Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

When I read Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe's comment that he'd created a modified Drake equation for evaluating BYU dating, I immediately thought of this website (and be sure to check out the hilarious email response from a hysterical reader).

Damasta wrote:When I read Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe's comment that he'd created a modified Drake equation for evaluating BYU dating, I immediately thought of this website (and be sure to check out the hilarious email response from a hysterical reader).

Makes you wonder why anyone ever gets married.

vorpal blade wrote:

Damasta wrote:When I read Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe's comment that he'd created a modified Drake equation for evaluating BYU dating, I immediately thought of this website (and be sure to check out the hilarious email response from a hysterical reader).

Makes you wonder why anyone ever gets married.

Heh, divine intervention. I remember running an similar equation back in high school, with the parameters of gender, age, intelligence, and religious affiliation. The results were somewhat depressing if you don't take a higher power into account.

well, the website you linked assumes the dater doesn't somehow screen for the qualities he wants beforehand. So... it gives an unrealistically bleak view of dating.

I'm sure inspiration occurs in some cases, Tao. And infatuation, resignation, and desperation occur in many other cases.

There is hope, however. The prophets tell us that almost any two people who live the gospel unselfishly can make a happy and successful marriage.

vorpal blade wrote:I'm sure inspiration occurs in some cases, Tao. And infatuation, resignation, and desperation occur in many other cases.

There is hope, however. The prophets tell us that almost any two people who live the gospel unselfishly can make a happy and successful marriage.

I've often wondered about to whom that particular quote was most intended. Surely it is a good thing for single individuals, and a blessing for those stressful moments of panic preceding a marriage, but I think it may best be directed to those who are already married and may be struggling one way or the other. To me, the phrase is a defense against divorce, not necessarily as much advice for the matrimonially challenged.

You may have a point, Tao. As I recall the advice before marriage has been something like, "Marry someone who is like you as much as possible. There will be enough difference left over to drive you up a wall." (More or less from Hartman Rector, Jr.) Another said that there is no such thing as a soul mate. You will never find the perfect mate. In every marriage there will be conflicts unless one of the partners abdicates his or her agency. So don't expect someone who at the age of 23 is just like your mother, father or your bishop. We all improve with age if we keep working on it. Find the best person you can to marry, but have faith that you can have a successful and happy marriage even if that person is not yet perfect.

I don't think the advice to singles is that it doesn't matter whom you marry; it does matter. But discovering your spouse or intended spouse is not perfect is not the end of the world. I don't think the prophets want you to settle with a bad choice. After all, the chances of finding someone who actually lives the gospel and is unselfish in every way might be so rare as to be statistically insignificant. But, as you say, it is an incentive to keep the marriage together and work on living the gospel unselfishly. Not all marriages are good marriages, partly because of a lack of living the gospel and too much selfishness. So, there is a remedy for problem marriages, but it doesn't guarantee the success of every marriage when one or the other won't do his or her part.

I think lots of folks get married for the wrong reasons, and without adequate thought.

Sorry if my thoughts are a little disjointed.

Tao wrote:

vorpal blade wrote:I'm sure inspiration occurs in some cases, Tao. And infatuation, resignation, and desperation occur in many other cases.

There is hope, however. The prophets tell us that almost any two people who live the gospel unselfishly can make a happy and successful marriage.

I've often wondered about to whom that particular quote was most intended. Surely it is a good thing for single individuals, and a blessing for those stressful moments of panic preceding a marriage, but I think it may best be directed to those who are already married and may be struggling one way or the other. To me, the phrase is a defense against divorce, not necessarily as much advice for the matrimonially challenged.

I've heard the Spencer W. Kimball quote used to browbeat singles for being "too picky" so many times that I was motivated to track down the original source and context of the quote. I'm glad I did, because I learned that President Kimball's intention was exactly what Tao supposed — that those who are already married should be assured that they can make their marriage work, if they are devoted to each other and the gospel, but not that single saints should ignore all issues of compatibility when selecting a mate. Here are some relevant quotes:

Spencer W. Kimball wrote:In selecting a companion for life and for eternity, certainly the most careful planning and thinking and praying and fasting should be done to be sure that of all the decisions, this one must not be wrong. In true marriage there must be a union of minds as well as of hearts. Emotions must not wholly determine decisions, but the mind and the heart, strengthened by fasting and prayer and serious consideration, will give one a maximum chance of marital happiness. It brings with it sacrifice, sharing, and a demand for great selflessness. . . .

[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. And then those two parties must come to the altar in the temple realizing that they must work hard toward this successful joint living. . . .

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. “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, 3

VB, you attributed your original idea to the "prophets." Do you have any other sources for the statement? If so, I'd be happy to double check the actual wording and context of it for you.

Katya, I'm glad that you found that quote from President Kimball. I was thinking that over the years I've heard similar things from David O. McKay, Gordon B. Hinckley, Boyd K. Packer, and many others. I'm sorry I don't have specific references for you. However, I believe that they probably all said something similar to what President Kimball said.

Damasta pointed to a website where Tristan Miller outlined three criteria he had for a suitable girlfriend. She must be approximately the same age, she must be beautiful, and she must be reasonable intelligent. By reasonably intelligent Tristan meant “the ability to carry on a witty, insightful argument.” Tristan calculated that only about 2 percent of the female population would be beautiful enough for him, and only about 16 percent is smart enough.

I can see why a marriage partner should be approximately the same age, but is beauty or the ability to carry on a witty, insightful argument really important? I do not wish to diminish the need to be extremely careful in choosing the right person to marry. You need to be picky. But I think that the criteria most people use for “the right person” are wrong.

One of my brothers rejected any girl that was even slightly overweight, or looked to him like she might later gain weight. So he married a cute skinny self-centered girl who made his life miserable. They divorced after about 15 years of marriage. His next marriage had no such criteria for weight, and he and his new wife have been very happy together for twenty years.

Vorpal,

If I can jump in, I think that appropriately matched intelligence is significantly more important than something like age. And attraction is definitely important, though I think Tristan was being unreasonable to select two standard deviations above average as his criterion.

If I were to marry someone who I didn't feel was intelligent enough, I'd be bored and unsatisfied with our interactions. In fact, intelligent, interesting conversation is one of my big cues that I might want to pursue dating a particular girl. There's no way I could stand being married to someone who was an insipid conversationalist.

Likewise, though physical appearance isn't the only component of attraction, and shouldn't be given undue weight, it can't be completely ignored either.

Just jumping back in to say that I don't agree with everything in the website, I was just reminded of it.

I agree with Laser Jock in that intelligence is a greater factor for me than age. When I ran my rough equations, I think I used a standard deviation on the IQ curve and an eight year span. Beauty really wasn't/isn't much of a factor in my eyes, nearly everyone has a significant natural beauty if they let it show for those who are looking. Chemistry is something that I didn't take into account, but am still not sure if there would be a way to do so with any statistical success.

As Elder Hartman Rector Jr., and others, has said it is a good idea to marry someone just like you. I think it is good to marry someone of the same approximate age, intellect, and attractiveness. It makes married life simpler and facilitates communication and understanding. It is easier to relate to your spouse when you have similar experiences and outlook on life.

Important as these things are, there are factors that I believe are much more important to achieving a happy and successful marriage. Without loving kindness and unselfishness your marriage will fail. I don’t see our Church leaders advising singles to look for intelligent conversationalists or beautiful companions of the same age. In their experience counseling couples with troubled marriages the root problem seems to be a lack of living gospel principles.

I believe Tao made an excellent point about learning to see the beauty in others, and allowing that beauty to bloom. Nearly everyone is beautiful in their own way, if your eyes are open to it. Likewise I find that nearly everyone has important insights and understandings to share, regardless of their supposed intelligence, if you are patient and listen with love. Often, given enough encouragement, you find pearls of true wisdom and insight coming from those who are not sparkling, dazzling, witty conversationalists-the kind that pass for the intelligentsia of our times.

Someone who is not a good conversationalist can still be a great spouse. You might miss the conversation, but get that elsewhere from your friends. A good conversationalist can be miserable to live with. We all have different talents. I’d advise looking for the talents that really make a difference in a marriage.

Chemistry is something that I didn't take into account, but am still not sure if there would be a way to do so with any statistical success.

I would say that "chemistry" would fall under "beauty" as it is used in the website. He defines "beauty" as

Personal attraction, both physically and personality-wise...

thus encompassing both appearance and compatibility. And since he assumed that the rating any given person would give a population of women on the trait "beauty" (as defined above), would follow a normal curve (a reasonable assumption), he was able to use standard deviations as a cut off.

In question #52083 Waldorf and Sauron today gave some excellent advice on how to be a great conversationalist, and you don't have to be particularly "intelligent" to do it. "However, I can tell you that the people l find the most exciting to be around are those who listen to me, ask me questions, include me, and by their words and actions make me look good in front of others. Strange as it is, one of the best ways to be interesting is to be interested in other people."

@Vorpal:

I mostly agreed with you up until the last paragraph (two responses of yours back). And even then, I sort of agree with you. Of course I wasn't giving my comprehensive list of qualities I look for in a spouse; someone who's unselfish, strong in the gospel, etc. are givens. I figured they went without saying in this group.

However, I disagree with your assessment of conversation as not "really making a difference in marriage." I agree that by itself, it's not sufficient to make a good marriage. (Maybe that's what you meant to say.) And perhaps for you it's not a big deal either way. However, for me it's absolutely vital. I'd go out of my mind if I didn't have good, frequent, interesting communication with my spouse. I've learned that much from my dating experiences. Having interesting friends just doesn't make up for a significant other who isn't.

Fortunately, it's quite possible to find someone who meets all of the above criteria; I've already dated several people who did.

I also just realized, after talking with Katya, that in part of my first response I was taking my needs and criteria and implying they were universal. That's not true, and I didn't even realize I was doing it.

Laser Jock,

I’ve heard people express various opinions about they are personally looking for in a mate. You may have seen dating sites where they ask about hair color, eye color, height, body type, and lots of other things. Apparently for some people such things are very important. I’m sure that age, beauty, and intellect are important for Tristan Miller. And many might think that I am out of line to suggest that Tristan Miller and others will some day come to realize that what they thought would make them happy doesn’t. This is true in many aspects of our lives. Some think they need fame, or riches, or recognition, or something of this sort to make them happy. Eventually they find out how wrong they were.
Elder Boyd K. Packer once said, “I am reminded of the statement: ‘There are many who struggle and climb and finally reach the top of the ladder, only to find that it is leaning against the wrong wall.’” He was talking about those who have failed to make significant contributions to the Church and the building up of the kingdom of God through their talents in literature and the arts. I think, though, that the statement might also apply to those who search for a suitable mate until they finally find what they are looking for, only to discover that their ladder was “leaning against the wrong wall.”

You say that, for you, good, frequent, and interesting communication with your spouse is essential. That has to be much more important than things like hair color. I’m sure that dates with women who seem incapable of such conversation are painful to you. I am glad that you aren’t like the men described by Ursula the Sea Witch:

The men up there don't like a lot of blabber
They think a girl who gossips is a bore
Yes, on land it's much preferred
For ladies not to say a word
After all, dear, what is idle prattle for?
Come on, they're not all that impressed with conversation
True gentlemen avoid it when they can
But they dote and swoon and fawn
On a lady who's withdrawn
It's she who holds her tongue who gets her man.

But my point is not that other men may differ, but that perhaps your ladder is also leaning against the wrong wall to some extent. I say that with a lot of respect and concern for you. As Elder Packer said just before he gave the previous quote, “They have therefore missed doing what they might have done, and they have missed being what they might have become.”

A girl who is an insipid conversationalist might merely need some coaching and training. As Waldorf and Sauron have implied, almost anyone can become an interesting and brilliant conversationalist if they really want to. I think it is a mistake to write off a girl who has trouble carrying on a conversation on a date. Dates are stressful to many people; they are out of their element, and they don’t really know how to act. I know many people who become quite talkative when the subject is something they know something about and are interested in.

You may find that after you are married that brilliant conversationalist becomes rather dull when she spends the whole day taking care of kids or doing some mundane work. She will need the conversation, but she might become incapable of contributing to that conversation. You can help her, of course, but there is little you can do if her priorities shift from impressing you on a date to potting training your two year old. Or she might take up quilting, and all she wants to talk about is quilting, which you may find boring. And you might change as well, and decide that her discussion of potting training is really rather fascinating.

There is a danger in marrying a girl who isn’t interesting in her conversation, hoping she will change. She will change if and only if she wants to change. People are remarkably resistant to change that requires effort on their part. If the girl won’t make interesting conversation because she thinks she should just be admired for her beauty, it will be difficult for her to change. She has to know you care, and she has to care enough to do something about it.

Anyway, you might be rejecting some excellent marriage possibilities by rejecting women who have trouble making interesting conversation of the kind suitable for dates.

I was recently reminded of a quote that has impressed me often:

“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”-Robert McCloskey

I wonder if, perhaps, we don't have a misunderstanding as to what it is we are talking about. I believe I know where you are coming from vorpal, conversation can mean a social skill that varies by natural skill and exposure. Eliza Doolittle was not a conversationalist before Henery Higgins got to her and trained her to so be. When viewed as such, you are more than correct, to weigh such a skill heavily in the balances of spouse selection would be to drown out many more important temporal and eternal factors. Not knowing Laser Jock, such a concern is well worth the fair warning you provide. I have the opportunity to know him though, and I can assure you that such shallow predilections are far from his nature. I wonder if his use of conversation isn't more akin to the Greek ἀναστροφή (even translated 'conversation' at times in the New Testament) than to the modern idea of a social conversationalist. I know in my reading of his words, this is how I interpreted them, due largely to a similar desire of my own. As you have already stated, we seek to find those who have much in common with ourselves, and grow closer from there. I am sure you would agree that different people think on different planes, and that the more disparate those planes the more difficult it is to communicate, and thus, grow. I too, would desire "good, frequent, interesting communication with my spouse" not as a source of entertainment, but as the fount and beginning of understanding.

Tao,

I love that quote. I think that's exactly the kind of thing that's happening here, and it may be partially my fault. What you described in your post just now seems to align very well with what I'm trying to convey.


Vorpal,

Like Tao suggested, I'm not looking for a "brilliant conversationalist"; what I mean when I say I need a good conversationalist isn't that they have to be witty and quick-tongued. I mean someone with whom I can talk and not get tired of it; someone I enjoy talking with. I don't see any reason at all why that should be an unreasonable quality in a future spouse.

Additionally, when I talk about good conversation I'm not actually talking about on dates, like you mentioned. I agree that first or second dates can be stressful and conversation can be awkward, though it's a plus when it's not. Before I ask a girl out I like to get to know her; to become, in some measure at least, her friend. This means talking before a class starts, or after sacrament meeting, or at a ward potluck on a Sunday afternoon. That's low-stress enough that I think it's a decent measure of how well we can talk.

Why is conversation so important to me? For me good, comfortable conversation is how I emotionally connect with someone. In other words, it's impossible for me to feel close to someone that I can't comfortably, enjoyably talk with. By extension, there's no way I could love someone without this foundation of conversation. Surely you wouldn't suggest that I marry someone I don't love?

I've had a small, but decent number of dating relationships. The ones that have been the best have been deep and meaningful, and they were based on and included comfortable, easy, close conversation. I think that they were the type of relationship that had the potential to progress to marriage, though they didn't in these cases. In other words, wanting this type of conversation isn't something that's out of reach or seriously restricting my options. It works, and it's completely compatible with unselfishness and love of the gospel.

On a side note, I fully realize that it doesn't work this way for everyone. Other people build a relationship of love on other things. It sounds like for you, something else is more important, and that's fine and normal. (If you're familiar with the concept of "love languages," I think this is the same sort of idea--there are different ways of showing love that come naturally to different people.) I'd love it if you could agree that feeling emotionally close due to good communication is reasonable, even if that's not what does it for you.

Despite everything you've said so far, you've offered no real arguments or proof that wanting good conversation--or perhaps I should say good communication--is frivolous or misdirected. You've just given vague warnings not to neglect more important considerations. Hopefully this is due to a misunderstanding, as Tao suggested. Though I've already agreed that things like love of the gospel are the most important, I emphatically reject the conclusion that as a result nothing else matters (which is what I'm getting from you).

Finally, I found a quote from Marvin J. Ashton that I really appreciated, about what communication is and why it's important:

"If we would know true love and understanding one for another, we must realize that communication is more than a sharing of words. It is the wise sharing of emotions, feelings, and concerns. It is the sharing of oneself totally." (“Family Communications,” Ensign, May 1976, 52.)

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Well…that puts an entirely different light on it.

The only point I originally wanted to make when I decided to say something on this topic is that people often use false assumptions about what would be an ideal mate for them, and as a result the possibility of finding such a mate is very small. Since most people eventually do marry, they must have reduced their expectations or learned that some of what they wanted was frivolous. I criticized Tristan Miller wanting a person of intelligence, meaning to him someone who could carry on a witty, insightful argument. At this point you (Laser Jock) jumped in appearing to support Tristan in the desire to have intelligent, interesting conversation.

I imagined that you thought marriage was going to be like an extended date with someone you hardly know, and in order to keep the interest from flagging she would have to continually entertain you with clever speech. I sincerely apologize for believing this about you.

So, I hope I now understand what you said in the way you meant it.

I can’t imagine a truly successful and happy marriage without real communication of emotions, feelings, and concerns. It seems to me to not need saying that such communication is essential for the oneness that we are striving for in marriage. How can you feel close to someone without communication, unless you are talking about the closeness you might feel toward some inanimate object? I think that that is not what you and I mean when we talk about closeness to a spouse. We aren’t talking about a trophy wife, or an exploitive relationship, we are talking about a union of equals, a help meet for us.

Good communication in a marriage is anything but frivolous or misdirected. I think it is essential in a healthy marriage of the kind God wants us to have.

I agree that people find different ways to communicate love. I know my wife feels closest to me after a heart-to-heart conversation. For me communication doesn’t have to be verbal, and is most loudly transmitted by body language. For me love grows primarily by communication shown in acts of kindness, thoughtfulness, concern, respect, and patience. It comes from understanding the other person. Either way communication is essential to the growth of love (except for that false kind of love – object worship). And just to be explicit about it, I agree that feeling emotionally close due to good communication is completely reasonable.

Hopefully we are now on the same page.

I think we can learn how another person wishes to be communicated with, and become proficient at it. I see no reason why most any girl couldn’t learn to be someone you enjoy talking with and not get tired of it. It still seems to me like an acquired skill, but I could be wrong about that.

As Tao said, if I may paraphrase him, marriage is easiest when we are on the same plane to begin with. It is a lot of work to connect with someone with vastly different experiences and outlook on life. I can totally understand your search based partly on finding a kindred spirit who is on the same frequency as you, who resonates so completely that you feel at home and at ease sharing your deepest thoughts and feelings. A little physics reference there. I now see nothing wrong with your search program.

Well, I don’t think I’ve yet explained what I think does matter in picking a marriage partner. But, this is long enough. And anyway, what do I know?