to antoher.

What if she wants her father and step-mother (for example) to be able to see her on one of the most important days of her life?

Not part of the question. That's a totally separate issue.

What if she believes that marriages ought to ideologically be affairs of the state first and foremost? If this couple were European, they'd HAVE to be married civilly first, and no one would be crying "starter marriage!"

Not part of the question. And in Europe and some South American countries, they get sealed a day later. Completely different than what is posed here. An ideological commitment to the state over commitment to marriage would be something I would be much more concerned about than what is here as well. A temple sealing is coterminous with a legal wedding as well. So this is just very, very absurd rhetoric on your part.

I think all of the above points could be legitimate ones for the guy dumping the girl eventually, but maligning her character and motives rather than encouraging him to stick to his guns while having some compassion seems ill-advised.

GA was given a question with a set of circumstances. He answered on those circumstances. Agreed, he could have said look at the underlying problems. But he isn't doing a fifth of what you say he is.

I think the boyfriend makes it pretty clear that girlfriend doesn't see a temple wedding as an option at this point in her life. I think she is right, and he is wrong to insist on what is the more restrictive, and arguably more stressful, option in this situation.

There's a lot of "folk rhetoric," I guess, about how important these sealing/wedding ordinances are for the individual, so I worry that the boyfriend could be worrying a lot more about what HE wants than what is best for them as a couple. I think marriages require enough sacrifice without making this an all-or-nothing issue . . .

A parallel might be found in a retreat I attended with a YSA ward. The speaker liked to make rhetorical questions require answers from the large audience, which seemed to lead to embarrassing situations. He had been emphasizing the "marry a returned missionary" point to levels I had previously not heard (I don't think mission presidents actually want girlfriends calling them for a report on their beaus . . .), and turned to one guy, and said "YOU! Where did you go on a mission?" and the guy had to stammer out, "uh, er, I didn't, I recently converted . . ." We'd all hope that sane people could apply a principle to general cases, but I certainly have met girls who would consider such a guy "out of the running."

I think there is scriptural precedent for staying married as a Christian in the hopes that your spouse might be converted (to paraphrase).

You're right in your call that I don't think the situation, with what little detail we have, can be called a Kardashanian marriage. I guess I'm just surprised that he's serious enough to think about a lifelong commitment, but that her feelings toward the temple seem to be new to him.

Do you see no problem with seeing a temple wedding as a status symbol and a goal to be reached, rather than emphasizing marriage itself? Assuming he is a returned missionary, and they're both, 24, he has had a familiarity with this whole process for 5 years, while she is likely to have none. That alone could explain the trepidation in terms more charitable to the girlfriend.

I'm still not 100% convinced that the interpretation that she wants to get married civilly first is correct. Her boyfriend said that, but she didn't per se. Postponing a temple wedding could mean just that: getting married in the temple, later, with a longer engagement.

Plenty of people think that weddings out to be out in the open, or civil rather than religious affairs, even if you're not one of them. I think that the US should require all couples to have a civil wedding in addition to another, religious wedding if desired.

I guess it's actually a hard question to answer, how something that is by its very nature involving two independent agents can be a personal ordinance at all. I never bought the triangular-marriage/promises-with-God argument. I think that if this guy does indeed value this specific wedding, right, right now, over any concerns his girlfriend has, then he should move on, because I don't see how either party could be happy in such an arrangement.

Portia wrote:I think the boyfriend makes it pretty clear that girlfriend doesn't see a temple wedding as an option at this point in her life. I think she is right, and he is wrong to insist on what is the more restrictive, and arguably more stressful, option in this situation.

Reasonable minds are allowed to differ. I think, at the very minimum, each is entitled to insist on certain principles for their wedding/marriage. For instance, I think it is every individual's right to refuse to have a Star Wars themed wedding. I also think it is some nerd out there's right to insist on a Star Wars themed wedding. If these two people date and move toward engagement, either one should change their standard or they shouldn't get married.

Just so here. Both are entitled to their stipulations on the marriage. If neither budges, then they ought not get married.

Picking up from there, I assume you would say he ought to budge in her favor. I am saying that in his situation, I almost certainly would not budge and that I find it totally understandable not to budge. I, in fact, relate more with his side than with her side. (Which seems to be the exact reverse of you.)

There's a lot of "folk rhetoric," I guess, about how important these sealing/wedding ordinances are for the individual, so I worry that the boyfriend could be worrying a lot more about what HE wants than what is best for them as a couple. I think marriages require enough sacrifice without making this an all-or-nothing issue . . .

A parallel might be found in a retreat I attended with a YSA ward. The speaker liked to make rhetorical questions require answers from the large audience, which seemed to lead to embarrassing situations. He had been emphasizing the "marry a returned missionary" point to levels I had previously not heard (I don't think mission presidents actually want girlfriends calling them for a report on their beaus . . .), and turned to one guy, and said "YOU! Where did you go on a mission?" and the guy had to stammer out, "uh, er, I didn't, I recently converted . . ." We'd all hope that sane people could apply a principle to general cases, but I certainly have met girls who would consider such a guy "out of the running."

I think there is scriptural precedent for staying married as a Christian in the hopes that your spouse might be converted (to paraphrase).

Would be interested in the scriptural precedent. It seems that these examples would come from the Old Testament, which features a vastly different idea of what religion means (involving significant cultural, ethnic, and political issues). But I could be overlooking something entirely.

While I agree that principles should guide life and not absolute rules, I think principles can sometimes manifest themselves as a bright-line rule. For instance, "I will marry someone who honors his priesthood," could create a bright line rule that a girl only chooses to marry an member of the Church. Membership doesn't represent the whole of someone honoring his priesthood, but it is a minimum bar that is required in order for the principle to be fulfilled.

Do you see no problem with seeing a temple wedding as a status symbol and a goal to be reached, rather than emphasizing marriage itself? Assuming he is a returned missionary, and they're both, 24, he has had a familiarity with this whole process for 5 years, while she is likely to have none. That alone could explain the trepidation in terms more charitable to the girlfriend.

Of course I see a problem with seeing a temple wedding as a status symbol rather than emphasizing the marriage. That's like asking, "Don't you see a problem with killing all puppies everywhere?" But, that again, is not what I am or anyone else is saying. I will follow up in a separate post about why I resolve this in favor of the guy rather than in favor of the girl.

I guess it's actually a hard question to answer, how something that is by its very nature involving two independent agents can be a personal ordinance at all. I never bought the triangular-marriage/promises-with-God argument. I think that if this guy does indeed value this specific wedding, right, right now, over any concerns his girlfriend has, then he should move on, because I don't see how either party could be happy in such an arrangement.

Plenty of people think that weddings out to be out in the open, or civil rather than religious affairs, even if you're not one of them. I think that the US should require all couples to have a civil wedding in addition to another, religious wedding if desired.

This assertion steps aside from personal choices about marriage to a discussion about political compulsion, so anything I write in response to this should be construed in that light. Why would you think the government should impose that restriction on everyone beyond what most states already require? (States typically require a marriage license that is ratified by someone.) And what do you mean by a "civil wedding?"

Alright. I want to take the actual question that GA was posed (not hypotheticals about what the girl could actually be thinking) and give my own answer.

My girlfriend and I have begun to start to talk about marriage. She wants to postpone a temple wedding because she wants to be sure we'll last. I understand where she's coming from since her parents divorced after three years of marriage when she was two, but... I don't want to get married outside the temple. For any reason. She's pretty insistent, actually VERY insistent, but I really do love her so I can't deal with the idea of breaking up.

So, as I said before, I won't go into issues of whether she's nervous about temple ordinances or has a strong ideological belief that civil marriages should be performed before religious ones or whether she wants a non-member at the marriage itself. In fact, I assume that every single one of those is NOT an issue at all.

Instead we have this assumed scenario: An active LDS guy and girl are dating. They have begun to talk engagement. The girl insists on not being married in the temple because "she wants to be sure [they'll] last." (Again, that is the absolute ONLY reason.) The guy isn't sure what to do since he wants to be married in the temple, but doesn't want to break up with her.

I do not think he should marry the girl. Nor do I think he should "force" her into marrying him in the temple. (Something GA never suggested.) Rather, I think he should tell her they can date longer to determine if this is really want they want to do. Indeed, I think acquiescing would be detrimental to their marriage.

Her reason is essentially, "I am not sure if we can really be together forever, so I want to make sure we aren't in a marriage that comes with that expectation." There are many good reasons she might have the concern they can't be together forever. Maybe she is worried they won't be sexually compatible. Maybe she is concerned he will turn into a very different person after marriage (let's himself go, becomes abusive, just plays video games all day, wants to have a Star Wars themed anniversary in a year). Maybe she is concerned she will become a different person during their marriage and want different things out of a partner. These aren't to be trivialized at all - they are real concerns.

But I do not think, from his end, this should change his opinion of a temple marriage. Going into a marriage with the understanding that these concerns will be present values the individual over the marriage itself. The marriage becomes an individual performance contract for each person; both has to live up to the others' expectation, or they are out of here. If they go into a marriage with the understanding, "we need to see if this works before we take it to the temple," then whenever the sexual compatibility or Star Wars problems arise, there is no guarantee that each individual will sacrifice themselves to make the marriage work. If two people are earnestly concerned about themselves in a marriage, that is fine. For an individual whose primary goal in a marriage is the marriage itself, that shadow on their relationship will be a nightmare. (I am assuming here that the questioner is most concerned about having a marriage that works, and not about himself.)

Thus, the same reason that this guy shouldn't give in, is the exact same reason he shouldn't pressure her into being married in the temple. Either way he is creating a situation where an individual is valued over the marriage. (In the first, the marriage itself is a result of individual over marriage. In the second, he is valuing his desires for the marriage over her desires for the marriage.) Insisting on a temple marriage first, but giving her time to see if it is right for her, demonstrates he is concerned about the marriage and that he values her autonomy in deciding whether she is equally committed to a marriage.

Now, to be sure, the concerns of abuse and change are very real. More time before the marriage can help alleviate some of those problems. Marrying someone after 3 months might not allow an individual to see a person at his worst. Marrying someone after 2 years is no guarantee, but it will likely reveal more about a person and decrease the risk. When a person is abusive, a sealing cancellation is generally permissible. Other problems might not be as serious - character quarks. More time before the wedding will allow someone to see those things. But, if I am going into a marriage, I want it to be with the understanding that we've acknowledged each others quarks and we are deciding we will deal with them. The "seeing if it will work" marriage caveat seems to disregard that and replace it with a, "It doesn't bug me now, but we'll see how I feel about it in a few years," standard.

Man, I don't have enough time to write out all of my thoughts. Good luck interpreting what I just wrote.

wired wrote:But, if I am going into a marriage, I want it to be with the understanding that we've acknowledged each others quarks and we are deciding we will deal with them.

I hope you're acknowledged each other's quarks. If you're marrying someone who's not made up of quarks I'd be a little worried, personally.

(Sorry, couldn't resists poking fun at that one!)

wired wrote:

Portia wrote:I think there is scriptural precedent for staying married as a Christian in the hopes that your spouse might be converted (to paraphrase).

Would be interested in the scriptural precedent. It seems that these examples would come from the Old Testament, which features a vastly different idea of what religion means (involving significant cultural, ethnic, and political issues). But I could be overlooking something entirely.

Actually, it's Pauline. You're probably thinking of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, which says:

"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?"

However, that's not the whole story. Paul also said:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14)

I believe that Paul was addressing two different issues here. In the 1 Corinthians passage, he was referring to those who were already married to non-members (i.e. part-member families). He was warning that if you've already committed to someone in marriage, you should stay with them unless they force you to choose between them and the church. However, in the 2 Corinthians passage, he's talking to individuals who are considering marrying someone outside the faith. A yoke is a good metaphor here-- an unequally yoked team of oxen or horses will not be able to work together as well or accomplish as much as an equally matched yoke. Similarly, marriage will be much more difficult if you are unequally yoked in religion than if you are share the same religious beliefs.

I firmly believe this. As a missionary, I saw and worked with many part-member couples and the vast majority of the part-member couples I worked with, the spouse that was the member became inactive. It was just so difficult for them to go to church and do all the church asks without the support of the other spouse.

Personally, I agree with 2 Corinthians 6:14, and the modern-day prophets. President Spencer W. Kimball said "I have warned the youth against the many hazards of interfaith marriage, and with all the power I possessed, I warned young people to avoid the sorrows and disillusionments which come from marrying out of the Church and the unhappy situations which almost invariably result when a believer marries an unbelieving spouse. I pointed out the demands of the Church upon its members in time, energy, and funds; the deepness of spiritual ties which tighten after marriage and as the family comes; the antagonisms which naturally follow such mismating; the fact that these and many other reasons argue eloquently for marriage in the Church, where husband and wife have common ideals and standards, common beliefs, hopes, and objectives, and, above all, where marriage may be eternalized through righteous entry into the holy temple." (Eternal Marriage Student Manual, Mate Selection (page 188), from "Marriage and Divorce," 142-- that's a speech found on BYU Speeches)

Gordon B. Hinckley said "There is no substitute for marrying in the temple. It is the only place under the heavens where marriage can be solemnized for eternity. Don't cheat yourself. Don't cheat your companion. Don't shortchange your lives. Marry the right person in the right place at the right time. Choose a companion of your own faith. You are much more likely to be happy. Choose a companion you can always honor, you can always respect, one who will complement you in your own life, one to whom you can give your entire heart, your entire love, your entire allegiance, your entire loyalty." ("Life's Obligations," Ensign, Feb. 1999, 2, 4)

There's no substitute for marrying in the temple. I think the writers were right to cautious the questioner against marrying outside of the temple. The prophets have cautioned against the same thing.

As for the precedent for staying married as a Christian in hopes your spouse will convert, I'm not sure what that had to do with the rest of the thread, but I hope I sufficiently answered it for you, Portia and wired.

Rifka wrote:Actually, it's Pauline. You're probably thinking of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16...

Confession: I went to the annual TransAction gender conference today, so I've been thinking very transgender issues-related thoughts all day, and this sentence confused me for seconds longer than it should have.

TheBlackSheep wrote:

Rifka wrote:Actually, it's Pauline. You're probably thinking of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16...

Confession: I went to the annual TransAction gender conference today, so I've been thinking very transgender issues-related thoughts all day, and this sentence confused me for seconds longer than it should have.

i didn't get it until i read your response...

It took me a moment there, too, Imogen.

I think many Mormons who do not feel ready for/worthy of/agreeing with temple marriage conclude that marriage altogether is a bad idea, which I am against and think is a negative result, in and of itself. Marriage is a social good, and can be a great personal boon, and I think an all-or-nothing stance can cause someone great unhappiness that should not be trivialized.

What of a perfectly believing Mormon woman who is demographically at a disadvantage? If she meets a decent man to marry, I say in this day and age of non-commitment and delayed childbearing, take it and run with it. It's a nice myth, I suppose, that there is an active Mormon man for every Mormon woman, but the numbers don't bear it out.

Learned this from Wikipedia today:

Mitt [Romney] was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had dated others, but at their first meeting following his return they reconnected and agreed to quickly get married.[19][29] That happened on March 21, 1969, in a Bloomfield Hills civil ceremony presided over by a church elder; the following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple.[29][30]

So this policy change is relatively recent, within the last few decades.

Also didn't know: he was an English major at BYU! Who knew my humanities studies could be parlayed into fame and fortune? : P

Portia wrote:Learned this from Wikipedia today:

Mitt [Romney] was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away, and indeed she had dated others, but at their first meeting following his return they reconnected and agreed to quickly get married.[19][29] That happened on March 21, 1969, in a Bloomfield Hills civil ceremony presided over by a church elder; the following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony at the Salt Lake Temple.[29][30]

So this policy change is relatively recent, within the last few decades.

Unless having to fly to Salt Lake counted as a long enough trip that they qualified under the travel exception. (I believe it's if you're traveling alone and having to spend the night on the road before the wedding, and I doubt they would have flown into Salt Lake and gotten married on the same day.)