Mixed-faith marriage...can it work?

[Backroads]

He obviously said friction in marriage is bad and should be avoided. So I took that if it causes friction, it should be avoided at all costs. At that point, yes, I interpreted it as "every little thing".

[estradling75]

And thus we repeat

[Backroads]

Indeed we do.

All I'm saying is that religious differences will not necessarily cause friction depending on the people, as you yourself brought up earlier, and that just because something could possibly cause friction eventually is no reason to thoughtlessly abandon it.

[estradling75]

Indeed we do.

All I'm saying is that religious differences will not necessarily cause friction depending on the people, as you yourself brought up earlier, and that just because something could possibly cause friction eventually is no reason to thoughtlessly abandon it.

And where do you get the info that people are abandoning the possibility thoughtlessly? Or is that another one of your 'interpretations'? From what I see on this thread there has been alot of thought going on. Just because a position is different from yours doesn't mean it wasn't thought out

[Backroads]

It was the way it was stated in that particular post, and I already expressed my thought process there.

And what makes my interpretations, which I explained, so inadequate compared to yours? I really do not appreciate your putting that in quotes. I find it demeaning.

[estradling75]

It was the way it was stated in that particular post, and I already expressed my thought process there.

And what makes my interpretations, which I explained, so inadequate compared to yours? I really do not appreciate your putting that in quotes. I find it demeaning.

When your interpretations don't fit the facts presented. You are the one that took the post to say that mixed marriages were simple little things. And you were the one to accuse others taking 'thoughtless positions' So who is the one really demeaning people here?

[Backroads]

When did I accuse others of taking thoughtless positions? I merely mean to say it's unfair and grossly overgeneralizing to suggest that no one can handle a mixed-faith message. When people say it's just another thing to add to frustrations already present in a marriage, it's how I think. So now I feel like you are calling me a mean person for criticizing a badly worded post, if he did not mean what I took it to mean.

By the way, I can promise you I meant no ill will toward anyone. YOu apparently do towards me. Therein lies the difference.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Backroads

[estradling75]

When did I accuse others of taking thoughtless positions? I merely mean to say it's unfair and grossly overgeneralizing to suggest that no one can handle a mixed-faith message. When people say it's just another thing to add to frustrations already present in a marriage, it's how I think. So now I feel like you are calling me a mean person for criticizing a badly worded post, if he did not mean what I took it to mean.

By the way, I can promise you I meant no ill will toward anyone. YOu apparently do towards me. Therein lies the difference.

So now we add mind reading to you list of 'interpretations'... Seriously I was pointing out logical failures of your understanding of the post and later comments.

Then you go and paint yourself all white and pure and cast me as blackguard. Well if that make you feel better about it go ahead.

[Backroads]

So now we add mind reading to you list of 'interpretations'... Seriously I was pointing out logical failures of your understanding of the post and later comments.

Then you go and paint yourself all white and pure and cast me as blackguard. Well if that make you feel better about it go ahead.

There were no logical fallacies. You never stated any such things. Just two interpretations. Pretty sad things to bring into this. I explained my reasons for why I thought as I did concerning a very brief post's phrasing. You blatantly accused me of calling others thoughtless, yet failed to provide the post where I said so.

[Backroads]

But clearly I've upset you. I apologize.

[estradling75]

There were no logical fallacies. You never stated any such things. Just two interpretations. Pretty sad things to bring into this. I explained my reasons for why I thought as I did concerning a very brief post's phrasing. You blatantly accused me of calling others thoughtless, yet failed to provide the post where I said so.

Sigh... You said

At that point, yes, I interpreted it as "every little thing".

I then I asked you to back up that interpretation explain why. Where anywhere in that post you parsed out 'every little thing'. You did not... you fell back to 'its my interpretation.' Calling it your opinion is more accurate. Logically you did a variation of the straw man fallacy. You reduced a complex issue (mixed marriages) to a overtly simple one (Every little thing) and then dismissed the simple one, trying to drag the complex one with it. Thus logical fallacy.

As for thoughless... Here is the post

All I'm saying is that religious differences will not necessarily cause friction depending on the people, as you yourself brought up earlier, and that just because something could possibly cause friction eventually is no reason to thoughtlessly abandon it.

And I asked you to show where anyone expressed that we should be thoughtless about it... You have not provided. Until you provide we can't be sure who you are calling thoughtless... You left it wide open to interpretation.

Instead you jump back to the same post and claim interpretation again. Which means at the very least you are implying that poster was thoughtless... Versus what I think is most likely.. That he cut to the highlights.

But clearly I've upset you. I apologize.

See this is another time I disagree with what your understanding of what is posted. And I know this one for a fact that you are wrong on. If I was upset I would accept your apology.

But I am not upset so I say , "Thanks??" I know its not always an easy thing to say.

[Gramajane]

I didn't take the time to read the others replies,

as I feel you are right-- it was YOUR choice to discredit the churches teachings by doing things you knew you shouldn't that has caused him to lose respect for the true teachings.

Your only real choice is to first respect yourself enough to really repent FULLY and get back on the path--

which MAY help him to see better.

Then- who you marry will be up to you and God-- and I would sure work to have all the possible options on your side! It is so hard in this day and age to make (it IS work, but good work :) a great marriage- that having such a basic thing as Faith/religion on which our view of life rests, be not the same, can be a tremendously huge stumbling block!

Even marring IN the church, still there are levels of commitment/testimony and follow through that must be dealt with. May God bless you in what choices you make, as you remember that Gods plan is the plan of Happiness, given to us so that we will KNOW the way to go to be MOST happy! :)

[mrmarklin]

Wow!

I take a couple of days off and the thread takes life!

I don't regard an inter religious marraige as a "little" thing. In fact I think it's a very big deal, paticularly if both parties are religious and true to their own religion.

There are enough problems in marraige so why bring as big a deal as opposite faiths into the mix? When the children come opinions as to raising them can only add more divisiveness.

I've been married almost 40 years, and from experience can tell you, it's not theory but real life.

[Guest]

Wow!

I take a couple of days off and the thread takes life!

I don't regard an inter religious marraige as a "little" thing. In fact I think it's a very big deal, paticularly if both parties are religious and true to their own religion.

There are enough problems in marraige so why bring as big a deal as opposite faiths into the mix? When the children come opinions as to raising them can only add more divisiveness.

I've been married almost 40 years, and from experience can tell you, it's not theory but real life.

From the perspective of someone who started on a mixed-faith marriage, the statement of "why bring as big a deal as opposite faiths" doesn't hold water. First of all from one Christian to another, it's not an "opposite faith". Even a Jew to a Christian is not an "opposite" faith.

Secondly, if you can't handle the respect necessary to make a mixed-faith marriage work, then I suspect you will have trouble with any other major issue the marriage is going to encounter - such as, cultural backgrounds, family traditions, disciplinary methods, and even the simple man vis-a-vis woman difference.

If you can handle mixed-faith issue, you can pretty much handle most everything else. Because, what is needed to make a mixed-faith marriage work is the same exact arsenal you need to make a man-lives-with-woman work or man-deals-with-mother-in-law work or American-marries-a-Filipino work.

[estradling75]

From the perspective of someone who started on a mixed-faith marriage, the statement of "why bring as big a deal as opposite faiths" doesn't hold water. First of all from one Christian to another, it's not an "opposite faith". Even a Jew to a Christian is not an "opposite" faith.

Secondly, if you can't handle the respect necessary to make a mixed-faith marriage work, then I suspect you will have trouble with any other major issue the marriage is going to encounter - such as, cultural backgrounds, family traditions, disciplinary methods, and even the simple man vis-a-vis woman difference.

If you can handle mixed-faith issue, you can pretty much handle most everything else. Because, what is needed to make a mixed-faith marriage work is the same exact arsenal you need to make a man-lives-with-woman work or man-deals-with-mother-in-law work or American-marries-a-Filipino work.

The tools are the same... But people's capacity is finite. The basic day to day of keeping a marriage running pulls out alot of that capacity. Which means you have to choose your battles. Many of the issues to be faced in marriages are going to come up unexpectedly, so there is wisdom in minimizing the known risks if at all possible.

In addition matters of Faith touch on matters of eternities. Losing a marriage is bad, losing your place in Heaven is worst. In mixed faith marriages the chance of losing faith is increased.

And I know people like to point to themselves and say but I did it. And to them I say "Congratulations, Well done. You beat the odds." But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are against it.

[Guest]

The tools are the same... But people's capacity is finite. The basic day to day of keeping a marriage running pulls out alot of that capacity. Which means you have to choose your battles. Many of the issues to be faced in marriages are going to come up unexpectedly, so there is wisdom in minimizing the known risks if at all possible.

In addition matters of Faith touch on matters of eternities. Losing a marriage is bad, losing your place in Heaven is worst. In mixed faith marriages the chance of losing faith is increased.

And I know people like to point to themselves and say but I did it. And to them I say "Congratulations, Well done. You beat the odds." But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are against it.

Show me the statistics.

And don't tell me that a conversion of a spouse to the other's faith is "losing faith". Because, you might think I beat the odds converting to LDS... but for my devout Catholic mother, I am on the verge of burning in hell.

[estradling75]

Show me the statistics.

And don't tell me that a conversion of a spouse to the other's faith is "losing faith". Because, you might think I beat the odds converting to LDS... but for my devout Catholic mother, I am on the verge of burning in hell.

Here are the stats I used U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

In summary the commonly bantered 50% USA divorce rate is not entirely accurate. But that is the way it is trending. It later list several denominational groups who have rate varying between 29% to 21% depending on the denomination.

This difference between the in faith marriages and the total divorce rate, is why I say the odds are against it.

Clearly your mother wishes you had married a nice Catholic boy. :) I was meaning losing faith as in going inactive, but that has to be from God's perspective, and he doesn't hand out numbers. Neither do the various churches (that I am aware), so we have no stats on that trend. But we can learn what these groups, (including God) who know the numbers, say on the matter. The scriptures are pretty clear against it. The LDS church is against it, to the point that as a strongly family oriented Church, they tell the single woman not to compromise in the search for a worthy man even if it means remaining single for their entire life. You are in a better position to give the official Catholic position, but I would guess that your mom's reaction is pretty typical, and mirrors the official position?

[Backroads]

I'll try this again with a little more respect...

I agree with anatess. If you don't have the capacity for respect to be willing to tackle faith differences, you will fail in so many other areas. Now if having the same faith and same level of faith is of enough importance in a marriage and there is some doubt that one or both partners will not be able to handle a challenge with it, then yes, it's probably best they avoid marriage. However, I've seen quite a few mixed-faith marriages of many decades going just fine. Each partner is comfortable and confident in their own faith and do not expect the other to change. They have agreed on how to handle the kid question and are willing to re-discuss if pre-determined decisions wind up not working. They are not bent on converting the spouse.

The statistics may be against it, but mixed-faith is hardly the only issue in marriages. It's an extremely bad idea to 100% assume a couple can't make it without bothering to learn the couple's dynamics and it's in bad taste to throw hellfire at them and accuse them of wanting to lose faith.

Let them try to beat the odds. If they don't have the respect or confidence in their own faith, they're probably not going to succeed anyway.

[Backroads]

The LDS church is against it, to the point that as a strongly family oriented Church, they tell the single woman not to compromise in the search for a worthy man even if it means remaining single for their entire life.

Out of curiosity, does this instruction apply only to women?

[Guest]

Here are the stats I used U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas

In summary the commonly bantered 50% USA divorce rate is not entirely accurate. But that is the way it is trending. It later list several denominational groups who have rate varying between 29% to 21% depending on the denomination.

This difference between the in faith marriages and the total divorce rate, is why I say the odds are against it.

Clearly your mother wishes you had married a nice Catholic boy. :) I was meaning losing faith as in going inactive, but that has to be from God's perspective, and he doesn't hand out numbers. Neither do the various churches (that I am aware), so we have no stats on that trend. But we can learn what these groups, (including God) who know the numbers, say on the matter. The scriptures are pretty clear against it. The LDS church is against it, to the point that as a strongly family oriented Church, they tell the single woman not to compromise in the search for a worthy man even if it means remaining single for their entire life. You are in a better position to give the official Catholic position, but I would guess that your mom's reaction is pretty typical, and mirrors the official position?

Those statistics are irrelevant to the discussion. Show me that mixed-faith couples contribute a higher percentage to the divorce rate statistic than non-mixed couples.

My mom's reaction is typical to any homogenous group - may it be religion, race, educational achievement, financial status, etc. etc. All homogenous groups do not want to diverge out of it.

The LDS church is against mixed-faith unions because they want you to get married in the temple. You don't hear the LDS church telling white people to only marry white people or black people to marry only black people or Filipinos to marry only Filipinos - racial and cultural differences are just as challenging as mixed-faith marriages - the biggest issue my mother has to my marriage second to religion.

As you can see in the marriage statistic you provided - Mormons contribute just as much to the divorce rate statistic as anybody else. Therefore, temple married or not - you get divorced just like any other group in the USA.

Therefore, my conclusion, mixed-faith marriages do not add any more stress to a marriage than any other "big issue". And my cultural background and personal experiences will attest to the fact that a couple willing to work through ANY big issue has a big chance of staying together.

Because... really... think about it - if my husband and I can work through our religious, racial, and cultural differences... do you think we'll stumble over the dirty sock on the floor?

But, if your goal is to get married in the temple... then yes, that's not attainable in a mixed-faith marriage. So, let's not throw unsubstantiated justifications into the situation just to say don't marry out of the LDS faith.

Edited May 4, 2011 by anatess

[estradling75]

Out of curiosity, does this instruction apply only to women?

I'd say both yes and no... No men should find also some one worthy... But yes men don't get a pass. They get a kick in the butt to go find someone worthy. I don't know if this is a cultural thing or a numbers things (more worthy women then men) But the guy is expected to be able to find someone. This might change, it might even be changing right now.

Btw Backroads I tried to respond to you PM but it appears you have me blocked

[beefche]

I think it needs to be said that the LDS church strongly encourages the members to marry in the LDS faith in the temple--not so much because it won't cause friction in the marriage, but because of the ordinance of sealing. Marrying someone who is not a member (no matter how good that person is) reduces the likelihood that you will be sealed to that person in the temple.

Obviously, there are examples of people marrying a non-member who later is baptized and sealed in the temple. However we cannot expect our partner will be baptized after we are married. You marry someone for who they are at that moment, not in the hopes they will change to your way of thinking.

I think Prisonchaplin has said on numerous occasions that partners in marriage should be equally yoked. If neither partner (whether LDS or not) cares about being sealed in the temple and agree on how their marriage will be handled regarding religious matters, then I would say there is equality.

But for those who are active LDS members, the prophets and leaders of the church have been more than clear--do all you can to marry in the temple (obviously, for those members outside of the Americas will have a much more difficult time finding another faithful LDS member to marry).

[Backroads]

I'd say both yes and no... No men should find also some one worthy... But yes men don't get a pass. They get a kick in the butt to go find someone worthy. I don't know if this is a cultural thing or a numbers things (more worthy women then men) But the guy is expected to be able to find someone. This might change, it might even be changing right now.

Btw Backroads I tried to respond to you PM but it appears you have me blocked

Really? Huh. I accidentally did that to someone before... I look at the profile and hit the wrong thing.

Anywho, back to your post, I guess what confused me is that women were instructed to go single rather than marry outside the church, and I was was wondering if that were the same. This makes it seem like the pressure is more intense for the man. Which... could be cultural? I don't know.

[estradling75]

Those statistics are irrelevant to the discussion. Show me that mixed-faith couples contribute a higher percentage to the divorce rate statistic than non-mixed couples.

Alright try this then Divorce rates among inter-faith marriages just over halfway down

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%

Although personally I see the need for only one addition to be in agreement with your general statements

Edited May 4, 2011 by estradling75

[Guest]

Alright try this then Divorce rates among inter-faith marriages just over halfway down

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%

You misunderstood my point. Not your fault - the fault is mine because I mis-stated in my post. I'm not going to edit it just so we can make the discussion flow unhindered...

This was my mis-statement:

Those statistics are irrelevant to the discussion. Show me that mixed-faith couples contribute a higher percentage to the divorce rate statistic than non-mixed couples.

This is the proper statement:

Therefore, my conclusion, mixed-faith marriages do not add any more stress to a marriage than any other "big issue".

What I was trying to say in the first statement above is...

"Show me that mixed-faith couples contribute a higher percentage to the divorce rate statistic than mixed-anything-else couples.

Okay, here's a better illustration of my point:

According to this statistic, interracial divorce rate is at 41% at about the same time your mixed-faith statistic was pulled.

So, as you can see, the divorce rate for LDS/Non-LDS couples is the same for White/Non-White couples.

This is very logical... because LDS and Jewish faiths are culturally-diverse in the same manner that race is culturally-diverse. Catholics - not as much. Catholicism is not as culturally divergent.

Therefore, what I'm telling you is that mixed-faith marriages is nothing different than any other "big issue" out there... such as cultural background, financial status, educational attainment, and even just the basic man-vis-a-vis-woman differences.

The LDS Church doesn't necessarily discourage anybody from marrying outside their race, financial status, educational attainment, etc. etc.

Does that make better sense now?