wanting a little perspective.

[Plastic_Starlight]

I want to see what other people think, I've been getting a lot of mixed answers about the topic from both members and non-members. so here we go.

What are people's opinions on dating in real life as opposed to using an online site.

and is dating a non-member really so taboo?

I moved to a new city a few months ago with a very small branch. Great branch but the dating pool is.. dry. bone dry. And thats' fine I wasn't looking to get married or anything since I moved here explicitly for school.

Anyway, school- there's a boy. He's charming, well-mannered, really good looking and we have quite a bit in common. I was talking to a friend about how things were going with him and she started getting on my case about wanting to date a non-member. using cliche's like " playing with fire" and " asking for trouble". she's a friend so I was polite but rolled my eyes.

However, this is a small branch word gets around. ( and sometimes exxagerated) suddenly I have the relief society pres. and various friends and even one of the councilors of the branch pres. asking what's wrong with the guys we have and the dangers of part member families etc and if there isn't anyone I'm interested in I should go to those LDS dating sights instead.

To me this seems silly.

Is it really considered better to try and date strangers online that someone in real life regardless if they are a member or not?

I mean I don't want to rag on online dating I know a few people who have gotten married from LDS Singles Mingle and similar sights, and whatever- if that's what makes you happy then more power to you. I mean I have a cousin who gave up a beautiful life by the ocean for Lehi, Utah so it must be love .. right?

at the same time I heard from somewhere ( second hand info which is why I'm not sure about it ) that The brethren discourage online dating.

so anyway hope this isn't too vague or confusing. I guess I just want to find out what others think about things like dating non-members and online dating..

[Dravin]

What is your goal concerning getting sealed in the Temple on your wedding day? If it is important for you that you do such then dating (and marrying) non-members is not particularly in line with that goal. And no, before someone tries to bring it up I'm not suggesting people marry someone just because they have a temple recommend.

Edit:

Some past threads touching the topic:

http://www.lds.net/forums/young-single-adults-college-institute/28132-dating-non-member.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/young-single-adults-college-institute/11037-dating-non-members-ck-herre.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/single-adults/31108-equal-yokes.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/young-single-adults-college-institute/18192-keep-meeting-people-i-wish-were-members.html

Edited March 5, 2011 by Dravin

[Plastic_Starlight]

I don't think it can be that easy. yes I want to marry in the temple to a worthy priesthood holder. but just having that as a goal is not a guarantee. sorry to say but there are just as many dirtbags in the church as there are outside of it. but I also know a few people including my institute teacher and a member of the branch pres who were introduced to the church by their spouse and they either got married and sealed later or waited the year and got married in the temple. I'm not saying it happens every time. And that heavenly father want's us all to be happy so there's no risk and hard choices involved. I just don't see why we should have to limit ourselves that way.

And marriage aside. if members a few and far between- and datable members non-existant is that it do you just cut yourself off from that aspect of life?

[Dravin]

I don't think it can be that easy.

Who said it would be easy?

but just having that as a goal is not a guarantee.

A guarantee of what?

sorry to say but there are just as many dirtbags in the church as there are outside of it.

Yep, some of which even hold temple recommends. Even more are perfectly fine people but you might not want to marry them. This would be why I explicitly stated I wasn't suggesting just marrying people because they happen to have a recommend.

but I also know a few people including my institute teacher and a member of the branch pres who were introduced to the church by their spouse and they either got married and sealed later or waited the year and got married in the temple. I'm not saying it happens every time. And that heavenly father want's us all to be happy so there's no risk and hard choices involved. I just don't see why we should have to limit ourselves that way.

Yep, and there is a book about one guy who was a member of the Mafia but converted. And Apostles have been excommunicated. It's your life, you'll have to decide what the risks are and which ones you want to take. Marry a member and have them leave the church later on in life? Marry a non-member and never have them convert? Never get married?

I just don't see why we should have to limit ourselves that way.

This is what President Kimball had to say about the matter: LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Importance of Celestial Marriage

No this isn't some sort of trump card, he's just a lot more eloquent than I.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Dravin

[JudoMinja]

Dating non-members-

Whoever you decide to date, you must always consider that these are people you may potentially decide to marry. So we all filter out who to date and not date based on the qualities we want in a partner. And, as Dravin stated, there will be unforseeable risks no matter who we decide to date. Marrying a "dirtbag" member who has a temple recommend, though, is better for you eternally than marrying a non-member who you absolutely adore and get along with splendidly who never decides to convert to the gospel. That being said, I personally wouldn't want to do that. I'd rather find a member I absolutely adore and get along with splendidly, marry him, and if the future has him leaving the church I still have my temple blessings. Whichever way you decide to go is your own personal decision. If I cannot find that temple-recommend holding member who also catches my heart, guess I won't be getting married in this life.

Online dating-

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with online dating as long as the same standards applied to physical dating are also applied here. One must also be extra careful about arranging physical meetings, because no matter how well you get to know someone online, you have no idea who they "really" are until you actually meet them.

[hyohko]

Marrying a "dirtbag" member who has a temple recommend, though, is better for you eternally than marrying a non-member who you absolutely adore and get along with splendidly who never decides to convert to the gospel.

Hmmm.....

I think "dirtbag" merits some clarification. I wouldn't want to marry someone who is emotionally abusive, buried in consumer debt, emotionally vacant, selfish, petty, or unforgiving, despite the fact that these character flaws do not necessarily disqualify one from a temple recommend. Such a marriage is far more likely to end in divorce anyway, leaving both parties in the same situation as they would be had they not married in the temple first.

On this ground, I must respectfully disagree - I would have to say that if your only two honest choices were between a "dirtbag" TR holder and a good, honest, and upright non-member who will treat you in a Christlike manner, then you should not be compelled to make your married life a living hell for the sake of a covenant that you will later sever anyway.

Naturally, this does not and should not preclude marrying a Christlike TR holder. Almost all of the time, this dichotomy will not exist for you. However, you may find yourself in this situation. Thus, the choice to marry outside the church must be the product of much prayer, soul-searching, and divine confirmation.

[Guest]

I was a Catholic when my husband and I got married.

'Nuff said.

[JudoMinja]

Hmmm.....

I think "dirtbag" merits some clarification. I wouldn't want to marry someone who is emotionally abusive, buried in consumer debt, emotionally vacant, selfish, petty, or unforgiving, despite the fact that these character flaws do not necessarily disqualify one from a temple recommend. Such a marriage is far more likely to end in divorce anyway, leaving both parties in the same situation as they would be had they not married in the temple first.

On this ground, I must respectfully disagree - I would have to say that if your only two honest choices were between a "dirtbag" TR holder and a good, honest, and upright non-member who will treat you in a Christlike manner, then you should not be compelled to make your married life a living hell for the sake of a covenant that you will later sever anyway.

Naturally, this does not and should not preclude marrying a Christlike TR holder. Almost all of the time, this dichotomy will not exist for you. However, you may find yourself in this situation. Thus, the choice to marry outside the church must be the product of much prayer, soul-searching, and divine confirmation.

I agree with you wholeheartedly and simply meant to point out that if your only concern is receiving temple blessings, you will get those blessings from marrying a TR holder even if that holder is a "dirtbag". Even if the relationship ends up severed down the road, as long as you remain worthy of those temple blessings, you will still have them. So, in a strictly eternal perspective, you are better off doing this than marrying a non-member who never converts to the gospel.

However, as I also mentioned in my post, I would personally not be willing to do this. There are plenty of better options out there than going this particular route. Plenty of non-members are finding their way to the church all the time, so it is quite possible that you can "have your cake and eat it too" should you decide to marry a non-member. Just don't get your hopes up. Be prepared to accept the fact that this person may never join the church and you may never get those temple blessings. And, of course, one could always remain single. It's not as bad as it sounds. :) There are plenty of people who have died before marriage, and if one does not have the opportunity to receive temple blessings in this life that does not mean you have to go without forever. If you are living worthy of such blessings, you will receive them at some point even if it is not in this life.

[slamjet]

One line that I have found to be full of truth:

You marry who you date.

I haven't, as of yet, found an example that has gone against this.

[rex8499]

If you date a non member, you'll marry a non-member. Maybe that's fine for awhile, but what about when you have kids and argue about which religion to raise them as?

As for the online dating sites, there are some big benefits to meeting someone this way. You can interview hundreds of people without taking the time or spending the money to go on dates. Essentially, you're fishing from a much bigger pool and can tell within 30 seconds of profile reading if you're a terrible match and move on without wasting your time with them. I've been on LOTS of dates in my life just to find out that the girl is a vegetarian, or a spoiled daddy's girl, etc. Game over. This was a waste of a date. Wish I'd had some background info before I asked them out. The online dating gives just that.

The chances of finding someone who really meshes well with you, both personality wise and shares interests, are fairly slim in the real world. You fall in love with someone because they really are a great person, but you might not share as many interests as you'd like. The online dating significantly increases the chances of falling in love with someone who shares your interests and has a matching personality.

I especially liked the personality color code that ldsmingle.com has set up. I took a class in college which dealt with the four personality dispositions, so I put a lot of stock into it and it helps you end up with someone who you can mesh well with, but more importantly it will help you understand yourself and others and why they do some of the things they do which you cant understand. Read a book called Personality Plus for more info on that. It helps a lot in life.

The trouble with the online dating is that most people never respond, or never pay for a subscription so they cannot see your flirts/mail/smiles. You waste a lot of time reading profiles of people who will never respond because they cant/wont pay for the subscription.

[Jennarator]

I don't think it can be that easy. yes I want to marry in the temple to a worthy priesthood holder. but just having that as a goal is not a guarantee. sorry to say but there are just as many dirtbags in the church as there are outside of it. but I also know a few people including my institute teacher and a member of the branch pres who were introduced to the church by their spouse and they either got married and sealed later or waited the year and got married in the temple. I'm not saying it happens every time. And that heavenly father want's us all to be happy so there's no risk and hard choices involved. I just don't see why we should have to limit ourselves that way.

And marriage aside. if members a few and far between- and datable members non-existant is that it do you just cut yourself off from that aspect of life?

It IS a guarantee, if you refuse to settle for less.

[Jennarator]

I was a Catholic when my husband and I got married.

'Nuff said.

Who's nuff and why does it matter what they said?? JK!

[jennvan]

Part of what I see that is not helpful about online dating is that we dismiss good people (or people who are good for us) because of some arbitrary filter that we or they put on people. Here is a quote I got from an online article.

A wise Young Women leader once told me about a time she was forced to choose between two boys. The first boy shared her love for the outdoors. The second boy was her best friend, and what he lacked in love for the outdoors, he made up for in his love for her. She eventually married boy No. 2. She and her husband now go camping far more than she ever did before they were married because her husband enjoys spending time with her doing things she enjoys.

(found here: Dating deal breakers | Mormon Times)

So many times in online dating we would filter out people who weren't outdoor, animal, athletic, etc, people without looking to the things that really matter. Heck if Dravin and beefche had done the online dating thing, they probably never would have even looked at each other. They got to be friends on here first. And got to know each other slowly over time. Then things developed into a deeper friendship and eventually a relationship.

That is the problem/issue I have with online dating. And like one of the other posters said, there are a ton of people on there that you might have stuff in common with or think you might hit it off with that aren't a paying member of the site so they don't answer. Its a tough place to be sometimes and at times feels very rejection oriented.

[ryanh]

So many times in online dating we would filter out people who weren't outdoor, animal, athletic, etc, people without looking to the things that really matter. . . . That is the problem/issue I have with online dating.

How is that different than any other selection process? Online meeting sites are not the issue there - that is human nature.

[jennvan]

How is that different than any other selection process? Online meeting sites are not the issue there - that is human nature.

True, as a society we tend to filter people out pretty awfully. Our natural man part is pretty strong in this many times. But its difficult to do anything except use that filter/natural man part in online dating because you don't really have much else to go on. You don't get to have group activities with others to see what kind of a person they are or how they interact with others before you decide whether you might be interested or not.

Also, I think there is a difference between "average" dating and dating well. Average dating is pretty gross and is part of the reason no one wants to be "single and dating." Dating well honors both ourselves and the other person/people and it helps us have relationships that will make excellent marriages.

[Dravin]

Jennvan, I would consider what Beefche and I did to be on-line dating. So it looks like you are holding us, a relationship developed from on-line dating, as an example of something that doesn't happen with on-line dating.

Perhaps your issue is less with the idea of on-line dating and with the execution of on-line dating by various dating websites? And as Ryan points out that particular issue of arbitrary filters that weed out people who we could have developed healthy relationships from is hardly something limited to on-line dating. In fact I would say it is a trend carried over from more traditional dating and simply made more obvious (and easier to do both physically and emotionally) by the form of on-line dating websites.

Edit: I hate it when someone posts while I am writing a response to them. :-/

Edited March 11, 2011 by Dravin

[jennvan]

Dravin, yes I would agree too that you did date online but the purpose of you meeting wasn't to date. You had a friendship first based around a third thing, this forum. Through that third thing you got to know each other, the reactions you each had, the things you said, the interactions with others. Its much more of a community than "Dating websites." Then you two decided to try something of a relationship. For me, that is a big part of what is missing with online dating. You probably would have both weeded each other out if it hadn't been for a third thing that helped you to see more about each other. Also, I don't think that "traditional" dating (as it is carried out today) is healthy in many ways, its very hurtful and harmful for both sides at times.

[Dravin]

So just to make sure I'm not misreading your tenor, you opposition is to the way people commonly pursue on-line relationships, not on-line relationships themselves? For what it's worth I never would have touched something like Cupid.com or what have you with an 11' pole and wouldn't recommend anyone do such now.

[jennvan]

So just to make sure I'm not misreading your tenor, you opposition is to the way people commonly pursue on-line relationships, not on-line relationships themselves? For what it's worth I never would have touched something like Cupid.com or what have you with an 11' pole and wouldn't recommend anyone do such now.

In essence, yes it is the way people pursue online relationships. And I think a lot of the way that people pursue those relationships is because of the way the relationships are set up by the websites. One online dating website that I have slightly more respect for is eHarmony because they actually ask you your opinion on hundreds of different aspects of your life and match you with others have similar thoughts on. Not that I think people need to marry someone who is a clone of them, but research shows that marriages where people are more similar to each other tend to be happier. Still not as happy with eHarmony though because it takes out the "getting to know you and decide how I feel about going out with you" stage. I really think the "seeing how you interact with others" stage is important in the beginning of a relationship, not just after you have been dating.

Edited March 11, 2011 by jennvan
typos

[jennvan]

Oh and just for the record, I think the way we have been trained (yes, we have been trained) to date really sucks too. :) I just dislike online dating with more passion. :)

[Dravin]

Oh and just for the record, I think the way we have been trained (yes, we have been trained) to date really sucks too. :) I just dislike online dating with more passion. :)

I missed the training classes, guess I lucked out.

[jennvan]

I missed the training classes, guess I lucked out.

Sorry, we've all been trained whether we wanted to be or not. Its called social conditioning or socialization. We do what others show us or tell us, what is socially acceptable. We do this especially around relationships.

[Dravin]

Sorry, we've all been trained whether we wanted to be or not. Its called social conditioning or socialization. We do what others show us or tell us, what is socially acceptable. We do this especially around relationships.

[Foghorn Leghorn]That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son.[/FL]

Edit: Yes, I was trained to say that.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Dravin

[jennvan]

[Foghorn Leghorn]That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son.[/FL]

Sorry, see since I don't know you that well I didn't know you were joking. I haven't spent enough time on here seeing your posts and personality to know you were being funny. Or at least trying to be.

Edited March 11, 2011 by jennvan

[Dravin]

Sorry, see since I don't know you that well I didn't know you were joking. I haven't spend enough time on here seeing your posts and personality to know you were being funny. Or at least trying to be.

It's all good. It's just your talk of training made me think of boot camp or a college class.

I agree that all of us are influenced by culture and society to a lessor or greater degree. If nothing else society has condition me to not ask a woman out by punching her in the kidney, an extreme example but serviceable. :)

Edited March 11, 2011 by Dravin