Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php?area=viewall&id=58360

I was surprised to see this father's opinion:

My dad is a firm believer that courtship should be long and engagement should be short (he says it gives you less time to get into "physical trouble").

I guess it's because my wife and I did the exact opposite: an incredibly short courtship followed by a year long engagement. We figured that engagement was a good commitment to have - it meant we were working towards marriage (which is the whole point of courtship anyways), plus it gave the go-ahead to do some wedding planning ahead of time. As I see it, engagement makes especially good sense if you're in a long-distance relationship. In our situation, we knew my wife would be going to graduate school in a distant location, so we'd be apart for about six months before the wedding date we had planned. I'm just curious to see if 'long courtship, short engagement so we don't get into trouble' is the common line of thinking for people getting engaged. I don't really see how being engaged would get you into more trouble - for me, engagement made me feel incredibly more committed and less likely to do anything that would spoil the prospect of a temple marriage.

I kind of think that as soon as you decide you're getting married, the temptation is probably the same no matter what you call it. So you might as well just get engaged at that point.

I used to think that a long engagement would be a good idea, but everyone tells me that it's 'supposed' to be a long courtship, short engagement. I see them much the same honestly.

Everyone I know gives the advice to have a long courtship and a short engagement. My bishop, my parents, my leaders...it's just kind of what I expected to do.

My parents actually had a very short courtship. I'm talking less than a month. They were engaged for six months and felt that it was too long. To kind of go along with what NerdGirl said, they feel from their experiences that once you decide you're getting married, you may as well get married sooner rather than later.

But I'm not married to the idea (hah, maybe should've chosen a different word). If a long engagement is necessary due to long absences as in the question, it'll be okay.

I've always heard the long courtship-short engagement thing too, and it was almost always because of the impression that "the devil will tempt you so much more once you are engaged to keep you away from a temple marriage." My husband even had a friend of his (who unfortunately didn't get married in the temple due to succumbing to temptation with her fiancé, which apparently meant she knew what she was talking about) tell him that, once we were engaged, we should never, ever be alone together because we wouldn't be able to handle it. But I agree with Yarjka--I wouldn't say I felt less temptation once we were engaged, but I actually felt better able to resist it because I knew what we were headed for and didn't want to destroy that, and I also knew that, in just a short while, we would be able to cross that line with no regrets.

Anyway, I think it's definitely a case-by-case basis. If you know you want to marry the person, then it doesn't matter how long you have been dating--if the Spirit confirms, then go for it. And be engaged for however long it takes you to plan your wedding. My engagement was less than three months and I felt it was the perfect length. I'm not the kind of person who feels like I need 6+ months to plan a temple wedding. Those who need more time, more power to you. I'm just not like that.

I've always had my own personal opinion that I want to date 6-8 months and be engaged 4-6 months. I see no point in putting off the wedding once it has been decided upon, but my family will need the time to fund a trip to where ever we decided to get married. I have a personal problem with getting married when I hardly know the guy, so I want to have known him at least a year before the wedding, but part of that year can be the engagement.

I had a friend in that exact predicament- the guy was in military school, and not allowed to be married until he finished. They had a long distance engagement. I agree with what is said above - why all this fuss about the name? Engaged means planning to be married. If you are planning to be married when he gets done, then call it what it is. Except tell dad you are still dating, I guess. It is hard to get in physical trouble if it is long distance.

But the physical temptation is real, that's for sure. The little voice that says "I don't feel comfortable doing that" went away for me when I knew hubby was the right guy, and knew we were going to be doing anything we wanted to soon. So it is up to the rest of your brain to remember the rules. And I am not very good at keeping rules like that. We were engaged for 6 months, and it was TERRIBLE towards the end. (We had a long engagement because my parents hadn't paid their tithing and needed to do so for 5 months before being allowed in. My husband it still furious that we had to pay for their transgression, so to speak.)

On the other hand, my parents had known each other for one month and two days by their wedding day. My dad was in the Navy, who had him out to sea during the week. So they dated for three weekends. And then the Navy told him he was being transferred across the country. It was either get married or never see each other again, so they got married.

I think the long courtship is common because, in theory, it helps two people really get to know each other well before making such a grand commitment. It gives you lots of time to thoroughly examine your significant other, dig in the dirt a little, and back out if necessary.

Oh, and the "preventing physical mishaps" factor is an interesting one. I don't know that the physical temptation gets stronger, per se. Having had a rather long courtship prior to our engagement (nearly a year and a half), I would say that our physical temptation is pretty similar to what it was before engagement. And you know, instead of temptation, I would actually prefer to use the word frustration. Your whole body is telling you, loud and clear, that it wants one thing and one thing only. But then your brain has to shut it off, just when it's starting to get good. That's frustration like I'd never experienced before.

TheAnswerIs42 wrote: ...why all this fuss about the name?

I disagree with this sentiment. Changing the label changes the way you and society perceive the entire situation. Wasn't this one of the biggest arguments for Prop 8? I think language has an incredible power over our thinking.

And yes, I agree with the long courtship, short engagement idea. I absolutely think it helps keep a lot of Mormon kids in heat out of trouble.

krebscout wrote:

TheAnswerIs42 wrote: ...why all this fuss about the name?

I disagree with this sentiment. Changing the label changes the way you and society perceive the entire situation.

I'm with krebscout on this one, although I was surprised by the extent to which everyone else's perception changed once I actually got engaged. All of a sudden, it was like "WEDDING PLANS! NAME CHANGE! FAMILY PLANNING!" when only days before, I was still debating about whether or not I even wanted to go through with it. That was a bit of a wake-up call for me.

I was talking to a lady in my ward the other day and she told me about her daughter who is getting engaged in September--that's right, it's planned when she's getting engaged (wedding's in January). The mom and I both consider them practically engaged already, but the girl wants to have a long courtship and short engagement.

Dead Cat wrote:I was talking to a lady in my ward the other day and she told me about her daughter who is getting engaged in September--that's right, it's planned when she's getting engaged (wedding's in January). The mom and I both consider them practically engaged already, but the girl wants to have a long courtship and short engagement.

...defeats the purpose.

My boyfriend and I have a plan to be engaged if we are still dating at a certain time. What's wrong with a Plan A and Plan B?

Dead Cat's example is mostly what I meant by my statement. Engaged means planning to get married. If you are planning to get married, call it engaged. Get over whatever problems you have with the name, call it what it is, and act accordingly. I knew people who were planning the wedding, but told me they weren't "engaged" because they hadn't found the right ring yet so he hadn't done an "official" proposal. If you have both agreed to be married some day in the future, calling that situation something else isn't going to change what it is.

I agree with kresbscout in that calling it something different does change how you view it. Hence, if you are planning to get married, you should be in the "engaged" mindset and not pretending to yourself that you are still "dating". That reminds me of a mother treating her teenager like he is 4 years old. You relationship has grown up, and you should treat it that way, not pretend it is something it isn't just to satisfy other people.

I'm thinking about getting pre-engaged to Ann.

Gimgimno wrote:I'm thinking about getting pre-engaged to Ann.

Dang it. I was all set to get all excited about how Ann O. Nimhouse is such a CUTE girl and I just loved her to pieces when I met her and all that...

But don't even worry. It's an Arrested Development quotation. Not gonna embarrass myself now.

Quote of the day from my foster brother (though technically it was yesterday): "If she and I date, we're not going to start out by being engaged." Like they did last time. hahahahahaha

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:Dead Cat's example is mostly what I meant by my statement. Engaged means planning to get married. If you are planning to get married, call it engaged. Get over whatever problems you have with the name, call it what it is, and act accordingly. I knew people who were planning the wedding, but told me they weren't "engaged" because they hadn't found the right ring yet so he hadn't done an "official" proposal. If you have both agreed to be married some day in the future, calling that situation something else isn't going to change what it is.

I agree with kresbscout in that calling it something different does change how you view it. Hence, if you are planning to get married, you should be in the "engaged" mindset and not pretending to yourself that you are still "dating". That reminds me of a mother treating her teenager like he is 4 years old. You relationship has grown up, and you should treat it that way, not pretend it is something it isn't just to satisfy other people.

Well then, I guess I was engaged when snay broke up with me. sigh.

yellow m&m wrote:

TheAnswerIs42 wrote:Dead Cat's example is mostly what I meant by my statement. Engaged means planning to get married. If you are planning to get married, call it engaged. Get over whatever problems you have with the name, call it what it is, and act accordingly. I knew people who were planning the wedding, but told me they weren't "engaged" because they hadn't found the right ring yet so he hadn't done an "official" proposal. If you have both agreed to be married some day in the future, calling that situation something else isn't going to change what it is.

I agree with kresbscout in that calling it something different does change how you view it. Hence, if you are planning to get married, you should be in the "engaged" mindset and not pretending to yourself that you are still "dating". That reminds me of a mother treating her teenager like he is 4 years old. You relationship has grown up, and you should treat it that way, not pretend it is something it isn't just to satisfy other people.

Well then, I guess I was engaged when snay broke up with me. sigh.

Aye, this brings up a good counterpoint. One reason to argue for an 'engagement only after the ring' mindset is the outward declaration that an engagement ring has come to mean. Without that explicit declaration, and going off of the thought that engagement is simply planning on getting married, many couples could well be considered engaged before they ever contrive to get out on a date. Using this definition, my own list of engagements would only fall short of the number of dates I've been on by a very small number.

When considering wedding & engagement rings, I had been under the assumption that the wedding ring was the big one, with the engagement ring being more of a glorified promise ring. I was then informed that an engagement ring was (supposedly) at one time a form of insurance against the woman's virginity. As it was presumed that the assurance of marriage that is an engagement would increase the likelihood of pre-marital coupling, the expensive ring was to stand collateral if the engagement were to be called off after the woman's virginity was lost.

Whether or not the explanation is true, it does establish the same mentality as the querent's father: engagements increase likelihood of 'physical trouble'.

I'm not sure how I would respond to the querent. I think my advice would lean away from Sky Bones' as I can perhaps too readily see myself as the boy in question (my life plans once mirrored his situation closely). A soldier serving in a military academy cannot get married and indeed, I'm not sure how much time one would have to build a solid relationship under those conditions.

Building a rough timeline shows my thoughts. Age 17 boy and girl meet presumably he is a senior in HS, having already applied and been accepted into a military academy. They require you complete your second year prior to serving a mission, so say his plebe summer is immediately after graduation, and he jumps in. That plebe year is as full-time as a mission, you have no leave permitted under normal cirumstances. Second year would see a break for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and perhaps a week before shipping out for summer dutys if I recall correctly. That'd put him at 19-20 when his second year ends, bringing him to the mission. 21-22 upon coming home from a full-term mission, with 2 more years until graduation and the earliest option for marriage being age 23-24.

So, total time with girl: HS senior year + perhaps upwards of 4 weeks prior to the mission. I don't believe much time is allotted between missions and returning to class, call it generous and give the boy a month. He is now starting his third year of class, with more leave time, but only on the order of a week or two more per year. So. In the ~5 years these two have been acquainted, I would guess they've been in each others' presence no more than 10 weeks max since high school graduation. Perhaps another month post-mish, and now they (or at least she) is planning a wedding in 2 years.

Understanding a bit more about their situation still doesn't grant enough info to come to a solid conclusion, other than it'd take a very good couple to make it work. A marriage after 6 years of long distance relationship-ping, tempered by visits measured in the single digit weeks-per-year at most requires utmost honesty and superior communication skills. Not knowing either party involved, I'd defer to someone who does, and say following parent's advice would be... advisable.

My friend that married the guy after West Point met him online. They had only met each other a few times in person. We were very worried, but they are still together and just had their second kid, so I guess it all worked out.

Oh, and to clarify, I'm not saying that one person can just plan on marrying another and call themselves engaged here. The key was "if you have both agreed to be married some day in the future." If you are both talking about the wedding, planning the wedding, etc, then you are engaged. Yellow M&M, I don't know if that still applies to you, but I'm sorry to hear that. Breakups are always harder the longer or more involved they were.