Bini

The "ex" relationship

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, yjacket said:

50 years ago this was known as "they come from good stock".  If you come from "good stock" and they come from "good stock" you are more likely than not going to be "equally yolked", if you come from "good stock" and they don't, a higher likelihood that you will be "unequally yolked".  This isn't hard, it's not complex---it's just common sense (which unfortunately in today's world has gone out the window).

That's a really interesting notion - I can't say I disagree.  My wife and I both come with our own particular brands of horrible childhood baggage - which would make us "bad stock", but "equally yoked".  We're in year 20 and things are not easy.  Come back in 20 years, and we'll see if the yoking thing wins out over the stock thing.  

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Okay, that is great you are using an anecdotal case (I understand that for some reason with humans, anecdotal cases carry at least twice the weight of raw facts and statistics). Bravo for those who stayed together.  Statistics say that your anecdotal case is not normal-it is an exception.

What part of statistics do people not understand?  If statistics say children from divorced home have a 15% higher likelihood of divorce, yet your anecdotal case shows the opposite . . .congratulations count yourself lucky to buck the trend. 

Just know that your anecdotal case is not the norm. Just like the statistics show beyond a doubt that a child raised in an abusive home is more likely to be abusive.

Count yourself lucky that the abuse did not pass down to the next generation. Just know that it is more an exception to the rule rather than the rule itself.

I absolutely count myself lucky. I just think there is hope. The irony is I literally did what Vort said, I specifically stopped dating a girl because she came from a broken home. Her mom was divorced and remarried 9 times. But I myself ended up divorced, I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up happily married. 

My hope lies in the anecdote and not the statistic. There was a time when I warned my kids not to date people who had been abused because of my own experience, but I'm glad my Mother didn't take that advise.

I'm sure there were those who avoided knowing the Savior because by all appearances he came from a broken home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NeuroTypical said:

That's a really interesting notion.  My wife and I both come with our own particular brands of horrible childhood baggage - which would make us "bad stock", but "equally yoked".  We're in year 20 and things are not easy.  Come back in 20 years, and we'll see if the yoking wins out over the stock thing.  

I don't say "good stock" or "bad stock" in a denigrating fashion, I personally just think that more than good stock or bad stock-it is more important to be equally yolked.  

It certainly can work out if one person comes from a horrible childhood and the other doesn't.  But I think it's really, really hard-harder than if both came from different brands of horribleness.

I personally think the yolking in the long run and in higher percentage of cases wins out over stock, i.e. it's not about whether you are good stock or bad stock but if you are equally yolked.  And by coming from a similar background, similar culture you can understand better one another and hopefully better work together.

Being unequally yolked means someone is either going to have to step up or someone is going to have to step down for the marriage to last.  It's why IMO generally for people who have been married for a very long time and have a good marriage if you meet one of the spouses you have in many ways met the other.  They are definitely different, but they have a very similar mindset, outlook on life, life goals, etc.  They have become one through their differences and worked towards something greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

The irony is I literally did what Vort said,

To clarify: I never said or even suggested that this is what people *should* do. I said that I agree with yjacket's take on the issue, and that I would caution my child about entering such a relationship. To pretend that children of (what used to be called) a "broken home" are just exactly as likely to form a solid marriage as those from parents married to each other is to stick one's head deep into the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

??? Huh . . . . 

Um..yeah. Jesus was raised in a broken home, he had step-dad and half-brothers and sisters, but I think he'd make a pretty good husband. I don't find anything wrong with expressing caution, but hopefully we also teach our kids to look deeper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would amend this that there are circumstances where warning would not really be warranted.  Say for example when you were 3 dad left mom and at age 7 mom remarries and from 7 on mom and dad (or step-dad) have a great marriage.  I'm not sure that is a "broken home".  During the formative teenage years, a stable marriage is at the heart of the home.  Mom and dad love each other, demonstrate love, kindness etc and demonstrate what a good marriage looks like. That I'd say is probably not a big deal.

Mom and dad get divorced at age 7, mom goes through 2 other husbands (or never remarries, works outside the home,etc.) that I would run from. 

However the vast majority of broken homes do not proceed like the first paragraph, more likely the second.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Um..yeah. Jesus was raised in a broken home, he had step-dad and half-brothers and sisters, but I think he'd make a pretty good husband. I don't find anything wrong with expressing caution, but hopefully we also teach our kids to look deeper. 

Wow . . . that is so far out-of-line, that is just rationalization and justification for saying it's totally cool to have a broken home in today's society . . .and you know it.

To compare Christ's upbringing to a broken home . . .just wow.  Shame on you.

If any comparison is to be made (which I think is foolish), it would more be like Christ was adopted and raised in an adopted family.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Um..yeah. Jesus was raised in a broken home, he had step-dad and half-brothers and sisters, but I think he'd make a pretty good husband. I don't find anything wrong with expressing caution, but hopefully we also teach our kids to look deeper. 

Nope, I have to disagree with this. There was nothing "broken" about Jesus' home. He was born to a man and a woman who were married to each other. The man was called his father, and he treated that man as such throughout his life. From all external (and, more importantly, internal) appearances, it was very much an intact, nuclear home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
21 minutes ago, Vort said:

To clarify: I never said or even suggested that this is what people *should* do. I said that I agree with yjacket's take on the issue, and that I would caution my child about entering such a relationship. To pretend that children of (what used to be called) a "broken home" are just exactly as likely to form a solid marriage as those from parents married to each other is to stick one's head deep into the sand.

So what you are saying is not so much that Mormons from broken homes and Mormons from intact homes absolutely shouldn't marry, but that they should marry with their eyes wide open to the challenges that they will inevitably face due to their backgrounds, and that if they don't think they want to deal with the baggage, they should be able to say it just isn't for them?

I think that is a very reasonable point of view.

Edited by DoctorLemon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I don't say "good stock" or "bad stock" in a denigrating fashion, I personally just think that more than good stock or bad stock-it is more important to be equally yolked.  

I totally get it - not offended at all.  Briefly - my wife's parent's family has splintered apart due to incestuous child sex abusers (which is bad enough) going protected and defended (which is even worse).   I'm the product of a self-absorbed major depressive suicidal mother who actually blamed me in one of her suicide notes.  (If these doesn't qualify as "bad stock", I'd like to see what does. :))     

We both bear plenty of scars, some healed well, some remain open raw wounds.  Both of us have a certain level of understanding/appreciation/awareness of the burdens the other bears, something that would be absent in a spouse with a less traumatic upbringing.  

Yjacket took the "equally yoked" notion in scripture and applied it in a nontraditional way I'd never thought about before.  I think I'm going to take it and run with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

So what you are saying is not so much that Mormons from broken homes and Mormons from intact homes shouldn't marry, but that they should marry with their eyes wide open to the challenges that they will inevitably face due to their backgrounds, and that if they don't think they want to deal with the baggage, they should be able to say it just isn't for them?

I think that is a very reasonable point of view.

I'd say that is a very fair assessment of my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Wow . . . that is so far out-of-line, that is just rationalization and justification for saying it's totally cool to have a broken home in today's society . . .and you know it.

To compare Christ's upbringing to a broken home . . .just wow.  Shame on you.

I'm not justifying or rationalizing the breaking of homes.

Just saying if you grew up with Jesus in your neighborhood you might not encourage your available daughters to seek him out looking at the surface. We as Latter Day Saints and Christians of course know the whole story.

If you look at those in the Bible there were few who were raised in what we would consider a nuclear family. I wouldn't be surprised if there are several leaders in our Church who were raised in broken homes.

My last two Stake Presidents in a row were raised by single mothers. Again not rationalizing just saying there seems to be lots of successful anecdotes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

So what you are saying is not so much that Mormons from broken homes and Mormons from intact homes absolutely shouldn't marry, but that they should marry with their eyes wide open to the challenges that they will inevitably face due to their backgrounds, and that if they don't think they want to deal with the baggage, they should be able to say it just isn't for them?

I think that is a very reasonable point of view.

I would say shouldn't but my opinion isn't worth much . .. people can do what they want to in life.  It's what I'll teach my kids, but whatever they choose in life is their choice-I don't live their life for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

My last two Stake Presidents in a row were raised by single mothers. Again not rationalizing just saying there seems to be lots of successful anecdotes.

Absolutely, there are going to be successful anecdotes; it's even likely that they wouldn't be Stake Presidents today if they weren't raised like that-b/c there is a lot that one can learn that will help one become more like Christ in those situations.

But go ask them if they had their druthers if they would be raised in a stable two parent household.  I think you know what their answer would be.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I totally get it - not offended at all.  Briefly - my wife's parent's family has splintered apart due to incestuous child sex abusers (which is bad enough) going protected and defended (which is even worse).   I'm the product of a self-absorbed major depressive suicidal mother who actually blamed me in one of her suicide notes.  (If these doesn't qualify as "bad stock", I'd like to see what does. :))     

We both bear plenty of scars, some healed well, some remain open raw wounds.  Both of us have a certain level of understanding/appreciation/awareness of the burdens the other bears, something that would be absent in a spouse with a less traumatic upbringing.  

Yjacket took the "equally yoked" notion in scripture and applied it in a nontraditional way I'd never thought about before.  I think I'm going to take it and run with it. 

Yeap . . .I'm in total agreement on this.  And for what it's worth . . I do wish that crap hadn't happened to you.

I didn't grow up in a "bad stock" family, but I have learned in my life to have empathy for those that did-I really honest to goodness wish it didn't happen; it would make life much easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are many cases where it is sub-optimal to make a decision based on simply one piece of data. I think that for decisions that will have eternal consequences, there are a great many pieces of data that need to weighed and balanced before a decision should be made. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, yjacket said:

And I would amend this that there are circumstances where warning would not really be warranted.  Say for example when you were 3 dad left mom and at age 7 mom remarries and from 7 on mom and dad (or step-dad) have a great marriage.  I'm not sure that is a "broken home".  During the formative teenage years, a stable marriage is at the heart of the home.  Mom and dad love each other, demonstrate love, kindness etc and demonstrate what a good marriage looks like. That I'd say is probably not a big deal.

Mom and dad get divorced at age 7, mom goes through 2 other husbands (or never remarries, works outside the home,etc.) that I would run from. 

However the vast majority of broken homes do not proceed like the first paragraph, more likely the second.

Do you have evidence to back up your assertion that the teenage years are more formative than the early years in a person's life?

I would like to see evidence that supports your statement that the "vast majority" of divorces occur before children reach the age of accountability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, yjacket said:

Kudos to you to understanding this, recognizing it and working to change yourself, that is very wise and shows great insight into your past.  You appear to be much older and thus more aware of life in general.  Now the question is? Would you have this understanding at age 20? at age 25?  Most people (at the time of marriage) would not be aware enough of this and would fall into the same trap.  In fact, even if you are aware of it, if you are married you will most likely have to work very hard to ensure that you do not do the same thing as your mother-even if you are consciously aware of it.

FWIW, I was 12 when my parents divorced, 16 when I first realized I didn't want to live the sort of life my mother had made for herself, and I was 20 when I understood the best way to do that would be to physically distance myself from her.

I've read articles that state one factor for millenials getting married later in life than previous generations is because so many come from divorced parents. They want to be sure what happened to them doesn't happen to their kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seashmore said:

Do you have evidence to back up your assertion that the teenage years are more formative than the early years in a person's life?

I would like to see evidence that supports your statement that the "vast majority" of divorces occur before children reach the age of accountability. 

Lol. . . become a parent.  Early years are formative in certain aspects, teenage years formative is other aspects.  

No, I don't have evidence-I have common sense, wisdom, and experience. Something this world is sorely lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seashmore said:

FWIW, I was 12 when my parents divorced, 16 when I first realized I didn't want to live the sort of life my mother had made for herself, and I was 20 when I understood the best way to do that would be to physically distance myself from her.

I've read articles that state one factor for millenials getting married later in life than previous generations is because so many come from divorced parents. They want to be sure what happened to them doesn't happen to their kids.

Bully for you on not wanting to live the life your mother made.  If you have succeeded in doing so, you are statistically outside the norm; congratulations.

I don't think getting married later in life is a societal good thing.  If a women gets married at 28, that really only leaves her 7 good years to have children (high risk pregnancies after 35, higher risk of severe birth defects, etc.).  A women getting married at 28, would be fortunate to have 2 children (probably wait 1-2 years before kids, ~2 years apart, ~1.5 years of pregnancy) oh look you're at 35.  

Hmm, considering the current re-population rate is below what it takes to actually sustain the population; i.e. we are literally killing ourselves off the planet; I don't think delaying marriage is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it’s true that we grow from our trials, and if its true that divorce constitutes some sort of trial for the children of a divorcing couple, then its reasonable to assume that the children of divorced parents have had opportunities for growth in ways that the children of undivorced parents have not. It’s not clear to me whether these opportunities for growth, when taken, will, or will not result in a net benefit after taking into account all of the negatives arising from the divorce, but I think its fair to assume that the greater the trial, the greater the opportunities for growth. (All dependent, of course, on what the people involved decide to do with those opportunities for growth)

I also think its inconsistent with the justice of God to allow harm to come to the innocent without there being some sort of compensatory blessings equal to or greater than the harm. I believe that if a child, through no fault of their own, has been harmed by the divorce of their parents, God will somehow make up for that harm. And its quite possible that those compensatory blessings might be of a sufficient quality or quantity for that child to then become a highly desired marriage partner.

It’s up to us to decide if we will place greater faith in statistics, or in our theology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

It’s up to us to decide if we will place greater faith in statistics, or in our theology.

If we had enough faith in our theology, divorce wouldn't exist in the LDS culture.

You know what they say, work like everything depends on you, pray like everything depends on God . . .

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now