Vort Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 Just now, Mike said: Don't you think, however, that even examples from Apostles such as Elder Richards G. Scott and his wife illustrate how deep these feelings are--even from people who I would think to name among the last who misunderstand marriage. Possibly. Perhaps Elder Scott did not remarry because he missed his wife so desperately that he did not want to risk desecrating her memory by taking another wife. Or maybe he didn't want the distraction of another wife at all, devoting countless hours to her benefit, learning to put up with and even appreciate her personality quirks, exercising patience in the unavoidable disagreements, and so on. The man was an apostle and spent his life flying from this appointment to the next, ever building the kingdom of God. (That's the only reason I ever got to meet him.) So I don't know all his reasons for not taking another wife. Not even sure he did. But in any case, I'd be hesitant to use his example as a milestone for carrying a torch for a deceased spouse. And if I did, someone would be sure to bring up Elder Nelson and Elder Oaks, along with numerous apostles and prophets from the past, as counterexamples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Vort said: Possibly. Perhaps Elder Scott did not remarry because he missed his wife so desperately that he did not want to risk desecrating her memory by taking another wife. Or maybe he didn't want the distraction of another wife at all, devoting countless hours to her benefit, learning to put up with and even appreciate her personality quirks, exercising patience in the unavoidable disagreements, and so on. The man was an apostle and spent his life flying from this appointment to the next, ever building the kingdom of God. (That's the only reason I ever got to meet him.) So I don't know all his reasons for not taking another wife. Not even sure he did. But in any case, I'd be hesitant to use his example as a milestone for carrying a torch for a deceased spouse. And if I did, someone would be sure to bring up Elder Nelson and Elder Oaks, along with numerous apostles and prophets from the past, as counterexamples. I don't disagree with you. I only bring it up because it illustrates the feelings involved. I wouldn't want to be misconstrued as attempting to set up examples of Apostolic opposing camps on the subject as evidence or as reasons to feel one way or another. Feelings (in my experience) often don't "care" about evidence and reasons. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) Did Elder Scott express that he chose to not remarry at some point? Or is it conjecture that he made this choice, vs simply not meeting someone that worked out? I know several people, as we all do, who have never married at all because they haven't been able to meet the right person. Edited April 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: Did Elder Scott express that he chose to not remarry at some point? Or is it conjecture that he made this choice, vs simply not meeting someone that worked out? I know several people, as we all do, who have never married at all because they haven't been able to meet the right person. The following doesn't constitute hard evidence. Maybe it's conjecture. But it's from Utah County as opposed to where it "could" be from. Quote Even after her death, Michael Scott said his father referred to his mother in the present tense. Elder Scott was often asked if he planned on remarrying. He would respond he was already married. “They had a really unique and deep love,” Michael Scott said. “My mother told me once that she loved my dad so much that she decided if anything happened to him on his mission she would not marry, but wait.” http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/lds/richard-g-scott-s-son-he-was-the-apostle-of/article_94e32533-5dc7-5764-999a-7e3e2058f769.html Just_A_Guy and The Folk Prophet 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mike said: I'll probably be accused of being shallow-Mike. My wife and I have often played a game where we try to explain to one another why we love one another. We usually come up with, "I got nothin'; I just love you". Oh, and sometimes (even after 40 years), "You just turn me on." That's well and good. Lots of solid marriages are the same. That's not the issue. The issue is the rejection of those who come up with "Because you have vast resources and a strong army" as romantic or even Love. For some reason, today's society only considers "You turn me on" as romantic, or even Love. Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, anatess2 said: That's well and good. Lots of solid marriages are the same. That's not the issue. The issue is the rejection of those who come up with "Because you have vast resources and a strong army" as romantic or even Love. For some reason, today's society only considers "You turn me on" as romantic, or even Love. OK, fair enough. You called me on that, and you're right. I'm picturing a woman saying this to me, "Because you have resources and a strong army I love you." Give me your argument (again if necessary) for how this is romantic as opposed to, say, practical. Because It seems more reasonable to picture the woman saying, "Because you have resources and a strong army together we can rule the empire, and I'll give you an heir." And I can picture myself saying to myself, "OK, that takes care of the empire and the heir. But I really love the servant girl." I'm just not getting how it's romantic. Edited April 25, 2017 by Mike SilentOne 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Mike said: OK, fair enough. You called me on that, and you're right. I'm picturing a woman saying this to me, "Because you have resources and a strong army I love you." Give me your argument (again if necessary) for how this is romantic as opposed to, say, practical. Because It seems more reasonable to picture the woman saying, "Because you have resources and a strong army together we can rule the empire, and I'll give you an heir." And I can picture myself saying to myself, "OK, that takes care of the empire and the heir. But I really love the servant girl." I'm just not getting how it's romantic. Mike, you've been watching too many movies. I happen to love historical romances. Barbara Cartland anyone? Edited April 25, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 Just now, anatess2 said: Mike, you've been watching too many movies. I happen to love historical romances. Barbara Cartland anyone? Hooray. Me, too. Now back to the issue. Where were we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Mike said: Hooray. Me, too. Now back to the issue. Where were we? Right here, brother. Right here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted April 25, 2017 Report Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) @anatess2 I'm of the opinion that romantic love is not new despite what many (if not most)) currently believe. I say this notwithstanding the fact that up until "modern times" marriage was mostly a familial business. I say it because I interpret romantic love as emotional, and I believe that our emotional capacities, traits, tendencies, etc. existed actively even when social constraints in many cultures determined who married whom. Care to help me change my point of view? Edited April 25, 2017 by Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2017 Report Share Posted April 26, 2017 On 4/24/2017 at 8:37 PM, Vort said: Which (if I may interject an observation) is exactly the point. Using Warren Jeffs as an example of the intrinsic evils of polygamy may be no more true than using an adulterous wife beater as an example of the intrinsic evils of heterosexual marriage. Warren Jeffs proves nothing about polygamy. He represents a single data point. Case in point: militant lesbian feminists do exactly that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted May 4, 2017 Report Share Posted May 4, 2017 (edited) On 4/25/2017 at 6:50 PM, Mike said: @anatess2 I'm of the opinion that romantic love is not new despite what many (if not most)) currently believe. I say this notwithstanding the fact that up until "modern times" marriage was mostly a familial business. I say it because I interpret romantic love as emotional, and I believe that our emotional capacities, traits, tendencies, etc. existed actively even when social constraints in many cultures determined who married whom. Care to help me change my point of view? Why would I care to change your view when I said the exact same thing? I tried looking for the post - it was on another thread, can't remember which one - but I can't find it. Anyway, you were in that thread too so you might remember which one I'm talking about. My position has always been - love marriages is not a modern invention. Rather, people just redefined what Love (and Romance) is. Edited May 4, 2017 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.