The Mormon Marriage Crisis

[Anonymous]

A very interesting article appeared in the Huffington Post about the plight of single adults in the church:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/mormon-singles-lds-singles-wards-marriage_n_1875524.html

It’s difficult for me to be objective on this issue, as I am part of the “problem”. I really wonder at the obstacles to marriage for young and not-so-young single adult Mormons:

-decreasing dating opportunities when they get a job that takes them out of “Zion”?

-just plain lack of luck? (ships passing in the night?)

-lack of employment opportunities, too much debt, not enough money to settle down? (X-ers and Millenials in the post-2008 economic calamity)

-increasingly materialistic men and women? (e.g. “he doesn’t make enough money to give me the lifestyle my father did)

-too many “deal breakers” for daters and affianced couples? (e.g. non-RM status, no TR, porn)

One thing is certain–the longer men and women remain unmarried in the Church, the greater the certainty that they will leave the church. The second-class status of single adults makes it almost intolerable at times to worship Christ with the marrieds… :thumbdown:

[Anonymous]

Sorry about the “marrieds” thing… It was kind of insensitive…

[Anonymous]

I can vouch for the limited opportunities problem. I was young, good-looking, well-educated, served a mission, on my way to a decent job, active, TR-holding, socially OK, and still had a problem finding someone suitable, and ended up in a marriage which, in hindsight, might not have been the greatest idea. My wife agrees, but there were so few opportunities out in the “mission field” for both of us. I have to confess, the fact that I was searching for three years after my mission, and approaching 29 years of age didn’t help…and my age was the fact that it took me so long to get the money together for a mission.

I thought of going to BYU but I would’ve had to go into debt as an international student at the time, so that wasn’t feasible. Also, I think the fact that I was an RM and active and temple worthy had a larger impact on my wife’s decision making than it should have. Really, what matters is how well each person meets the others’ needs in the marriage. Certainly women with a high need for family commitment will find an active TR holder, RM attractive, but that can be achieved even without all the Mormon trappings. I am not as active as I used to be, but I still do much as a family man. And continue to meet that need.

[Anonymous]

What are the solutions. Ease up on the rhetoric of having to marry a member?

Should we do that, we will lose some active members, but we are losing them anyway. Do we get more conversions.

I bet a significant % of convert baptisms come from those in a relationship with a member.

What are the negatives and positives of this approach? which outweighs which…. and in spite of which out weighs another, is it better to allow someone to fall in love and experience the blessings of family even if the spouse is a non-member versus them holding out their entire life because they refuse to marry outside the faith.

[Anonymous]

Thank you DBMormon! We have removed that stigma from our family.Teach your children to have high standards and to date people with high standards…in our family, that definition started with a belief in Jesus Christ. The feedback from various people over the years has been interesting, to say the least. The all time moment came when a person in authority taught in a class that we believe the law of chastity included being sealed in the temple. One of our inlaw children had to sit in a class and hear that some people defined personal success if their children married in the temple or served missions. Thankfully, it rolled off off and after a time of study and prayer, this inlaw child left the religion of family and converted. We made sure to convey that was not our measure of success and we loved all of our children and inlaw children equally, no matter what. When people say these things in class, they really don’t mean to offend anyone and really are not thinking of who in the class is in what situation. But I do so wish we would all think a little bit more. Are our Heavenly Parents not successful since 1/3 of their children made other choices?

I do think this is a viable option for those who are in less concentrated LDS areas. Not everyone can attend church schools. You can meet nonmembers at work, community service events, interest events (some of my single friends meet a lot of people running races, etc.)

[Anonymous]

I think I can speak to this issue quite well. I’ve been in the Mormon singles scene longer than most, and think that the Mormon Marriage Crisis is, more than anything else, about a single idea: expectations. This especially applies to expectations for the level of positive qualities and attractiveness of the spouse people are looking for. We, as Mormons, were taught from a young age to have high expectations for our future eternal companion, and most importantly, we were taught that God would grant us a desirable spouse if we we were faithful and obedient. What missionary didn’t hear that he would be rewarded with a beautiful wife if he tracted in the rain? And what young woman wasn’t taught that she would be rewarded with a handsome prince RM if she remained a virgin? We were all taught these things, AND WE BELIEVED THEM. Why shouldn’t we believe them? And we were raised to have high expectations for the quality of the marriage relationship. The high expectations are driven even higher by the eternal marriage factor: if I get to only be married to one person for all eternity, I better be dang sure I find someone I really like. The monogamy factor also increases expectations: if I only get to have sex with ONE person for my whole life and for all eternity, I better be dang sure I pick someone I want.

And when guys like me see other guys getting desirable women for wives, we believe that we’ve been faithful enough for God to reward us equally. But God doesn’t work that way. In fact, in a moment of transparency for me, I admit that the “attractiveness inequality” is what first brought about my crisis of faith. Previously, I could deal with doctrinal and historical problems, but I couldn’t deal with a God who didn’t create me to be attractive to the pretty girls in the ward. No matter how much I accomplish,it’s never enough for them. They’ve always wanted something more than I am. It’s compounded by the fact that there is no good theistic explanation for why an intelligent, responsible, reasonably good looking guy like me isn’t what Mormon girls want. Why would God design Mormon women to be attracted to bad boys on motorcycles instead of intelligent, creative, athletic guys like me? Why would God do that? After doing the research, I finally have a good answer for that question: God didn’t do that. We were created by the forces of nature, namely evolution, and women’s preference for a bad boy on a motorcycle over a NASA nerd is a matter of both genetic hard-wiring and culture.

As unsettling as it is, spouse selection is truly natural selection at work. I can say that I have a testimony of this principle, because I’ve seen it happen right in front of my eyes over and over: people who are attractive and healthy get married young and easily, and they marry people who are attractive and healthy. People who are unattractive, have mental or physical health problems, or have unrealistic expectations get married late or not at all, and get married to people who are less attractive and less healthy. There as some exceptions, but that is the rule. The attractive people get married and pass on their genes, while the unattractive and unhealthy people are weeded out of the gene pool. That’s natural selection, and Mormonism isn’t immune to it. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can watch it happen right in front of you. I now know that God does not hand out attractive spouses to people based on their obedience to the commandments, with the most obedient people getting the most desirable spouses. Spouse selection in the Church is governed by the rules of natural selection, just like it is for every other religion and for non-religious people.

I think that the elephant in the room in this case is that most people are looking for someone who is much more attractive than they are, and I admit that I may fall into this category. But you can’t tell people to lower their expectations for an eternal companion, especially given that some people really do find what they are looking for and given the lofty promises the Church (or perhaps Church culture) makes to people who keep the commandments.

That’s not to say that I haven’t had some success with women. I’ve had several girlfriends, two of which were talking about marriage to me. One I’m glad I didn’t marry, and the other one would have been a great wife and I sometimes regret not taking the offer. They’re both married now. I was considering marrying my last girlfriend (though we hadn’t talked about it yet) when she had a revelation that she needed to dump me. She’s married and pregnant right now. The fact that God seemed so deeply concerned about getting her married to the right person while leaving me out in the cold also brought about my faith crisis. Why won’t God lead me to the right person the way that God led her to the right person? The fact that she’s the only woman I’ve ever fallen in love with makes the sting that much greater and more confusing. At this point, I’m coming to a naturalistic explanation for these events- one that does not require God.

I could go on for a long time on this whole topic, but I’ll stop there.

[Anonymous]

IQUIRING MIND

I appreciate your comments. We had a sister in our ward whose boyfriend prayed and was told to leave the relationship. About a year later a great guy cam along and they are married. Though not your situation, sometimes these things seem so offensive and yet “be still and know that I am God” is the only advice I can give.

My heart wrenches for those who wait for this to occur.

[Anonymous]

I have told my children that whom they marry is their decision and that I believe the ideal is marrying someone with whom they can become one. They know I want them to marry in the temple, but they also know that I would rather have them become one in this life and then be sealed after death than be married in the temple and never become one.

I see “sealing” as a process, not as an event – and I see temple ordinances as inclusive of what most people would see as deviations. Thus, it is easier for me to stay out of my children’s business than it would be otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have told my children that whom they marry is their decision and that I believe the ideal is marrying someone with whom they can become one. They know I want them to marry in the temple, but they also know that I would rather have them become one in this life and then be sealed after death than be married in the temple and never become one.

I see “sealing” as a process, not as an event – and I see temple ordinances as inclusive of what most people would see as deviations. Thus, it is easier for me to stay out of my children’s business than it would be otherwise.

This will be my approach as well…. walk the line per say… what’s new

[Anonymous]

I wholly agree with inquiringmind on the expectations issue. LDS youth are taught to expect and accept only the best in their potential spouses—and that “God would grant us a desirable spouse if we were faithful and obedient. What missionary didn’t hear that he would be rewarded with a beautiful wife if he tracted in the rain? And what young woman wasn’t taught that she would be rewarded with a handsome prince RM if she remained a virgin?” Often, the results of such thinking are: returned missionaries with plenty of crappy memories of slogging through the most ineffective way to find investigators, men and women who are so uptight about their sexuality that they can’t have satisfying sex lives once they finally marry, and a good number of unmarried and undated RMs and virgins.

As we all eventually learn, life is much more complicated than the simplistic, culturally-bound promises above. I don’t think God made those promises. Not all RMs are handsome, or princes, and not all good men are RMs. Not all goodly women are “hot”, and many hot women are not goodly. Not all unmarried men and women in their 20s are virgins, but does that mean they are “licked cupcakes”? What of the Atonement? And what of agency—RMs and beautiful virgins can change, sometimes in very unpleasant ways.

Quote:

afterall: “a person in authority taught in a class that we believe the law of chastity included being sealed in the temple.” WTH? So good people married civilly, who are faithful and monogamous are not chaste?

Wow…

Quote:

DBMormon: “is it better to allow someone to fall in love and experience the blessings of family even if the spouse is a non-member versus them holding out their entire life because they refuse to marry outside the faith?”

I think this is a tough one, but probably better reflects reality in a lot of places. The sheer difference between a life married to a good person (albeit, Non-LDS) and the opportunity of child-rearing, vs. a long, painful life of loneliness is striking. I am sure God will be merciful.

This is a difficult and intractable problem, and I think many of our current efforts are running at cross-purposes with our desired results: Here are some potential solutions I can think of:

-Recognize the realities of dating and marriage when speaking with our youth instead of feeding them fairy tales.

-Temple marriage should be taught from a “good, better, best” perspective, and not an “acceptable vs. unacceptable” perspective.

-Healthy approaches to sexuality must be addressed.

-Although the community has an interest in marriage, men and women seeking marriage should be taught that marriage is a highly personal decision with highly personal consequences. At the end of the day, the community should not have the final say in something that is so personal. Help our children to draw that boundary.

-Aggressively address the high-stakes fallacies floating around in the YSA dating environment. Not all dating has to lead to marriage. Not all second dates have to lead to marriage. Lighten up on the whole dating thing! (And another thing—let boys and girls go on one-on-one dates in high school, for crying out loud. Men who come back from missions who don’t know how to set up a date with a woman are way behind the curve. One-on-one dates /= inevitable intercourse. Jeez!)

All of these things will take aggressive and proactive steps by local Church leaders, parents, seminary teachers, etc.

[Anonymous]

This is a very good discussion! And we are definitely in the minority for our thoughts on this topic!

We can only start with ourselves and our downline. Also by speaking up gently in classes when the topic is broached.

[Anonymous]

The answer for me is — what produces the most happiness for the individuals involved in the marriage situation? I know of women who married the stereotypical RM, temple worthy person, got divorced and then married a non-member and felt very happy as a result. This is anecdotal, but it goes to show how just being happy can take precedence over the whole temple experience — particularly after someone marries the textbook perfect partner and then feels the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall. The church entwines happiness with the temple — too much in my view.

Again, I see the church’s emphasis on marrying in the temple as justified by doctrine, but potentially, motivated by JS and BY’s preservationist instincts. Strong families provide an internal engine of population growth which strengthens the church’s membership — and it is just as powerful as gaining converts, and less expensive. Because members respond to their own self-interest in salvation, JS and BY developed doctrine which ties eternal well-being to marrying within the church and raising kids to be active within it.

So, that dilutes my overall commitment to the temple — as has the problems my wife and I have experienced with it, as well as the problems with her strict religious upbringing. There are times when I realize the influence of the church in my life led to:

a) limited choice in who to marry

b) over-emphasis of the quality of church activity versus compatibility.

c) staying in the relationship after it was clear it was not a great choice.

However, we learn to adapt, and the thing I always remind myself — I picked Door #1. Would Door #2 have been any better? It too would have problems — would they be better or worse?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

DBMormon: “is it better to allow someone to fall in love and experience the blessings of family even if the spouse is a non-member versus them holding out their entire life because they refuse to marry outside the faith?” I think this is a tough one, but probably better reflects reality in a lot of places. The sheer difference between a life married to a good person (albeit, Non-LDS) and the opportunity of child-rearing, vs. a long, painful life of loneliness is striking. I am sure God will be merciful

Let me ask you a question – Will only the .2% of people who are LDS get back to God and stay there?

Encourage kids to hold high standards, encourage them to be equally yoked, but help them feel peaceful about the things of life that don’t go as planned.

It will work out, God plans to save more then Latter-Day Saints

[Anonymous]

The institution of marriage as we understand it today is a rather recent development in the history of mankind. A marriage based on love and mutual attraction is a luxury that we have in todays world. For the majority of the history of the human race it was not like this. I know that the church wants to lead us to believe that his type of relationship goes back to Adam and Eve but it really does not. So my point is we are trying to adhere to an ideal that is somewhat contrary to our history and evolution. It may be that LDS marriage in our day is just not as practical as it use to be. We will have to adjust since we will have no options. What that will be I am not sure, but I am positive there will be change to come.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

The institution of marriage as we understand it today is a rather recent development in the history of mankind. A marriage based on love and mutual attraction is a luxury that we have in todays world. For the majority of the history of the human race it was not like this. I know that the church wants to lead us to believe that his type of relationship goes back to Adam and Eve but it really does not. So my point is we are trying to adhere to an ideal that is somewhat contrary to our history and evolution. It may be that LDS marriage in our day is just not as practical as it use to be. We will have to adjust since we will have no options. What that will be I am not sure, but I am positive there will be change to come.

I thought Vulcan marriages were arranged, anyway… 😆

[Author]

Posts