Soul Mates And Eternal Companions-- Same?


Melissa569

Recommended Posts

Let say it did happen, how would you 'really know', if it was the case? The earth is a big place to find one individual and you could be easily sidetracked when meeting another person.

Personal revelation.

And I'm not talking about people mistaking personal desire for actual revelation from the Lord. Through personal revelation we could come to this knowledge - if the Lord wanted it revealed.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Understandable with the parents...I am saying, YOU CAN KNOW. Do you hold the priesthood? This is the method of knowing.

Please explain.

Are you so opposite to the point, it bothers you daily? ^_^

Why does being opposite have to bother people?

I think that there are not any two people who have ever lived that are completely opposite on all things. There is always some common ground. My wife and I have some similar backgrounds and we share a belief in the Church. Our personalities are very different. Our interests probably have more differences that similarities. Our views on many issues differ. I find very few of these differences to be bothersome. I embrace the diversity.

Have I been going about this incorrectly all these years? Should I be bothered by the diversity in our relationship? I thought it was a strength.

:banana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranman, your definition of "soul mate" is not consistent with the world's definition. When people hear "soul mate" they think of that one person who was destined to be theirs. I think that using that term is a misnomer and could lead to misunderstandings (obviously as I thought you were using that definition when I posted my earlier reply).

One thing I'm very aware of on this board is that we have a lot of non-members who read these threads. So, when they read "soul mate" and think the church is teaching about that, they have a very different understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain.

Example, giving a child blessing, the heavens were parted long enough look to see whom I was blessing. :cool: What a moment.

Another instance, I was just talking to my wife one day and then went pale as she stated. What I was shown, was her past glory. What a few seconds can do to a person. I was shaken by this experience....

Why does being opposite have to bother people?

I think that there are not any two people who have ever lived that are completely opposite on all things. There is always some common ground. My wife and I have some similar backgrounds and we share a belief in the Church. Our personalities are very different. Our interests probably have more differences that similarities. Our views on many issues differ. I find very few of these differences to be bothersome. I embrace the diversity.

Have I been going about this incorrectly all these years? Should I be bothered by the diversity in our relationship? I thought it was a strength.

:banana:

Why? Being a former Marine, everything has a place for it. Everything is organized. Even to the point of recapping the toothpaste after usage and place back in the normal location Even the closet is organized by item and color. Worst yet, the car driven is kept clean and tuned up. And so on. . . . . . . ...."OH THE MADDNESS."

Though, you are right. I learned to overcome it through patience and seeing it for what is worth for my salvation…loving unconditionally and accept others for who they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranman, your definition of "soul mate" is not consistent with the world's definition. When people hear "soul mate" they think of that one person who was destined to be theirs. I think that using that term is a misnomer and could lead to misunderstandings (obviously as I thought you were using that definition when I posted my earlier reply).

One thing I'm very aware of on this board is that we have a lot of non-members who read these threads. So, when they read "soul mate" and think the church is teaching about that, they have a very different understanding.

Predestined marriages: is this acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranman, your definition of "soul mate" is not consistent with the world's definition. When people hear "soul mate" they think of that one person who was destined to be theirs. I think that using that term is a misnomer and could lead to misunderstandings (obviously as I thought you were using that definition when I posted my earlier reply).

One thing I'm very aware of on this board is that we have a lot of non-members who read these threads. So, when they read "soul mate" and think the church is teaching about that, they have a very different understanding.

Here is the wikipedia entry for soul mate:

A soulmate is a person with whom one has a feeling of deep and natural affinity, love, intimacy, sexuality, spirituality, and/or compatibility. A related concept is that of the twin flame or twin soul – which is thought to be the ultimate soulmate, the one and only other half of one's soul, for which all souls are driven to find and join. However, not everyone who uses these terms intends them to carry such mystical connotations.

Here is the dictionary.com definition for it:

–noun

a person with whom one has a strong affinity.

:banana:

I grabbed the first two results that came up. Both echo what I presented. At this point I have to conclude that it is your definition that is not consistent with the worlds.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example, giving a child blessing, the heavens were parted long enough look to see whom I was blessing. :cool: What a moment.

Another instance, I was just talking to my wife one day and then went pale as she stated. What I was shown, was her past glory. What a few seconds can do to a person. I was shaken by this experience....

Ah, thank you. For some odd reason I hadn't thought of either.

Let me add yet another. My patriarchal blessings states that I covenanted with my parents to be my parents. This means that they arranged with one another to be married here in mortality - and did. My mom is from South Dakota, my father is from Arkansas and they both met in Arizona where I was born. How amazing it is that circumstances brought both of them here where they could meet. But it didn't prevent them from exercising their own free will.

In addition, my patriarchal blessing stated (before I was married) that I knew a young woman in the pre-existence and had promised to marry her. That would be based on both of us living worthily and doing as we were supposed to do. I believe that the woman I married is the one I promised in the pre-existence.

I have a feeling that my children will also turn out to be people that I covenanted with. My patriarchal blessing is filled with statements about knowing people in the pre-existence and interacting with them here on Earth.

With God - all things are possible.

:)

Why? Being a former Marine, everything has a place for it. Everything is organized. Even to the point of recapping the toothpaste after usage and place back in the normal location Even the closet is organized by item and color. Worst yet, the car driven is kept clean and tuned up. And so on. . . . . . . ...."OH THE MADDNESS."

Though, you are right. I learned to overcome it through patience and seeing it for what is worth for my salvation…loving unconditionally and accept others for who they are.

I can see what you're saying. But it doesn't have to be that way.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two questions:

1. Spencer W. Kimball was calling "a person with whom one has a strong affinity" a fiction?

2. My brother is my soul mate?

That can be used for anyone in a relationship (and possibly more broadly than that) which pretty much strips it of utility. I think we are having a divorce between the connotative meanings of words and the denotative meanings of words. The OP (and as mentioned President Kimball) were not talking about people for which one has a strong affinity.

So can we at least all agree with that this (pulled from an Aaronic Priesthood Manual), "A person that is considered the one and only right person." what ever we want to make it a definition for is false? The same lesson quotes both President Kimball and President Packer decrying the concept of soul mates.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two questions:

1. Spencer W. Kimball was calling "a person with whom one has a strong affinity" a fiction?

2. My brother is my soul mate?

You do realize that you have effectively turned soul mate into a term that can be used for anyone in a relationship (and possibly more broadly than that)? Which pretty much strips it of utility. I think we are having a divorce between the connotative meanings of words and the denotative meanings of words. The OP (and as mentioned President Kimball) were not talking about people with which one has a strong affinity.

Who are you addressing this to?

If me:

1. Did Spencer Kimball state that he was addressing people who have a strong affiinty? Or was he addressing people who thought there could only be one potential eternal companion for them?

2. If you consider your brother your "mate" then I guess so. I would classify that as a "kindred soul" since I reserve the term "mate" for my spouse. But feel free to work that any way you want.

And it seems to me that I haven't "turned" soul mate into anything other than what it is. I have provided two sources which identify the definiton of a soul mate. It is not my doing if you, the OP, and Spencer Kimbal decide to use a meaning that varies with the textbook. Is there a reason why I should be criticized for understanding what the term actually means? Have I committed some faux pas on this forum by being informed?

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the problem in communication here is the actual definition of soul mate and the socially accepted definition of soul mate. society has made it to mean a romantic marriage. "the one"

the actual definition, which has been pointed out, can be anyone you knew before, your soul connects with. i think the term "anam cara" fits this better. which means soul friend, sometimes also referred to as soul mate. anam cara can be anyone, regardless of gender or marriage status, it's not about romance (though it can involve that) it's about the connecting of two souls.

seems to me everyone has made their point and we are running in circles. this thread run it's course?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Did Spencer Kimball state that he was addressing people who have a strong affiinty? Or was he addressing people who thought there could only be one potential eternal companion for them?

He stated soul mate, if it is indeed "the" meaning of the term then that is what Spencer W. Kimball would have been decrying. There is additional clarification as to what he was talking about. You seem to be having trouble understanding that people can put different spins on words, yes you've quoted a few internet sources but my experience (and others) is that connotation of the word is much different. Also of note, dictionaries are usually a poor source (depending on the quality of the dictionary) for connotative meanings though they are usually good for denotative.

Do you honestly think the OP was talking about "a person with whom one has a strong affinity"? That Spencer W. Kimball was? By purposefully coming into the thread and using a definition that while you can find support for is not in line with the sense the word is being used in the thread is being intentionally obfuscating. Completely ignoring any rightness or wrongness your insistence on using that term is going to result in misunderstanding.

2. If you consider your brother your "mate" then I guess so. I would classify that as a "kindred soul" since I reserve the term "mate" for my spouse. But feel free to work that any way you want.

Your support from dictionary.com makes no such stipulation, plus if I was Australian or English I might very well call my brother "mate."

Is there a reason why I should be criticized for understanding what the term actually means? Have I committed some faux pas on this forum by being informed?

Yes, you are intentionally obfuscating and being obtuse. The OP, nor previous usage nor common usage make soul mate a word for anyone in a relationship. Yes you can quote a dictionary, yes that is a serviceable denotative meaning but you are communicating something quite different connotatively.

It's like going on about how Christ's Church is the catholic church because it is suppose to be universal (which is what the word catholic means), you can pull out a dictionary to support your use of such but continued use of the word after it has been pointed out it has additional and different meaning (people will think you mean the Roman Catholic Church) is going to result in confusion.

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see what you're saying. But it doesn't have to be that way.

:)

Thanks for sharing your PB. It always amazes me how different and unique we are in this creation.

If you knew who I am before this life, it does explain a lot about my character. This is why, FATHER sent me forth into latter days of mortality versus the millennium. I now understand HIS point. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two questions:

1. Spencer W. Kimball was calling "a person with whom one has a strong affinity" a fiction?

2. My brother is my soul mate?

That can be used for anyone in a relationship (and possibly more broadly than that) which pretty much strips it of utility. I think we are having a divorce between the connotative meanings of words and the denotative meanings of words. The OP (and as mentioned President Kimball) were not talking about people for which one has a strong affinity.

So can we at least all agree with that this (pulled from an Aaronic Priesthood Manual), "A person that is considered the one and only right person." what ever we want to make it a definition for is false? The same lesson quotes both President Kimball and President Packer decrying the concept of soul mates.

See post 55.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He stated soul mate, if it is indeed "the" meaning of the term then that is what Spencer W. Kimball would have been decrying. There is additional clarification as to what he was talking about.

I prefer to read quotes within the context of which they were given. Here is the full paragraph from which this quote was taken.

"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."

In summation, he uses soul mate as someone who can be most compatible and beautiful.

He then follows up with the advice that almost any pair can have happiness if both are willing to pay the price. That strikes me as contradictory. If soul mates are fiction, then there is no difference between marriages; all couples apparently will have to pay the price in order to get along.

I guess I disagree with Kimball. I find that there is a great deal of differences in how people get along. From my own personal experience I can state that there are women whom I had a very hard time getting along with and there is my wife who I have an extremely easy time getting along with. I will go as far to say that there is even a woman out there that, for me, is the most compatible and beautiful.

Now, if you want to think that there is no gradient involved, I'm perfectly willing to allow you to think it.

What I do get out of Kimball's talk is that couples who are more compatible do not gain a higher level of happiness than couples who must work to get along. That all couples can join the same pinnacle of joy and love in their marriage. Perhaps Kimball meant this rather than being dismissive of some people being naturally compatible with one another.

You seem to be having trouble understanding . . .

This is very adversarial wording. I am used to it from people who enjoy attacking others.

There is nothing wrong with my intelligence or my ability to understand. I'm not having trouble understanding anything you say. My disagreeing with you does not mean I am having trouble understanding.

. . .that people can put different spins on words, yes you've quoted a few internet sources but my experience (and others) is that connotation of the word is much different.

I'm quite aware of that. That is exactly why I posted unbiased sources for the meaning of the term - to get away from the spin. And in this case, the spin is that "soul mates" indicates that there is only one possible pairing for a blissful relationship. I have actually stayed with the unspun textbook understanding of the term.

The fact that your experience demonstrates a different understanding of the term indicates that you fall into the category of people who put a different spin on this. And once again, I am not responsible for the meaning that others put to this term. I can only attempt to use it correctly myself.

Also of note, dictionaries are usually a poor source (depending on the quality of the dictionary) for connotative meanings though they are usually good for denotative.

So what source do you normally use when you want to understand the proper meaning of a word?

Do you honestly think the OP was talking about "a person with whom one has a strong affinity"?

I don't remember making any statement like that. Perhaps you can stick to comments that I actually make on the forum.

That Spencer W. Kimball was?

I'm pretty sure I asked for clarification of what Kimball meant and was entertaining any responses given on the subject. Which precludes my "honestly thinking" that Kimball was talking about affinity. However, after looking at the quote in context, it sure reads that way to me.

By purposefully coming into the thread . . .

By purposefully coming into this thread? I thought this was a forum where members were allowed to have discussions and even introduce related topics. Perhaps I'm in the wrong place. I didn't realize that attempts to discuss a topic that interests me was somehow wrong. I certainly didn't have sinister plans when I made a conscious decision to participate.

. . .and using a definition that while you can find support for is not in line with the sense the word is being used in the thread is being intentionally obfuscating.

What have I obfuscated? :confused:

Did you find my comments hard to understand? I didn't realize that looking to a dictionary for a definition was an obfuscation tactic. :lol:

Completely ignoring any rightness or wrongness your insistence on using that term is going to result in misunderstanding.

That's your claim. Care to back it up? What rightness have I ignored. What wrongness have I ignored. And if using the dictionary term is going to result in misunderstanding, I feel that all hope is lost for this generatin to be able to do any thinking for themselves.

Your support from dictionary.com makes no such stipulation, plus if I was Australian or English I might very well call my brother "mate."

Really? No stipulation?

So the words: love, intimacy, and sexuality have no stipulatin for "soul mate" being applied to couples and marriage? That's odd because I find these to be qualifiers by which I would exclude my brother as a mate. When combined together it gives a specific picture of couples. Context is important.

As far as being Australian, unless you are, this appears to be a red herring argument. Or just an indication that perhaps you are just wanting to argue.

Yes, you are intentionally obfuscating and being obtuse. The OP, nor previous usage nor common usage make soul mate a word for anyone in a relationship. Yes you can quote a dictionary, yes that is a serviceable denotative meaning but you are communicating something quite different connotatively.

Ah. Name calling. I hadn't realized that this forum allowed that. How sad. Being obtuse is pretty much in line with calling me stupid. I find it really unfortunate that you feel my comments in this thread deserve for me to be insulted by you.

As far as intentionally obfuscating - I'm so glad you can read my mind and my heart to be able to make such judgments. And may I say - so very caring and Christian of you as well.

It's like going on about how Christ's Church is the catholic church because it is suppose to be universal (which is what the word catholic means), you can pull out a dictionary to support your use of such but continued use of the word after it has been pointed out it has additional and different meaning (people will think you mean the Roman Catholic Church) is going to result in confusion.

I guess you don't like dictionaries. How do you feel about algebra books? Do they send you into a rage? Perhaps you can arrange for a book burning in your neighborhood and toss in all the dictionaries.

:banana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your PB. It always amazes me how different and unique we are in this creation.

If you knew who I am before this life, it does explain a lot about my character. This is why, FATHER sent me forth into latter days of mortality versus the millennium. I now understand HIS point. ;)

Well, thank you for sharing a couple of your experiences, they helped make my day.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of closure noting my own posting concerning a beloved old friend, I truly love President Kimball as my own brother; posting of this reference. I even told my wife, make sure I am buried close as possible to President Kimball's grave site when I pass away.

When our eyes are truly open, from time to time, we will see and communicate with those who have watch over us in this life. I would not be making this statement if I have to state something different than a true prophet of GOD and my own brother who I care about did stated. I don't want people to think, President Kimball was wrong in making this statement either. But this reference is for the church as a whole and only in rare cases, our Heavenly Parents may over ride this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't take the time to read all the posts. But glancing over them it seems there is a lot of hair splitting going on. But in any case... I know many couples who met while one or the other of them were serving a mission. My MTC companion and my cousin got married. They met while he was teaching in the MTC. Re-met at my own wedding. OK maybe that one doesn't count. But I know so many very happy secure couples with children who first met when one was teaching the other the gospel. Whether or not those feelings and attractions were present while the one was in full time missionary service- I don't know. But I can't imagine that it's wrong to marry someone you met while on your mission.

Real live experience. I was distracted by a young man I met on my mission. We never discussed feelings for each other in person but it was pretty obvious the attraction was mutual. I discussed it with my MP and was transferred within a week. My heart broke. The young man's did, too, I found out later through letters. But it was the best thing. 4 months later at the end of my mission, I discussed the situation with my MP again. He smiled and said that when we are serving the Lord, it's easy to "fall in love" with just about anyone or anything. We fall in love with the country, the people, the children, even the trees and flowers and the dusty road we are walking on. He told me to not write to this young man for 3 months and see what happens.

So after three months we wrote some. This young man told me he wanted to marry me, but the cultural differences became so clear that I knew it would be foolish to try to pursue the relationship. I prayed about it. The answer was no. It was so sad. We would have made the perfect couple. We would have had beautiful children. I don't think I have ever been as physically attracted to any other man as I was to him, (not even my eternal companion [husband] that I've been married to for 25 years.) When I first saw him it was like an electric buzz and a warmth spread over me. And he had the perfect personality for me. We talked and laughed together so easily (with my companion right next to me of course.) He was so great with kids. Everyone loved him. He was a returned missionary. I loved his family, I loved his generous but humble spirit. He was athletic and musical and a great dancer. (I never danced with him, obviously, but I watched him dance with his sister at a stake YA function.)

BUT...we lived in completely different parts of the world. He hadn't even a high school education , but I had a college degree. He lived in a shack without any running water or electricity. We spoke different primary languages. We came from totally different life experiences.

If there was ever a man in my life who felt like a soul mate, it would have been this young man from my mission. I haven't communicated with him or his family since sending them my wedding announcement. But occasionally I think about him and that warmth and fluttery heart feeling spreads through me again. Even now 26 years later.

So I think it's possible to *think* we have met our one and only. But during the time we have committed to serve our Father in Heaven with all our hearts and minds on a full time mission is NOT the time to be thinking about making a match with someone. My one regret is having wasted any time, emotional energy or even possibly teaching opportunities by being distracted by this sweet wonderful young man. I was miserable my last 4 months of my mission not being able to see him. Not good!!

I would suggest your cousin get on top of her thoughts and re- commit herself to the work till she's done with her mission. If it was meant to be, it will work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

It is very possible for a man and a woman to have known each other in the pre-existence and be given the chance to meet and marry in the mortal world. To me, that sounds like soul mates.

I have to slightly agree with this, and admit that it makes me smile, mostly due to the fact that while NOW I do not believe in soul mates (two people completely destined to be with each other, without any doubt), I sure used to when I was a kid... even a hopeless romantic of a teen (not that my teen years are so far behind me, I'm only 21)...

But I've had the experience of meeting two worthy men and wondering which I should marry. Both served missions, were temple-worthy, went monthly to the temple (as it was a good few hours away), etc... so I didn't have the luxury of just looking at one of them and knowing "that one was my soul mate." At that point it really becomes a question of the heart and mind, "Which one do I love more? Who am I really willing to make sacrifices for?"

Of course, I do believe now that the choice I made was the correct one, and I love my husband. I sure would love to think that we knew each other in the pre-existence and just wound up together here on earth and for the rest of eternity. :)

Link to comment

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Soul mates exist because we meet someone and things just "proceed smoothly" or we've made an agreement in the pre-mortal life with someone. Is that what you are saying?

So, if 2 people have a perfect relationship without any problems, concerns, arguments, etc., then they are soul mates. I would like to see a show of hands from those who are in a relationship (and it must be a significant one of over 1 year) who has not had any issues with their significant other or had to work diligently/strenuously for their relationship. Anyone?

Hahahaha! I WISH I could raise my hand. However, my husband and I have only been married for 7 months (though we've been "together" for almost a year and a half) and already we've (unfortunately) had to work like crazy to keep our marriage balanced. I suppose that's life, but I just had to say that I laughed at the possibility of anyone raising their hand, because I'm sure we all wish we just could! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that our Eternal companions become our soul mate. At some point they may be the same thing, but I do not think they start the same. I thought the idea behind a soul mate was similar to love at first sight. I also don't think that everyone has their just one person. There is at least one other girl that I could have quite happily married, My wife may be able to say the same thing. Who would have been our soul mates?

I don't know what the statement was trying to combat, but he was not wrong. Some people are more compatable than others, but if your relationship is based on the thought that your spouse is your soul mate, is that enough to take on the trials you will face?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-- But then my cousin says that their bishop AND their MP preach to them that they "will not meet their eternal companion while on their mission", and that most MP's preach the same thing. This (to me) implies that there is a "certain person" we were each meant to end up with, and god will make sure you do not meet that person while on your mission...

I met my future wife while on my mission. The Spirit literally spoke to me and told me she was to be the woman I would marry. It was the first time I had seen her. But I didn't try to date her while on my mission.

I personally think they are told that just to keep them focussed on their mission-- which they should stay focussed!

I agree with this idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is such a thing as fake revelation, maybe Satan wants to distract her from her mission because she saw a vision of her with this guy.

I say transfer, it's better to be safe than sorry.

As i heard that there's not just one person in the whole entire world that can be your only one and true compantion, there can be several.

there can be many that would be good to marry

maybe one is a good choice, the other a better choice and another could be the best choice to marry

just depends on what you want in life.

If the bishop AND mission president say that you WONT meet your eternal companion on your mission, you won't. If your cousin doesn't listen to that and becomes more and more infatuated with this person then BIG trouble can happen. Besides if she recieved this vision, wouldn't the guy also? if not then it's not to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...