Mission required?

[Guest mysticmorini]

just to set the record straight i meant intra-faith, intra meaning within, therefor intra-faith meaning within the faith.

[Guest]

"A 1993 study published in Demography showed that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) were the least likely of all faith groups to divorce: After five years of marriage, only 13% of LDS couples had divorced. But when a Mormon marries a non-Mormon, the divorce rate was found to have increased more than three-fold to 40%. Similar data for Jews were 27% and 42%." Divorce rates among inter-faith marriages

How did I know that you were gonna pull that statistic? Well, that's because, when you run a google search, that's about the only thing that comes up.

Unfortunately, I have researched this high-and-low as I'm from a mixed-marriage and I had a hard time with that counsel to teach my children to only marry LDS - for obvious reasons.

Anyway, that 40% statistic is not a valid argument against the advice not to marry non-LDS people, and I tell you why (I have taken advanced statistics classes, if that makes more believability to my statement). The same divorce statistic is observed between inter-racial couples. And you don't hear anybody advising against marrying a different race in the LDS church. (My husband and I are of different races too!)

What really gets me is, there are no studies anywhere that I can find that the difference in divorce statistics between homogenous religions and different religions is caused by religion and not the plain fact that most people who marry somebody different from who they are didn't understand the difference or just expected the other to change!

So, if you are going to give that 40% statistic to convince people not to marry outside of LDS, then you might as well, pull the 40% statistic of inter-racial divorce rates and the other statistic of divorce rates between couples of different backgrounds. But, the "real" lesson should have been - do not marry someone expecting the other to change, or do not marry someone when you cannot handle your differences!

Edited January 30, 2010 by anatess

[Guest mysticmorini]

How did I know that you were gonna pull that statistic? Well, that's because, when you run a google search, that's about the only thing that comes up.

Unfortunately, I have researched this high-and-low as I'm from a mixed-marriage and I had a hard time with that counsel to teach my children to only marry LDS - for obvious reasons.

Anyway, that 40% statistic is not a valid argument against the advice not to marry non-LDS people, and I tell you why (I have taken advanced statistics classes, if that makes more believability to my statement). The same divorce statistic is observed between inter-racial couples. And you don't hear anybody advising against marrying a different race in the LDS church. (My husband and I are of different races too!)

What really gets me is, there are no studies anywhere that I can find that the difference in divorce statistics between homogenous religions and different religions is caused by religion and not the plain fact that most people who marry somebody different from who they are didn't understand the difference or just expected the other to change!

So, if you are going to give that 40% statistic to convince people not to marry outside of LDS, then you might as well, pull the 40% statistic of inter-racial divorce rates and the other statistic of divorce rates between couples of different backgrounds. But, the "real" lesson should have been - do not marry someone expecting the other to change, or do not marry someone when you cannot handle your differences!

actually the church does advise against inter-racial marriage. “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background, and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

[Dravin]

Ah, and there's the rub. Because, a lot of temple marriages who end up in divorce is civilly divorced, not temple divorced. Now, there's the thing that says - what God has put together let no man put assunder, or something to that effect.

But, can you still be worthy of your temple sealing if you've divorced your spouse - civilly or not?

I honestly don't know the "true" answer. My take on the matter is that when you abandoned your spouse, the sealing cannot last... but then, I'm no expert on these things.

I'm fairly sure Wingnut was talking about being married and unsealed versus being married and sealed, not being sealed and divorced versus unsealed and divorced.

[Wingnut]

I'm fairly sure Wingnut was talking about being married and unsealed versus being married and sealed, not being sealed and divorced versus unsealed and divorced.

I was speaking of being sealed vs. not being sealed.

[pam]

actually the church does advise against inter-racial marriage. “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background, and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Perhaps I'm talking semantics here..but recommending and advising against can sometimes be different things. Here they state recommend. While it makes sense in many ways, this was also made before the Church became so culturally diversified, before Blacks even held the Priesthood and let's face it..25 years ago a lot of thoughts were different.

If I were to find a man who was of a different race or culture than myself, a man who was strong in the gospel, who honored his Priesthood, who respected and loved me..I certainly wouldn't say..Sorry I can't pursue a relationship with you because it was recommended 25 years ago that I should stay within my own race.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Perhaps I'm talking semantics here..but recommending and advising against can sometimes be different things. Here they state recommend. While it makes sense in many ways, this was also made before the Church became so culturally diversified, before Blacks even held the Priesthood and let's face it..25 years ago a lot of thoughts were different.

If I were to find a man who was of a different race or culture than myself, a man who was strong in the gospel, who honored his Priesthood, who respected and loved me..I certainly wouldn't say..Sorry I can't pursue a relationship with you because it was recommended 25 years ago that I should stay within my own race.

it may have been recommended 25 years ago but its still in the aronic priesthood manual under the chapter "choosing an eternal mate"

[pam]

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

Like I said, in many ways makes sense, but it not an absolute. They never said "advise against." I think they were smart in using the words recommend..as many who read "advise against" can take that literally. We have to be careful when we are changing the words of what is actually written or expressed. There are many non lds who read these boards that would take that to mean we are forbidden to marry someone outside our own race.

[Nikkie85]

Teaching your young women to marry only return missionaries is as bad as telling your kids to marry only LDS members.

IDIOTIC.

Yes, yes, there is a talk by one of the 12 about marrying in the temple, but guess what, if my husband only married somebody who are temple-worthy, I wouldn't be his wife today. And I will tell you that without a shadow of a doubt, this Catholic-turned-LDS woman right here is the best thing that ever happened to him. And, of course, he's the best thing that ever happened to me too. And look where we are now.

Marriage is not something you can pigeon-hole into simple statements like return missionaries, lds members. It is something personal to every single person and must be given to God in prayer.

Of course, worthy return missionaries and LDS members are preferable, but that's not to be taken as a hard-and-fast rule.

Not only are the YW taught this but this is also taught in primary. They sing songs about going on missions and marrying in the temple.

I agree that being a RM does not mean you will turn out to be a outstanding priesthood holder.

I was not a member when my husband married me and he was extremely blessed that I joined that church and that we were able to be sealed to one another.

I never knew the blessing of the church or the temple until I experienced them. I would be greatly saddened if my children did not marry in the temple only because I want them to have the blessings that comes along with it.

Dating nonmembers is frowned upon because it comes with the risk or falling in love which might lead to marriage. This might turn out perfect and the spouse might convert but what if they dont? I would want my daughters to have the blessing of being able to have the priesthood in her home. I would want my sons to be married to a woman who shares his values and morals.

It is possible that my children could marry members and they could go inactive, get divorces, etc, etc. Sure but I think the odds are lower.

I plan on teaching my future children that they are expected to go on missions and they are expected to marry in the temple.

[Palerider]

Does recommend mean- you have to????? or does it mean suggest or advise???

[hordak]

In the interest of equality and fairness if "we" are to judge a mans "worthiness" to marry our daughters based on there ability to serve a mission (which show commitment to the church, their calling etc) I propose the young women are assigned to nursery, and spend the last 2 years of the YW program cooking meal, cleaning the rooms of and doing the laundry for the men to prove their "worthiness" to marry our sons (commitment to the family, church, their calling etc).

[pam]

Okay I'll agree with that hordak. I do think girls should be ready and prepared to take care of a home. But not at the risk of making the men lazy themselves. Makes it sound almost like having them be servants.

But I know many young women who don't know the first thing about taking care of a home or how to even do some of the basic necessities of taking care of themselves let alone a husband and a family.

Egads..that's twice I've agreed with hordak in less than a week.

[Guest mysticmorini]

In the interest of equality and fairness if "we" are to judge a mans "worthiness" to marry our daughters based on there ability to serve a mission (which show commitment to the church, their calling etc) I propose the young women are assigned to nursery, and spend the last 2 years of the YW program cooking meal, cleaning the rooms of and doing the laundry for the men to prove their "worthiness" to marry our sons (commitment to the family, church, their calling etc).

agreed!

[hordak]

Okay I'll agree with that hordak. I do think girls should be ready and prepared to take care of a home. But not at the risk of making the men lazy themselves. Makes it sound almost like having them be servants.

But I know many young women who don't know the first thing about taking care of a home or how to even do some of the basic necessities of taking care of themselves let alone a husband and a family.

Egads..that's twice I've agreed with hordak in less than a week.

If it makes you feel better that was meant to be tongue in cheek and show how offensive it is judge a persons marriage potential purely on their ability to fulfill the "prescribe" roles. So you didn't really.

[pam]

Whewww...I'm really relieved to know this. I mean agreeing with you once in a week was bad enough but twice? I feel much better now.

[Islander]

The US is a micro-cosm. It is a very small yet strident bugle that constantly trumpets to the wind the observations of very short term social experiments as if they were existential truths of some kind.

In just about any other society, social norms, values, traditions and training takes place with the explicit intent of preparing the individual to be a productive member of such society. In the US we have elevated the practice of being self-centered to a cult. What I think, feel, want and desired equates to truth that demands validation from the larger society. Nothing could be closer to an aberration as that position. We tend to ignore what GOD has said when it comes to who we are, what we ought to believe and do.

Yes, the Lord has opened heaven once more and poured upon a lost and slumbering world His light and truth once more. According to such, we agree of our own free will, to enter into a covenant to receive His Priesthood authority and power on account of absolute faithfulness, devotion and a vocation to service. We promise to care, protect, provide, serve, love and honor our wives after His example and before His eyes for time and all eternity. In order to do the previously mentioned, I must prepare and demonstrate my willingness to "walk the talk." Young men are asked to prepare and serve a mission, to serve His children, prepare spiritually and academically to effectively provide for a future family and keep themselves unspotted from the sins of the world as to be worthy to present their brides at the altar in the Temple. Is it too much to ask that she is ready and actually willing to do the same? Is her preparation to be a strong, effective and enduring companion, wife, mother and servant of the Lord less important?

[Saguaro]

it may have been recommended 25 years ago but its still in the aronic priesthood manual under the chapter "choosing an eternal mate"

Unfortunately those manuals haven't been updated in the last 20 years or so. Someone pointed out the fact that the quotes I posted from the Aaronic priesthood manual about serving a mission are out of date, as in before the bar was raised, and I have to agree on that point. I highly doubt a bishop or any priesthood leader would say to someone's face that they recommend they not marry outside of their race.

[Palerider]

Unfortunately those manuals haven't been updated in the last 20 years or so. Someone pointed out the fact that the quotes I posted from the Aaronic priesthood manual about serving a mission are out of date, as in before the bar was raised, and I have to agree on that point. I highly doubt a bishop or any priesthood leader would say to someone's face that they recommend they not marry outside of their race.

If I were a Bishop....I would never tell someone that...:)

[ferretrunner]

I would be more interested in how the man is NOW. What is his faith like? How does he treat people? Does he uphold the priesthood and the commandments?

When young men are 19-21, some just are not mature enough to serve a mission. Or they have health issues. Or they don't have a testimony. Or they just don't "feel like" going. Perhaps that lassitude is reflective of any of the above or other causes.

However, 5-10 years later, they're more mature. Their faith is strong; they have a testimony and strive to uphold the commandments. They have learned and grown.

So, disqualify them as a potential date/ husband because they didn't serve a mission? No.

From talking to the missionaries, there is much of their calling that reminds me of the military. THe military is not for everyone. I think there are some wonderful men out there who just don't fit the "missionary mold" at age 19.

Yes. I would marry a non-RM

[Snow]

I have heard it said that missions for young men are a commandment, required, mandatory, encouraged, expected, and/ or obligatory. what are your thoughts on the necessity of missions for young men? will a voluntary decision not to go on a mission place a young man in jeopardy of not being exalted? how do you feel about the social pressures put on young men to serve especially on those who don't serve? would you think less of a young man who didn't go on a mission? women, would you marry a man who didn't serve a mission?

Let me put it this way...

I once knew a young man who did not go on a mission. At first, life proceeded normally. He went to college, made the Dean's list. Graduated with honors. Interviewed with and then got hired by a major accounting firm. He got engaged to a lovely young lady and all seemed rosy and bright.

Then one day he was walking down Main Street while at lunch; he suddenly burst into flames. Crumpling to the ground his fiery frame spit out incendiary tentacles in all directions, instantly combusting passer-bys who popped and crackled in a hellish tango of brimstone and sulfur. As suddenly as they had started, the flames snuffed out. What remained of the man's carcass split asunder and his bowels spilled upon the sidewalk where they became carrion for wild dogs and birds.

Coincidence?

You be the judge.

[pam]

I seriously needed the laugh option for that one.

[LostSheep]

Then one day he was walking down Main Street while at lunch; he suddenly burst into flames. Crumpling to the ground his fiery frame spit out incendiary tentacles in all directions, instantly combusting passer-bys who popped and crackled in a hellish tango of brimstone and sulfur. As suddenly as they had started, the flames snuffed out. What remained of the man's carcass split asunder and his bowels spilled upon the sidewalk where they became carrion for wild dogs and birds.

[Guest]

Dating nonmembers is frowned upon because it comes with the risk or falling in love which might lead to marriage. This might turn out perfect and the spouse might convert but what if they dont? I would want my daughters to have the blessing of being able to have the priesthood in her home. I would want my sons to be married to a woman who shares his values and morals.

So, you're saying that ONLY LDS members can share your values and morals? And you think that any LDS member share your values and morals?

It is possible that my children could marry members and they could go inactive, get divorces, etc, etc. Sure but I think the odds are lower.

Actually, national statistics in the USA prove this statement wrong. There is about the same percentage of divorces between mormon marriages and the national average. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

Not only are the YW taught this but this is also taught in primary. They sing songs about going on missions and marrying in the temple.

I agree that being a RM does not mean you will turn out to be a outstanding priesthood holder.

I was not a member when my husband married me and he was extremely blessed that I joined that church and that we were able to be sealed to one another.

I never knew the blessing of the church or the temple until I experienced them. I would be greatly saddened if my children did not marry in the temple only because I want them to have the blessings that comes along with it.

I plan on teaching my future children that they are expected to go on missions and they are expected to marry in the temple.

I'm not teaching "expected". That's what my mom taught me when I was Catholic. I'm expected to marry a Filipino Catholic. If I would have (I broke off my relationship 1 week before the wedding), I could be divorced right now.

That's what my friend went through when her parents put that expectation on her - she married and divorced 2 return missionaries - one with a temple sealing, before finding happiness with a non-member who shares her values and respects their differences. Her home teachers and bishopric provide the needed priesthood in her home.

I'm teaching my children to choose wisely. I'm teaching them about the plan of salvation, I'm teaching them about the temple, I'm teaching them about eternal marriages, I'm teaching them about exaltation. And they are taught to build their own testimonies separate from mine and the value of prayer. In addition, I am teaching them about spiritual strength, self-worth and self-confidence, commitment, working through differences, overcoming challenges, respect, and charity. And on top of that, I'm teaching them the value of good education and how to provide for a family.

They are taught to decide for themselves whether serving a mission will bring them closer to their eternal goals.

And then, when the time comes, they will be adviced to choose the person they love and respect who will bring them closer to that goal and not take them farther away. They decide who - member or no.

As a parent - I don't intend to live my children's lives for them. They will have the tools necessary to live their own.

[pam]

Okay let's sit back and take a breath here.

As LDS and as parents, we want our children to make the best decisions possible. So we bring them up teaching them hopefully to do this.

Let's face it. As LDS we know the only way to get to the highest level of the celestial kingdom is being sealed to a spouse in the temple and both living righteously, honoring the covenants made. It's only natural that parents want their children to grow up and do just that.

Nikki has a right to teach her children this and expect them to do that. Doesn't mean they will or that will be the choice they make..but she can expect it.

Ultimately we want our children to meet and fall in love with someone who holds many of the same values. Who respects and loves them. This may or may not be someone who is of the same faith.

Nikki and anatess have both stated what their expectations or hopes are for their children and how they are going about teaching and enabling them to make those decisions when the time come. Is one strategy better than the other? Nope. Because they are parents of their own children and have the right to do it in the way they as the parent sees fit.

But let's try not to be judgmental if how one parent does it doesn't agree with our own methods. I think we can state what our own hopes and dreams and wishes or even expectations would be for our children without demeaning the ways of another parent or their thoughts on the subject.

Edited January 30, 2010 by pam

[Guest]

Okay let's sit back and take a breath here.

As LDS and as parents, we want our children to make the best decisions possible. So we bring them up teaching them hopefully to do this.

Let's face it. As LDS we know the only way to get to the highest level of the celestial kingdom is being sealed to a spouse in the temple and both living righteously, honoring the covenants made. It's only natural that parents want their children to grow up and do just that.

Nikki has a right to teach her children this and expect them to do that. Doesn't mean they will or that will be the choice they make..but she can expect it.

Ultimately we want our children to meet and fall in love with someone who holds many of the same values. Who respects and loves them. This may or may not be someone who is of the same faith.

Nikki and anatess have both stated what their expectations or hopes are for their children and how they are going about teaching and enabling them to make those decisions when the time come. Is one strategy better than the other? Nope. Because they are parents of their own children and have the right to do it in the way they as the parent sees fit.

But let's try not to be judgmental if how one parent does it doesn't agree with our own methods. I think we can state what our own hopes and dreams and wishes or even expectations would be for our children without demeaning the ways of another parent or their thoughts on the subject.

No demeaning made. Just correcting some inaccurate perceptions.

I never said it is wrong to do it any other way than mine. But I do have experiences that made me choose one over the other.

Why I even tackle this discussion in the first place when I know for a fact that my view is a minority in an LDS crowd, is the "attacks" I get in my own dealings with other LDS members when I tell them I am not telling my children to marry only LDS. C'mon, think about it - I wasn't LDS when I married my husband. I cannot tell my kids not to marry a non-member when my testimony is fundamentally based on the contrary.