New Spin on the Marriage Contract

[pam]

I am sorry about your horrible experience with a wife who abhors sex. I have to believe she is the exception. We make regulations for the rule, not for the exception.

Mormonmusic never said that his wife abhorred sex. He said she was incapable of it.

[Vort]

Mormonmusic never said that his wife abhorred sex. He said she was incapable of it.

Thanks for the clarification. If she was incapable of sex and knew it before marriage, she was morally obliged to tell him. I am pretty sure that a marriage can be annulled (made legally nonexistent, as if it never occurred) if either party is incapable of fulfilling the marriage contract -- which of course includes sex.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I am sorry about your horrible experience .... I have to believe she is the exception. We make regulations for the rule, not for the exception.

Actually, an LDS Social Services counselor told us that the disorder I'm talking about is common among LDS newlyweds, brought on by "strict religious upbringing". Two couples in our circle of newlywed friends experienced it, in addition to us, although we don't know for how long. Taken with the LDS Social Services counselor's comment, it wouldn't surprise me if the exceptions are more common than you think.

While I'm not convinced we should institute temporary marriage contracts to combat this anomaly, one needs to recognize the risks one faces when one adopts a commitment to chastity and life together without experiencing a living-together arrangement -- for more than just sex, by the way.

I still believe in the LDS way, however, but the risks need to be recognized. They are often NOT compensated for by adequate preparation, in spite of a bride or groom's best efforts.

Compatibility is an issue with automotive parts. In most cases, I can't put a Chevy part into my Hyundai. They are not compatible. But human beings are living organisms with free will, so it is not simply a matter of finding out which parts fit together. "Compatibility" becomes a hugely complex issue -- one not solved merely by fornicating.

Not sure where you getting the idea that I think fornicating solves all compatibilty issues. I never said that, and if it was mistakenly implied in my statements, I clarify that the meaning was never intended.

We agree that compatibility is immensely complex, however, incompatibility definitely exists, and causes a tremendous amount of hardship for many couples. She's a saver, he's a spender. She values family commitment, he thinks the teaching and training is his wife's job. He thinks it's the woman's job to clean the house, she think's its the man's job. She values time spent in recreation together, he would rather spend more time alone...she needs an above average lifestyle to be happy, he thinks a minimal lifestyle is enough.

These things are very hard to change and can make it hard on the people who must make these changes to bring their marriage into stability. I'm not saying two year marriages are the answer, but I am saying that part of the problem with marriages not working is lack of foreknowledge and preparation for marriage. For all its importance, I'm surprised we don't devote more education to it in the form of easily accessible courses and resources which help people make better decisions.

There is the PREPARE inventory, which identifies the possible points of conflict in a marriage, and there are other inventories and approaches to assessing a potential marriage for its effectiveness --without ever having to live with each other or go for a sexual test drive.

Other cultures have methods that have also acheived higher success rates, although I'm always hesitatant about supplanting one culture on another wholesale.

There is a lot that can be done to prepare people for marriage. I think the divorce rate speaks loudly enough on that point.

Edited October 1, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Guest mormonmusic]

Thanks for the clarification. If she was incapable of sex and knew it before marriage, she was morally obliged to tell him. I am pretty sure that a marriage can be annulled (made legally nonexistent, as if it never occurred) if either party is incapable of fulfilling the marriage contract -- which of course includes sex.

With respect Vort, because we came to the altar free of such experience, neither of us knew. And then, one adds love, hope, eternal covenants to the mix, I'm surprised you're able to brush this off so easily with a simple anullment.

[annewandering]

I guess I dont get it. So if a partner is incapable then you cant love them or be happy with them any more? It was always my understanding that sex is an important part of a marriage not the most important part and not an indispensable part either.

If the husband gets prostate cancer just boot him to the curb and go find someone else? If the woman is raped and scared to death of sex just toss her aside? I really thought it was in sickness and in health even for temple marriages. (my husband and I were sealed and I have never gone to a marriage that is done first. odd i know)

Anyway like I said. I just dont get it. Marriage is FOREVER not just for tonight.

[kich]

Many ideas that Man thinks are amazing problem-solvers come with unintended consequences.

In this case, there is a reason why we almost exclusively practice monogamy, even across different societies and cultures. Full lifetime partnerships, not this "fast food" mentality of the quick n' easy temporary marraige.

I would lump this idea in the same basket as open marraiges and homosexual unions: they work for many people, but I'm certain there are consequences which won't be known until it's been practiced openly for a couple decades.

We shouldn't think we know better than 10,000+ years of human development just because we're the most advanced society to ever exist here.

[RMGuy]

Actually, an LDS Social Services counselor told us that the disorder I'm talking about is common among LDS newlyweds, brought on by "strict religious upbringing". Two couples in our circle of newlywed friends experienced it, in addition to us, although we don't know for how long.

Don't sweat it Mormonmusic. I made a comment about the fact that there are a lot of sexual problems in the church (to a greater extent in many cases than outside of it) in a previous thread and was attacked for there is no way I would know that, unless of course I was a bishop or a gossip.

The reality is (whether we choose to acknowledge it or not) that in many cases our fixation with a very strict moral law can cause problems for a couple once the inhibitions are removed. As an example, yesterday my leaders told me that open mouthed kissing was bad and now sex is fair game. I am NOT advocating sex before marriage or anything like unto it. I AM saying that we cannot expect individual who have never been allowed to touch a piano to suddenly be able to play Bach for the concert tonight. There needs to be some explanation and preparation. What we are currently doing does NOT work for everyone.

I recognize Vort's comments that if she knew this before marriage she should be obligated to tell him, however, if she was paying strict attention to the strength of youth and had not allowed anyone to arouse those passions or aroused those passions in her own body, then she simply didn't know.

I take issue to the earlier statement that we don't make regulations for the exception, but rather for the rule. The fact is that our Heavenly Father knows each of us individually. There is not a switch on a young man or a young woman that automatically means they are mature enough, or not, to date at 16. The reality is that we all mature differently. As recently as the 1970's the guidance from the church regarding dating was different than it is today, and remains the standard at our home. What is reasonable? How mature are the individuals?

Some members of the church are VERY Black and White. That is ok. I hope and trust that it works well for them and for their families. I would hope that they can see that it is not the case for all members. That all of us are individual beings, sons and daughters of a loving God, and that as such one size does not fit all.

-RM

[beefche]

As an example, yesterday my leaders told me that open mouthed kissing was bad and now sex is fair game.

Huh? You have LDS church leaders who have said that open mouth kissing is wrong, but it is ok to have sex outside of marriage?

I take issue to the earlier statement that we don't make regulations for the exception, but rather for the rule.

Then you take issue with Elder Oaks, an Apostle of the Lord.

The fact is that our Heavenly Father knows each of us individually. There is not a switch on a young man or a young woman that automatically means they are mature enough, or not, to date at 16. The reality is that we all mature differently. As recently as the 1970's the guidance from the church regarding dating was different than it is today, and remains the standard at our home. What is reasonable? How mature are the individuals?

So, because we all mature differently, the For Strength of Youth is wrong when it says to wait until age 16 to date? If we deem our 12 year old mature enough, then it's ok for him/her to date? And you would be ok by not allowing our immature 17 y/o to date as well?

[Vort]

Don't sweat it Mormonmusic. I made a comment about the fact that there are a lot of sexual problems in the church (to a greater extent in many cases than outside of it) in a previous thread and was attacked

Attacked?! You poor, poor thing! What abominable monster would attack you?!

Oh, wait. By "attacked", you mean someone disagreed with your opinion.

Never mind.

for there is no way I would know that, unless of course I was a bishop or a gossip.

Have you always had difficulty interpreting the written word, or is this something new?

As an example, yesterday my leaders told me that open mouthed kissing was bad and now sex is fair game.

And this is bad...how?

Sexual kissing is unwise unless you're planning to have sex. If you are not married, you should not be planning to have sex, and therefore ought to avoid sexual kissing.

Once you're married, dive in.

Duh.

I recognize Vort's comments that if she knew this before marriage she should be obligated to tell him, however, if she was paying strict attention to the strength of youth and had not allowed anyone to arouse those passions or aroused those passions in her own body, then she simply didn't know.

In which case there is no moral stain of deceiving your husband-to-be. But it is still incumbent upon her to resolve her difficulties.

I take issue to the earlier statement that we don't make regulations for the exception, but rather for the rule.

Take it up with God and his chosen apostles. I am sure they will bow to your superior wisdom and insight on the matter.

[RMGuy]

Message removed by author. With apologies.

-RM

Edited October 4, 2011 by RMGuy

[Dravin]

Okay folks, step it back, take a deep breath, and let's try to continue the conversation without recriminations from either side.

[RMGuy]

Vort.

I'll tell you what I will do. I will offer you a public apology. I don't know what I have done, or what I have said that seems to have offended you so greatly on these boards. Perhaps some things that I have said have hit a bit too close to home. I apologize. I am not one that always tows the company line. I know that. All I can do is speak from my experience, my understanding, and my own judgement. I make no claims that I am always right, or that I have all knowledge.

I recognize that we are led by prophets and apostles, that they are inspired men, but that they are men nonetheless. If my Heavenly Father and my Savior choose to condemn me for that, then of course that is their perogative to do so. My knee will bow. My tongue will confess, as it does today, that Jesus is the Christ.

So Vort, you have my apology.

More importantly, to those that have had to read our exchanges, you too have my apology. Many times we mortals can care more about our egos than about being submissive, meek, humble, and Christlike. I'm not sure what I have done that has upset Vort so much in previous posts. I'm not sure that it is important. After all, it is a message board....electrons on screen. But the impression that these messages leave with members of the board, and lurking visitors is something else entirely. I choose for them to not see this kind of contention between two brothers in the Gospel of Christ.

Vort, if you want to reapproach I'm open to that. If it is better than we agree to disagree and leave it at that, then I am ok too.

Your Brother.

[volgadon]

Huh? You have LDS church leaders who have said that open mouth kissing is wrong, but it is ok to have sex outside of marriage?

I think he was talking about the sharp transition from very strict rules before marriage to "everything goes" once married.

[volgadon]

Nope. And it's really a good idea. The divorce rate is already sky high in the U.S. And all the studies show traditional marriage seems to be on the down slope. There would be no "divorce" after two years, it just ends. That would let all kinds of people in all age groups to try out marriage with someone who they think they want to spend the rest of their life with but is not 100% certain. Give it a two year shot. After two years they can renew again for two years or get a traditional marriage or simply walk away from each other. Of course there should be a few provisions - two year marriages should not be used to make an illegal person a legal person in the country.

This reminds me of something that happened back home in Israel, only a few minutes from where I live. We had been having a severe drought and the water in the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) was very low. This was serious because it supplies water to a good third of the country (and to Jordan too). There is a red line which is supposed to mark the limit of pumping. If the water level reaches the red line then that is it. To continue pumping would risk turning the lake saline. Well, the water level reached the red line. What did our water company do? Lowered the red line...

[Guest mormonmusic]

I take issue to the earlier statement that we don't make regulations for the exception, but rather for the rule. The fact is that our Heavenly Father knows each of us individually. There is not a switch on a young man or a young woman that automatically means they are mature enough, or not, to date at 16. The reality is that we all mature differently. As recently as the 1970's the guidance from the church regarding dating was different than it is today, and remains the standard at our home. What is reasonable? How mature are the individuals?

-RM

Here is where I like to quote Dallin H. Oakes who also said that all the GA's can teach

are general principles, and if we feel we have an exception, we have to work it out with the Lord. He certainly suggests that exceptions certainly do exist, which validates what RMGuy is saying.

A wise man said to me once that "we start out black and white, but quickly realize that there is a lot more gray out there than mere black and white can handle".

Now, I'm not condoning breaking rules for their own sake when black and white holds, and I don't make this comment in relation to any specific issue, including the one under discussion. But I know this -- interpreting everything as black and white, and treating the exceptions as if they don't matter is rarely ever wise if we want to have the same kind of charity the Lord has

[Vort]

This reminds me of something that happened back home in Israel, only a few minutes from where I live. We had been having a severe drought and the water in the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) was very low. This was serious because it supplies water to a good third of the country (and to Jordan too). There is a red line which is supposed to mark the limit of pumping. If the water level reaches the red line then that is it. To continue pumping would risk turning the lake saline. Well, the water level reached the red line. What did our water company do? Lowered the red line...

When the kids can't pass the state-mandated high school graduation test, that is prima facie evidence that the test is too hard.

[Shaneamy]

In 2 years, most people haven't even become the best husband or wife they could be. It takes more than 2 years to really get into the groove of your marriage. Marriage is for a lifetime, not for a spare time! I don’t know where they did get this silly idea. Two-year marriage license??? Where is the essence of marriage there? They must be sick! If your idea of marriage is a two-year trial, then it's not a marriage.

However, for us to know, Mexico City is a liberal enclave in the mainly conservative country of Mexico. Some Mexico City lawmakers are considering making significant adjustments to how union works in the country. Matrimony in the nation of Mexico is carefully split between religious and lawful matrimony. Now, lawmakers are seriously considering making further changes to how the law around union works in that nation.

You can also check this out for more details: 2 year marriage licenses may be issued in Mexico City

[RMGuy]

The first year of our marriage was hell on earth. Each successive year has been better than the last.

I'm looking forward to many, many more. Perhaps somewhere in the eternities I can get it right. My spouse already has.

-RM

[pam]

In 2 years, most people haven't even become the best husband or wife they could be. It takes more than 2 years to really get into the groove of your marriage. Marriage is for a lifetime, not for a spare time! I don’t know where they did get this silly idea. Two-year marriage license??? Where is the essence of marriage there? They must be sick! If your idea of marriage is a two-year trial, then it's not a marriage.

However, for us to know, Mexico City is a liberal enclave in the mainly conservative country of Mexico. Some Mexico City lawmakers are considering making significant adjustments to how union works in the country. Matrimony in the nation of Mexico is carefully split between religious and lawful matrimony. Now, lawmakers are seriously considering making further changes to how the law around union works in that nation.

You can also check this out for more details: 2 year marriage licenses may be issued in Mexico City

Ummm did you by chance read through this thread? What you just brought up is what started this conversation. :)

[Jennarator]

My two year anniversary is this weekend. It has been very hard. (Blending a family, living in a new state, not being close to my family.) BUt I wouldn't trade it and I look forward to many more years.

I think a lot of it is knowing that you are in it for the long term commitment. Knowing that you have someone that you care about to tackle life with. I can't imagine siging a two year marrige license. Again, it is just a sad proposition.

[HoosierGuy]

Frankly, I'm seeing "it's been very hard" so much and also considering the number of divorces, this is clear evidence why people should have the option of two year marriages.

No one says you must take the two year option.

It's about freedom. The two year option would give people more freedom and rights.

[Jennarator]

Hard, but so worth it!! You just need to put effort into making the right choice at first! I know it can be hard, I've been there. But to be honest, there were red flags with the first, I should NOT have married him. That was my fault.

My point with this marrige is that the first couple years can be hard. They get better. You can't always judge your life commitment after two years. I would never trade my hard times with my husband for the times with my ex. It's about taking the time to make the right choice to begin with, not just hoping you got the right one then experimenting for two years here and there until you find one that works.

[pam]

Frankly, I'm seeing "it's been very hard" so much and also considering the number of divorces, this is clear evidence why people should have the option of two year marriages.

No one says you must take the two year option.

It's about freedom. The two year option would give people more freedom and rights.

How is that evidence? Remember you are talking to an audience that is mainly LDS and throwing out ideas that are contrary to our teachings and beliefs.

Any marriage whether LDS or non LDS can be hard at first. You are throwing 2 different people together. There is much compromise and communication that is required. As long as those 2 people are both willing to work hard at making it work..that's what matters.

Not the idea that "oh well" after 2 years we're done anyway.

[RMGuy]

How is that evidence? Remember you are talking to an audience that is mainly LDS and throwing out ideas that are contrary to our teachings and beliefs.

Any marriage whether LDS or non LDS can be hard at first. You are throwing 2 different people together. There is much compromise and communication that is required. As long as those 2 people are both willing to work hard at making it work..that's what matters.

Not the idea that "oh well" after 2 years we're done anyway.

Pam, I guess I don't see what Hoosier is saying as contrary to our teachings and beliefs. We believe that a couple should be married in the temple for time and eternity, but that doesn't mean that someone who marries only for time, or recommends that a couple be married outside the temple is teaching contrary to our beliefs. I know several bishops who have suggested to couples that they do just that based on their circumstances.

We also believe in freedom and agency, what we fought the war in heaven over. Just because I support someone's RIGHT to make choices different than mine, doesn't mean that I encourage or condone those same choices. I think that is all hoosier is saying.

I don't think that this is a good idea. If it were on the ballot in a place where I had the right to vote I would vote against it. However, I don't think that it means someone who would vote for it is against the teachings of the church.

-RM

[pam]

Pam, I guess I don't see what Hoosier is saying as contrary to our teachings and beliefs. We believe that a couple should be married in the temple for time and eternity, but that doesn't mean that someone who marries only for time, or recommends that a couple be married outside the temple is teaching contrary to our beliefs. I know several bishops who have suggested to couples that they do just that based on their circumstances.

We also believe in freedom and agency, what we fought the war in heaven over. Just because I support someone's RIGHT to make choices different than mine, doesn't mean that I encourage or condone those same choices. I think that is all hoosier is saying.

I don't think that this is a good idea. If it were on the ballot in a place where I had the right to vote I would vote against it. However, I don't think that it means someone who would vote for it is against the teachings of the church.

-RM

I disagree. He is very much promoting the idea and is attempting to persuade others that the 2 year marriage thing is a good idea. This is contrary to what we, as LDS, believe or would even promote.

You would also have to know the history of his posts on numerous subjects in the past to understand his mindset.