Dating a Non-Member

[arh14040]

I am newly baptized into the LDS faith and I am dating a non-member who I have been dating for eight months. We fight, about small things, this started in November. My love for him is wavering. I don't know what to do. He is afraid that he will lose me to a member. I love him but I feel like I could do better with someone else or be single.

Edited March 26, 2012 by arh14040

[JudoMinja]

Could you see yourself married to this man?

If the answer is yes, work it out.

If your answer is no, move on.

If you are uncertain, make sure you are taking things slow and don't be afraid to see other people.

You're only dating. Your not engaged. You've made no commitment. You can feel free to see or date whomever you want without feeling any obligations one way or the other. This is the time for you to decide just what you want out of a marriage and a partner. If you think he isn't it- then there's no need to fret about it. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

We make things complicated when we let our emotions cloud our judgement and fail to remember how simple it really is. The bottom line really is just as simple as this question: Do you want to be married to this man?

[Guest]

I agree that it is as simple as Judo stated. But, I would like to ammend it as follows:

Is this the man you want to marry and spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with... no matter what? Can you accept him for all that he is - good AND bad. Can you love him without condition? If divorce was not an option, will you still marry him?

If you can honestly answer yes to all those questions then you got half of the decision made. Now, to get the other half - you'll have to figure out if he can answer yes to all those questions about you.

If it's anything less than that - go find another guy you can say yes to those questions to.

[rameumptom]

Sounds like you already know the answer. If you fight over little things now, you can expect it to never end later. If you can see yourself with a better man, then why settle for something less?

[Vort]

I agree that it is as simple as Judo stated. But, I would like to ammend it as follows:

Is this the man you want to marry and spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with... no matter what? Can you accept him for all that he is - good AND bad. Can you love him without condition? If divorce was not an option, will you still marry him?

If you can honestly answer yes to all those questions then you got half of the decision made. Now, to get the other half - you'll have to figure out if he can answer yes to all those questions about you.

If it's anything less than that - go find another guy you can say yes to those questions to.

There is no human being on earth, male or female, with whom another human being would want to "spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with". Such a being does not exist in this sphere. We are working to become such a being, but we aren't there yet. If that were the criterion for marriage, no one would marry.

[arh14040]

We are also spending ALOT of time together, like from the time we both get up to the time we both go to bed. The small things he does, annoys me easily. I can't seem to pull myself away from him.

[Guest]

Things that seem small when you're dating become huge when you're married. Promise.

Keep in mind that you're also choosing a father for your children. Is it important to you that your children have a father who holds the priesthood, and will raise them according to the teachings of the church? Is it important to you that they're born under the covenant? You can't count on him changing later.

It seems to me that if he's bothering you right now and you're bickering constantly, it might not be worth giving those things up for him. On the other hand, DH and I struggled a lot when we were dating, and our first year was really hard. But we liked each other a whole lot, and loved each other immensely, and our goals were the same. It was worth fighting for.

I guess my point is, are you fighting for something with him that's worth fighting for? Only you know the answer.

[guast]

There is no human being on earth, male or female, with whom another human being would want to "spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with". Such a being does not exist in this sphere. We are working to become such a being, but we aren't there yet. If that were the criterion for marriage, no one would marry.

Have to strongly disagree with this. Not sure what your relationship history has been but I know that is definitely untrue for everyone. Maybe you won't every have that kind of love for someone in this life but it's unfair to so casually dismiss the depth of other people's love by assuming because you can't feel others clearly are incapable of those feelings as well.

Wanting to be with someone for all of time and eternity does not turn on someone else's perfection or our own. Saying that if we aren't perfect we couldn't want to be with someone for all eternity or someone want to be with us is on par with saying that if a love isn't complete and perfect it isn't really love. Just because love can grow and deepen doesn't make it any less real or any less meaningful. Desire to be with someone eternally is part and parcel with that and the fact it will grow and deepen doesn't make it any less real.

[guast]

I am newly baptized into the LDS faith and I am dating a non-member who I have been dating for eight months. We fight, about small things, this started in November. My love for him is wavering. I don't know what to do. He is afraid that he will lose me to a member. I love him but I feel like I could do better with someone else or be single.

For what it's worth I've been single for some time and have dated quite a bit both in and out of the church. One of my more serious relationships was to this awesome girl who was in many ways pretty much a member but had no interest in joining. Maybe she will at some point but it's a pretty brazen assumption to jump into marriage on the belief that she definitely would join.

After dating for a couple years and being at the point where we were looking at marriage. At that point I started thinking about what I wanted in a relationship (yeah, I should have figured this out a long time before, I know...) and I started to struggle with the realization that some of the most important things in my life I would never be able to fully share with this person. It was awesome that we both liked rock climbing and that we loved hiking but I started to wonder if it would be as fulfilling to me as I wanted in quieter parts of my heart. I very likely would never be able to share with her experiences I had at church or what I'd felt in the powerful moments that change a person's life. Sure, I could "share" in the sense I can say "this is what means so much to me" and she was would be polite and listen but I might as well be describing bouncing across the surface of Mars.

Another issue is what happens if/when you have kids. I have relatives married to non-members or less active who trek their kids to church every Sunday alone and sit through church every Sunday alone in the BEST case scenario (spouses who aren't critical but want nothing to do with the church). It's not an easy thing. And it's hard to teach the kids about the importance of going to church when you have a parent who wants nothing to do with going.

Some who have gone through this are fine with it and take it as part of the territory. I had the advantage, as do you, of being able to make that decision ahead of time. For me I decided that I would rather be alone for my life than marry outside of the church - it's too important to me to not be able to share it with the person I am with. There is absolutely no criticism in what I say of anyone who chooses to do things differently; this was my choice and I'll take whatever consequences come with it.

But I think those considerations I mentioned are real and should be thought through no matter what decision you finally come to. What is important is different for everyone but don't assume that someone will join the church down the road and don't give up what is important to you for something less simply because it's easier to take the lesser portion.

[Vort]

Maybe you won't every have that kind of love for someone in this life but it's unfair to so casually dismiss the depth of other people's love by assuming because you can't feel others clearly are incapable of those feelings as well.

Or perhaps it's unfair for you to assign a false meaning to my words.

Wanting to be with someone for all of time and eternity does not turn on someone else's perfection or our own. Saying that if we aren't perfect we couldn't want to be with someone for all eternity or someone want to be with us is on par with saying that if a love isn't complete and perfect it isn't really love.

When you find someone who says that "if we aren't perfect we couldn't want to be with someone for all eternity", please let me know.

[guast]

Or perhaps it's unfair for you to assign a false meaning to my words.

I'm stuck with what you type. If I'm misconstruing what seems pretty straight-forward to me, feel free to correct my understanding of what you typed. Saying I'm giving false meaning and leaving it at that doesn't get us there.

When you find someone who says that "if we aren't perfect we couldn't want to be with someone for all eternity", please let me know.

Ehh... what? I'm really confused right now. What are you talking about?

See below. If that isn't what you're saying please clarify.

"There is no human being on earth, male or female, with whom another human being would want to "spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with". Such a being does not exist in this sphere. We are working to become such a being, but we aren't there yet. If that were the criterion for marriage, no one would marry."

[Vort]

I'm stuck with what you type. If I'm misconstruing what seems pretty straight-forward to me, feel free to correct my understanding of what you typed. Saying I'm giving false meaning and leaving it at that doesn't get us there.

Assigning a meaning to my words that doesn't conform to their plain meaning likewise "doesn't get us there". If my meaning is not clear to you, feel free to ask me for clarification about whatever parts seem fuzzy to you.

Ehh... what? I'm really confused right now. What are you talking about?

Sorry you're confused. Let me help you out. You wrote, apropos of (apparently) absolutely nothing:

Wanting to be with someone for all of time and eternity does not turn on someone else's perfection or our own. Saying that if we aren't perfect we couldn't want to be with someone for all eternity or someone want to be with us is on par with saying that if a love isn't complete and perfect it isn't really love.

Seeing as this came out of left field, so to speak, I simply pointed out that if you actually encounter anyone who says this, please let us know. Because as of this point, I haven't seen anyone make such a claim.

See below. If that isn't what you're saying please clarify.

Not sure what you expect me to clarify. You quoted what I wrote, so obviously that was what I was saying.

[guast]

@Volt - I'd be happy to explain what I'm not tracking but drop the defensive and condescending attitude first. I'm not interested in discussing anything on this forum with someone who can't discuss something wiithout being patronizing in the response.

If there was something I said that offended you I apologize. I'm not interested in picking a fight with some random person on the internet, particularly on this forum. I responded to your comment and when you said I was misunderstanding what you said I asked you to clarify. That's the end of it.

Edited March 27, 2012 by guast

[Vort]

@Volt

I used to work for Volt.

I'd be happy to explain what I'm not tracking but drop the defensive and condescending attitude first. I'm not interested in discussing anything on this forum with someone who can't discuss something wiithout being patronizing in the response.

Seriously?

guast, please return to the first post that I made in this thread, wherein I expressed my view on the topic.

Now, please return to your original response to that first post I made.

Having done that, please explain to me which of us is being defensive, condescending, and patronizing.

I responded to your comment and when you said I was misunderstanding what you said I tried to clarify. That's the end of it.

You were misunderstanding me, not the other way around. I didn't need clarification. You did.

All I ask is that you read what I wrote and don't infer into my words a bunch of stuff that simply does not exist, such as suggesting that I wrote that "if we aren't perfect we couldn't want to be with someone for all eternity". Of course, I wrote no such thing, nor anything even close to that.

If I write my thoughts poorly, that's on me. But if you utterly misconstrue my words and twist them into something completely different from what I actually wrote, that's on you.

I agree about the uselessness of arguing with anonymous people on the internet.

[guast]

Moving on...

To the OP - sorry about this silly, distracting side conversation. Back to your question now.

[Dravin]

There is no human being on earth, male or female, with whom another human being would want to "spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with". Such a being does not exist in this sphere. We are working to become such a being, but we aren't there yet. If that were the criterion for marriage, no one would marry.

Can I get some clarification? From your interaction with Gaust you are not trying to say that we could only desire to spend all time and eternity with someone if they are perfect. However going over your post a couple times you do seem to be making the claim that there isn't anyone on Earth we'd not want to spend eternity with because nobody is perfect (yet).

If you are trying to assert: Nobody is perfect on this earth, it will be perfect people spending time and eternity together, so if your criteria is being able to spend all time and eternity with the imperfect flawed being you are seeing before you then you have a problem. I suggest that your use of "would want to" is throwing things off. It changes things, in my mind, from a comment on an objective/independent reality of exaltation and the drive towards perfection into a comment about how other people feel.

That said, I do understand you've disclaimed such a parsing. Just giving you insight into how I'm parsing you so that you might be able to more clearly point out where I went awry.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Dravin

[JudoMinja]

My personal impression from what Vort wrote (and he can correct me if I'm wrong)- is that we will not have a real desire to be with someone for eternity due to our own imperfections, not theirs. We may feel like we have such a desire when we are on the emotional high of a new relationship, but as time passes and trials overcome us- due to our own lack in strength and commitment- we are going to go through periods, however small or large in measurement, where we just don't want to be with our partner. I think he was trying to point out that no matter who we date, we are going to be able to think of things and situations that would cause us to stray away from marriage and an eternal commitment. So- we need to find it within ourselves not only to be accepting of the imperfections of others and ourselves, but to love a person enough that even in the hard times, even when we don't want to hold true to our commitment, we will do so anyway.

I was getting the impression that it is the one who feels a lack of desire who is in need of work- that a being who would feel a desire to be with another for all time and eternity is what does not exist. We are working to become beings that are capable of such an eternal and loving perspective, but right now we are flawed in our ability to maintain such consistency in our hearts.

[Spartan117]

I am newly baptized into the LDS faith and I am dating a non-member who I have been dating for eight months. We fight, about small things, this started in November. My love for him is wavering. I don't know what to do. He is afraid that he will lose me to a member. I love him but I feel like I could do better with someone else or be single.

Firstly, welcome to the church and to the forum

I have a few questions that I didn't see answered in the thread, if you don't mind ...

When exactly were you baptized? Were you dating before you got baptized or have you been a member through out your entire relationship? What are his thoughts of the church? What are some examples of "small things" that you fight about, aside from his fear of losing you to a member?

Please feel free to ignore any or all of my questions, but I think you'll get better advice if you decide to answer them. Aside from all that, though, maybe a small break with him will give you both some perspective. Assure him that you aren't breaking up with him but that you need some space, tell him that every waking moment is just too much. Call him and keep in touch, but take a few days break from seeing each other. Maybe a week. After that, see how you feel and revisit all the things you've been fighting about and see where you stand.

[Vort]

Can I get some clarification? From your interaction with Gaust you are not trying to say that we could only desire to spend all time and eternity with someone if they are perfect. However going over your post a couple times you do seem to be making the claim that there isn't anyone on Earth we'd not want to spend eternity with because nobody is perfect (yet).

If you are trying to assert: Nobody is perfect on this earth, it will be perfect people spending time and eternity together, so if your criteria is being able to spend all time and eternity with the imperfect flawed being you are seeing before you then you have a problem. I suggest that your use of "would want to" is throwing things off. It changes things, in my mind, from a comment on an objective/independent reality of exaltation and the drive towards perfection into a comment about how other people feel.

That said, I do understand you've disclaimed such a parsing. Just giving you insight into how I'm parsing you so that you might be able to more clearly point out where I went awry.

Albert Einstein is supposed to have said something like, "Explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Anyone who has done graduate level physics sees this problem: Explanations and hypotheses need to abide by Occam's Razor, but it's also easy to oversimplify to the point that your explanation no longer fits the observations.

I have apparently favored terseness of expression over adequate explanation of content. My point was actually very simple:

No one wants to spend, or is capable of spending, eternity with a flawed and imperfect person. Sure, the first hundred thousand years or so might go okay, but eventually those imperfections will destroy the relationship. It's a 100% sure thing. The only way we will have an eternal marriage or other relationship is if both parties purge themselves of imperfection and adopt all Godly qualities -- that is, become perfect.

I am very firmly convinced that perfection is an absolute prerequisite to obtaining eternal relationships, which is another way of saying eternal life. Such a relationship is not possible on any other terms. So with that explanation, let me restate my original response:

There is no human being on earth, male or female, with whom another human being would want to "spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with". Such a being does not exist in this sphere. We are working to become such a being, but we aren't there yet. If that were the criterion for marriage, no one would marry.

My personal impression from what Vort wrote (and he can correct me if I'm wrong)- is that we will not have a real desire to be with someone for eternity due to our own imperfections, not theirs. We may feel like we have such a desire when we are on the emotional high of a new relationship, but as time passes and trials overcome us- due to our own lack in strength and commitment- we are going to go through periods, however small or large in measurement, where we just don't want to be with our partner. I think he was trying to point out that no matter who we date, we are going to be able to think of things and situations that would cause us to stray away from marriage and an eternal commitment. So- we need to find it within ourselves not only to be accepting of the imperfections of others and ourselves, but to love a person enough that even in the hard times, even when we don't want to hold true to our commitment, we will do so anyway.

I was getting the impression that it is the one who feels a lack of desire who is in need of work- that a being who would feel a desire to be with another for all time and eternity is what does not exist. We are working to become beings that are capable of such an eternal and loving perspective, but right now we are flawed in our ability to maintain such consistency in our hearts.

Actually, I meant imperfections in both parties. But thank you for seeing at least part of what I was trying to express.

[Dravin]

No one wants to spend, or is capable of spending, eternity with a flawed and imperfect person.

Wanting in this context comes across as a statement of desire. People can want things that from a more objective stance (or different viewpoint) are probably something to avoid. One may want to drink a gallon of eggnog in 10 minutes but they may find their want wasn't taking into account future consequences of fulfillment of that want. I agree that eternity with imperfect beings is going to be bumpy to the point of regret but, and this is the key, when you say nobody wants to that can be parsed as trying to dictate the desires of others. People desire things that may seem foolish from another perspective all the time. I mean who wants to to vaporize carcinogenic substances and take them into their lungs? Quite a few it turns out.

You clearly mean to communicate, "Wanting this thing is short-sighted." but the way you've phrased it leaves it open to being read as, "Nobody desires this thing." This I think was the source of my confusion, and probably played a part in Guast's.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Dravin

[Vort]

Wanting in this context comes across as a statement of desire. People can want things that from a more objective stance (or different viewpoint) are probably something to avoid. One may want to drink a gallon of eggnog in 10 minutes but they may find their want wasn't taking into account future consequences of fulfillment of that want. I agree that eternity with imperfect beings is going to be bumpy to the point of regret but, and this is the key, when you say nobody wants to that can be parsed as trying to dictate the desires of others. People desire things that may seem foolish from another perspective all the time. I mean who wants to to vaporize carcinogenic substances and take them into their lungs? Quite a few it turns out.

You clearly mean to communicate, "Wanting this thing is short-sighted." but the way you've phrased it leaves it open to being read as, "Nobody desires this thing." This I think was the source of my confusion, and probably played a part in Guast's.

I was responding directly to Anatess' questions: "Is this the man you want to marry and spend ALL OF TIME AND ETERNITY with... no matter what? Can you accept him for all that he is - good AND bad. Can you love him without condition?" My point was that I don't think these criteria hold up to scrutiny. They are not knowable. Moreover, if they are accepted at face value, they lead to an impossible conclusion: You, in your state as an imperfect being, want to bind yourself for all eternity to another imperfect being and stay with him or her, no matter what.

My point -- and I confess, I thought it was so obvious that no one would contradict it -- was that we work to become such a person. No one is there yet. If we state as a precondition of marriage (or dating) that a person must reach that standard to qualify, we will literally never marry (or date), because such a person does not exist in this sphere.

[guast]

Anyone who has done graduate level physics sees this problem....

I think I'm seeing where the ability-to-communicate problem lies.

I believe this is when you're supposed to point out that fault lies with everyone else for EVERYONE misunderstanding what you so obviously meant.

[Vort]

I think I'm seeing where the ability-to-communicate problem lies.

I believe this is when you're supposed to point out that fault lies with everyone else for EVERYONE misunderstanding what you so obviously meant.

But this is false, smiley or no. What evidence can you muster that "everyone" misunderstood me? Those who respond are a self-selecting group that bias in the direction of not understanding -- those who understand and agree typically just nod their heads and keep reading.

[guast]

But this is false, smiley or no. What evidence can you muster that "everyone" misunderstood me? Those who respond are a self-selecting group that bias in the direction of not understanding -- those who understand and agree typically just nod their heads and keep reading.

Wow. You really ARE Sheldon! Your responses make so much more sense now that I have context.

[Vort]

Wow. You really ARE Sheldon! Your responses make so much more sense now that I have context.

What does it mean "to really BE Sheldon!"?