Equal yokes

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

In several of the other threads i noticed how there is a strong sense of 'LDS should date within the church'.

I thought this was something id like to ask about further, but dont want to hijack anyone else's thread, so here goes a new thread.

Anyway, my thoughts:

I find it surprising that while all LDS are encouraged to spread the gospel through mission, word, deed and example, everyone here seems to say to date within the church.

I realise that a same-faith marriage avoids a number of obstacles, yet theres a number of people sighing how difficult it is to find a suitable partner, while at the same time limiting their 'pool' of potential partners based on the partners already being LDS, and worthy, and holding temple recommends and.. and..

maybe its just me, but this seems an unnecessarily isolationist approach. Theres many members here have indicated their spouse is not in the church, and who are happy together.

Another thought: if a (potential) spouse is of a fundamentally different faith, then yes i could see how this would bring about a state of constant tension in the home.

However (at least where i live) the majority of the population is agnostic (with a watered-down christian background) and will generally have a 'mwah'-attitude towards any gospel.

While you might not share a stimulating, fiery attitude toward the gospel, this situation wont bring about much tension either, as the other will likely be luke-warm for any standpoint at best. And theres always the chance that they will come around to your views.

I dont see how this situation would make a happy home impossible to achieve, which is why i find the isolationism so... surprising.

[Dravin]

I realise that a same-faith marriage avoids a number of obstacles, yet theres a number of people sighing how difficult it is to find a suitable partner, while at the same time limiting their 'pool' of potential partners based on the partners already being LDS, and worthy, and holding temple recommends and.. and..

They're called standards, they do that, they limit you. I know you don't consider that standard particularly important (which is your prerogative), but arguing that it limits the number of potential dating partners is kinda a no brainer. I know it limits the perspective pool, but that's the purpose. BTW, it isn't some random sentiment, it is taught from the pulpit to marry in the temple, you can't do that with a unworthy member or a non-member.

One can of course debate if it is a reasonable standard (which you are bringing up). *shrug*

Edited March 22, 2010 by Dravin

[HoosierGuy]

I talked with my first Bishop about marriage (as usual). I told him I was depressed not being married and and was told to attend some Stake dances. He said it would not be a godo idea because single adult Stake dances are not well attended. Then I said I'm considering dating women outside the church and he recommended against that too. He said

dating outside the church has the tendency to drag the person in the church out. So I said - What do I do then? He said I would have to move to where there lots of LDS - California or Utah. I said - Do you want me to move out the ward? He said "No, I hope you stay forever in the ward."

So, stake dances are no good and dating out of the church is no good. I have to move to Utah?

[marts1]

I am serious with a non member myself and we are planning to be married. She likes the church very much, mostly because she feels the Spirit there. God has let me know more than once this is what I am supposed to be doing. The Bishop also feels good about whats happening. I have no idea why anyone would say we cannot be married in the temple. Her baptism will be coming up soon.

[Dravin]

I am serious with a non member myself and we are planning to be married. She likes the church very much, mostly because she feels the Spirit there. God has let me know more than once this is what I am supposed to be doing. The Bishop also feels good about whats happening. I have no idea why anyone would say we cannot be married in the temple. Her baptism will be coming up soon.

You don't plan on being married for another year?

[annamaureen]

I have no idea why anyone would say we cannot be married in the temple. Her baptism will be coming up soon.

But it doesn't always work out that way. If you're married to a non-member, you're missing out on the sealing blessings (along with other things.)

[marts1]

But it doesn't always work out that way. If you're married to a non-member, you're missing out on the sealing blessings (along with other things.)

We'll be getting married well after her baptism. Maybe a year or two depending...

[prisonchaplain]

In youth groups we were warned repeatedly about not being unequally yoked, not engaging in "missionary romance" (dating someone with the hopes of converting her), and considering dating as try-out for marriage. If they aren't qualified for marriage, they aren't qualified for dating. Nothing wrong with just meeting for lunch or coffee. But, as soon as it starts to get serious, if she isn't a Believer, then do not pursue.

Such counsel my seem conservative, archaic, limiting, etc. However, looking back, it helped me dodge more than one bullet (unhappy relationship). The reality is that as a Believer, I'd be holding a part of myself back from the unbeliever, anyway. It wouldn't be right.

Dating is not addressed in the Bible, and I'm not sure about the Triple. It was not the culture of the day. But I'd err on the side of caution. I know...my poor daughters! Or, maybe...their poor daddy.

[annamaureen]

We'll be getting married well after her baptism. Maybe a year or two depending...

I'm not talking about your situation, just those in general who marry non-members.

[marts1]

But of course the general rule is to date or marry within your own church. That is obvious. I'm just saying it can also be ok not to have to start off that way.

Edited March 23, 2010 by marts1

[john doe]

I suggest we read Genesis and find out how important it was to those people to marry within their religion.

[JudoMinja]

The whole point of dating is to isolate- missionary work and dating are two completely separate things.

Missionary work is to spread forth the gospel to all people, to give everyone an opportunity to accept the atonement and the blessings of the fulness of his teachings.

Dating is to find the one person with whom you want to spend all of eternity. Dating should remain within the church IF this is an important trait to you. Do you want to marry someone strong in the faith, who will attend church meetings and activities with you, share your same beliefs, and go to the temple with you? If no, this isn't important to you, then don't worry about keeping dating within the church. If it is, then why waste your time dating anyone else?

Yes, as marts1 has pointed out with his own example, there are exceptions to the rule.

However, dating is and always will be a selection process. You wouldn't marry just anyone- so don't date just anyone. Determine which traits are important to you, look for those traits in others, then date those people.

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

They're called standards, they do that, they limit you. I know you don't consider that standard particularly important (which is your prerogative), but arguing that it limits the number of potential dating partners is kinda a no brainer. I know it limits the perspective pool, but that's the purpose. BTW, it isn't some random sentiment, it is taught from the pulpit to marry in the temple, you can't do that with a unworthy member or a non-member.

One can of course debate if it is a reasonable standard (which you are bringing up). *shrug*

I asked my equal yokes question -on in intellectual level- from a place of genuine surprise. Truthfully, my more base and instinctive motive is that as an investigator, the implicit conclusion that where i am not not 'temple-worthy' i am in fact 'unworthy' is hurtful and feels derogatory.

It tastes of a very unchristian sense of superiority: regardless whether this (moral) superiority exists and is objectively measurable, it feels... odd to have this pushed in your face.

"They're called standards" reads: and anyone who has them, will consider you, (and six billion others with you) to be as valuable as swill.

My animal response is to go on the defensive. I hope you understand now my question. Im not out to debate how you or anyone should set your standards. I just feel personally belittled, and am trying to get a grip of how we (investigators / lurkers and generally everyone else not actively in the church) are weighed on the scale of human value.

I'd apologise for being petty and childish, and plead humanity as my defense but i ll stand for what i feel: its what i feel.

[Dravin]

Truthfully, my more base and instinctive motive is that as an investigator, the implicit conclusion that where i am not not 'temple-worthy' i am in fact 'unworthy' is hurtful and feels derogatory.

Except there is no such implicit conclusion. You can make it up if you want I suppose, but I used "or" not "and". As a non-member you have not made the prerequisite covenants to enter and be married in the holy temple (nor could you within a years time), this has nothing to do with worthiness.

"They're called standards" reads: and anyone who has them, will consider you, (and six billion others with you) to be as valuable as swill.

I suppose if you want to make things up to get offended about you may but I said no such thing, nor implied it. I'm curious, do you consider everyone you wouldn't marry to be as valuable as swill?

My point was that standards limit regardless of what those standards are or how reasonable they may be. I won't date men, that limits my pool of potential dating partners, this should not be any more of a surprise than liquid water being wet. More standards (whatever they are, even if it is something superficial such as must make $X a year or must be left handed) reduces the pool of dating partners, less standards (whatever they are) increases that pool.

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

semantics aside, i am not trying to be contrarian nor a foot-stamping child. i'm not interested in picking out what was or was not explicitly said.

the overall premise that someone outside the church should - by anyone with standards- be pre-emptively dismissed as a potential partner implies the inferiority of said reject, otherwise they would be eligible for consideration.

i'm left with the mental image that though investigators are welcomed with open arms, they will unknowingly be wearing an invisible dunce-hat throughout their investigation, which can only be washed away in the font.

Let me rephrase: how do you feel about those not actively in the church? not talking about the urge to save them, im asking how you view them? how they are weighed on the scales in your private mind?

[pam]

I don't think you will find anyone that will say you can't have an excellent marriage by marrying someone outside of the LDS faith. There are wonderful people who are not LDS that have wonderful standards and make the best partners.

However, that being said..from a LDS perspective, our belief is that to reach the highest kingdom of glory in the next life, we must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of temple marriage and covenants. The only way to do that is to marry someone that is of the LDS faith and worthy to do that.

[JudoMinja]

the overall premise that someone outside the church should - by anyone with standards- be pre-emptively dismissed as a potential partner implies the inferiority of said reject, otherwise they would be eligible for consideration.

i'm left with the mental image that though investigators are welcomed with open arms, they will unknowingly be wearing an invisible dunce-hat throughout their investigation, which can only be washed away in the font.

Let me rephrase: how do you feel about those not actively in the church? not talking about the urge to save them, im asking how you view them? how they are weighed on the scales in your private mind?

I see such people as children of God, who made the same decision I did to come to this earth and learn through experience. Children seeking the truth and happiness as they make their own choices and learn from their mistakes. Brothers and sisters who have been through similar trials, and not so similar.

I know they are just as capable as I am in determining what is good and right, what they want and desire, and what is true. Investigators come to church for many underlying reasons, but the main one is always that they are seeking truth. They are just in a different place than I am on that path for truth.

I am no better than them, no less than them. We are all equal in the eyes of God.

Determining to date only those who are temple-worthy members does not mean I think temple-worthy members are inherently better than investigators. These people are not inferior. They are not rejects. They are just not what I want in a life/eternal partner.

This is not a scale where each step up on the scale makes you a better person. There is no ranking system to determine who is the best and who the worst, because there are no ranks, there is no scale. We are all equal. Equality, however does not mean same. We all have difference, and with those differences we have preferences.

If you decide you would not like to spend time with someone because they have an annoying single mindedness for a topic you don't care about, do you consider them inferior? Do you consider them a lesser person? Hopefully, your answer is no. You simply don't seem eye to eye, your differences clash, and you would rather not be around them.

Seeking a marriage partner is the same type of selection but far more serious. If you turn someone down, this does not mean they are bad. It does not mean you think yourself better than them. It does not mean they are inferior. It just means they have a quality that does not see eye to eye with how you want to live your life.

[Dravin]

the overall premise that someone outside the church should - by anyone with standards- be pre-emptively dismissed as a potential partner implies the inferiority of said reject, otherwise they would be eligible for consideration.

Nobody maintained that premise, I certainly didn't. A member of the KKK has standards (I imagine they wouldn't date blacks or Jews) and I imagine they couldn't care less if somebody is not a member of the LDS church, at least not negatively. I imagine if they have a standard in that regard it would be against dating an active member of the Church.

I'm curious what your standards are, and what you think about your own preemptive dismissing of potential partners who do not meet those standards (that is a request to share). You seem to be railing against the concept of standards which is weird as I'm assuming you have some in regards to who you would date (e. g. limiting your pool to women or excluding those who, for example, are not interested in a monogamous relationship)*.

* Admittedly both are assumptions on my part as I don't know for sure what your standards are (I am however quite sure you have standards).

i'm left with the mental image that though investigators are welcomed with open arms, they will unknowingly be wearing an invisible dunce-hat throughout their investigation, which can only be washed away in the font.

Considering the purpose of investigation is to find out if the Church is true, not to date I'm not seeing where you are coming from. They are welcomed with open arms, welcoming is not synonymous with willingness to date, else those of the same gender or those married (or too young or too old) are not welcoming of a lot of people. If I wouldn't date someone who is adamant that they don't want children or who is adamant in amassing needless debt, that doesn't mean I don't welcome them into the church or that they are wearing some invisible dunce-hat or that they are somehow of lesser inherent worth as a human being. Just they are incompatible with my goals in life unless they (or I) change.

Let me rephrase: how do you feel about those not actively in the church? not talking about the urge to save them, im asking how you view them? how they are weighed on the scales in your private mind?

Depends on the person. Some are great people that would make great friends and whom I wouldn't mind spending time around and learn how to be a better person. Some are emotional vampires or bad influences that I don't want to be around. Others are somewhere in the middle. They are like members in that respect. All of them are children of a Father in Heaven who loves them beyond my ability to comprehend, as is their worth in his eyes. They are not less or somehow inferior to me in worth.

Something tells me you are about to beg the question some more. Namely you will continue with your circular reasoning that if I won't date someone I think they are inferior to me because I won't date them.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest Kamperfoelie]

Thank you all for taking the time to explain.

Through a misunderstanding, my misunderstanding, i felt a rosa parks vibe where there apparently was none.

Thank you for clearing things up. My assumptions were made in error, and haste i now know. As they say: assumption is the mother of all eh... bungles. Thank you also for this opportunity to grow.