President Monson's conference talk RE marriage

[SmallFarm]

some of you know my situation and some may not. I was going to re-post here for those who don't know but decided against it. Suffice it to say, I am living proof against marrying someone you are not in love with (or to just "check it off your list"). I do agree with what the prophet said though, just to add to it though I would say we should be working harder to be worthy of a temple marriage by the time we're old enough.

[iamse7en]

It sure is comforting to know we have people on the forum who know more than the Prophet.

lol. Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Col. Flagg never insinuated that at all. He just thought the President could have included another aspect of the courtship: getting to know someone and developing an attachment/love with/for the person. If anything, this has generated good discussion on marriage, its covenants, and the requirements prior to entering into this sacred union. Get off your high horse - he's not saying he knows more than the Prophet.

[Col. Flagg]

It sure is comforting to know we have people on the forum who know more than the Prophet.

lol. Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Col. Flagg never insinuated that at all. He just thought the President could have included another aspect of the courtship: getting to know someone and developing an attachment/love with/for the person. If anything, this has generated good discussion on marriage, its covenants, and the requirements prior to entering into this sacred union. Get off your high horse - he's not saying he knows more than the Prophet.

Amen... thank you!

[Col. Flagg]

Do you suppose there's different degrees of criticism or is your world black and white? Why not take it up with Pres. Monson if you've got issues?

1/3 black, 1/3 white and 1/3 gray CW. No, there is no reason to take this up with Pres. Monson because I agreed with what he said - I just wish he had added another aspect to it that involved getting to know someone really well and being in love and attracted to them in several facets. Like was said above, get off your high horse.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

get off your high horse.

OK, I'll try. I might break a leg on the way down, but I'll try to be careful. So so so SO sorry to have offended you. I'll know better next time I'm temped to address you.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

get off your high horse.

OK, I'll try. I might break a leg on the way down, but I'll try to be careful. So so so SO sorry to have offended you. I'll know better next time I'm temped to address you.

Better yet, should I retract my offending words so as not to remind you of the pain I have inflicted on your poor soul today? To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't already been deleted.

[Col. Flagg]

get off your high horse.

OK, I'll try. I might break a leg on the way down, but I'll try to be careful. So so so SO sorry to have offended you. I'll know better next time I'm temped to address you.

Better yet, should I retract my offending words so as not to remind you of the pain I have inflicted on your poor soul today? To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't already been deleted.

Are you OK?

[ChemtrailWatcher]

Well, there's a few bruises, but I'll think I'll be fine. No broken bones that I know of. Thanks for asking.

[shadow]

I'm not sure why we have so many pages on this topic ) President Monson, in the same "marriage" talk remarked about a sign he read somewhere. It read "Choose your spouse,..." Oops, I mean "Choose your love, love your choice". Excellent point, and hopefully well taken!

[Col. Flagg]

I'm not sure why we have so many pages on this topic ) President Monson, in the same "marriage" talk remarked about a sign he read somewhere. It read "Choose your spouse,..." Oops, I mean "Choose your love, love your choice". Excellent point, and hopefully well taken!

I think this thread and the subject matter has been good for discussion. I'm still curious how someone can 'choose' to love a spouse if they don't before getting married to them? Either that feeling is there or it isn't (IMO) - love isn't something you can 'choose' - it's a natural feeling of deep emotional attachment and attraction to someone - you can't force that. This discussion reminds me of a line from the Princess Bride (one of the greatest, funniest movies ever made)...

Buttercup: "Wesley and I are joined by the bonds of love, and you cannot track that, not with a thousand blood-hounds or a thousand men". How happy was Buttercup knowing she was going to marry Humperdinck, someone she did not love, although someone of great royalty and providership?

[Original_Intent]

I don't agree that it has been a good discussion. The prophet didn;t talk about those other concerns that you wish he would have, because the need wasn't there. People rushing into marriage is hardly a problem compared to the numbers that are delaying. I have found the entire thread as detracting from the great talk President Monsen gave. The OP is critical of the prophet's talk no matter how one wants to dance around the issue - certainly not "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed" by any stretch, but certainly "righting the ark".

Elsewhere in conference it was said that the speakers had spent much time being guided by the spirit, and making sure they were not conveying the message that THEY wanted to say but rather what the Lord wanted them to say.

If the prophet had "improved" upon his talk the way you would have liked, Col., is it not likely that many young men would have used that as the reason to continue to delay? Some young men and women already expect the heavens to part and angels to break forth into triumphant song the moment they lay eyes on "the one".

If the prophet were to speak to Americans about the amount of food we eat, I expect it would be to advise us to cut back and watch what we eat. This whole thread is the equivalent of "But doesn;t he know there are anorexic people out there! He should have also spoken about people being sure they got enough food!"

And I am probably going to get called down of my high horse - so be it. The prophet said what he said and didn;t say what he didn't. Certainly everyone is welcome to their opinions and sharing their opinions. But my feeling is we are critical (even if it is constructive criticism so to speak) of the messages of the general authorities and especially the prophet at our own peril.

No hard feelings Col. I love you to death, I really do. If your thread had merely stated "I think that along with President Monsen's message, that being in love with the person is also important." I would have had no problem with that, because you didn't disparage the talk at all, you just would be saying that you thought that was important as well, and a discussion could have gone from there. But I think the attitude that the prophet "fell short" or "really missed an important aspect of his topic"...can you see the difference?

[jray0024]

yea its better to get married at 25 them 45 im not debating that, i find that more common sense then anything. Your making all of this a little to difficult, when you fall in love you ask the Lord if you are making the right decision and if he blesses your dicision. For some reason many members think thats going to happen at a young age for most of us, not true. Im debating the mentality of people jumping into a marriage because they want to be obedient and get married as fast as they can. If you dont believe young people feel preasured into marriage by leaders i dont know what to tell you cause yes my own personal experiences were and are that most feel that way. No one can counsil you who to fall in love with or tell you how fast you should fall in love thats your own buisness. I love and sustain our authorities but they will not be held responsible for your marriage choice. My point is if people didnt feel so worried about rushing into marriage theyd have more time to make better dicisions. I agree with most of what you say, but i believe that to much preasure on members leads to more mistakes. I dont have time to go searching for the numbers but i once have before and the divorse rate amonst members of the church was huge and if i remember correct most were married young. But, i dont want to argue with you since i agree with most of what you say.

[jray0024]

Though i love and sustain our leaders, they are not infallible and i feel most of us today are putting our "whole arm" in the trust of flesh when previous prophets and apostles have taught against that. We will never add to our own intelligence if we always base our lives on what everyone else is telling us to do. We need to go off our own personal revelation when we should or should'nt get married, its only my opinion but i do not believe God would rush us to make marriage choices when we have lived so long in the pre-existence.

[buffalo_girl]

Choose your love, love your choice.

I thought the Rolling Stones said that.

[Rincon]

I don't agree that it has been a good discussion. The prophet didn;t talk about those other concerns that you wish he would have, because the need wasn't there. People rushing into marriage is hardly a problem compared to the numbers that are delaying. I have found the entire thread as detracting from the great talk President Monsen gave. The OP is critical of the prophet's talk no matter how one wants to dance around the issue - certainly not "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed" by any stretch, but certainly "righting the ark".

Elsewhere in conference it was said that the speakers had spent much time being guided by the spirit, and making sure they were not conveying the message that THEY wanted to say but rather what the Lord wanted them to say.

If the prophet had "improved" upon his talk the way you would have liked, Col., is it not likely that many young men would have used that as the reason to continue to delay? Some young men and women already expect the heavens to part and angels to break forth into triumphant song the moment they lay eyes on "the one".

If the prophet were to speak to Americans about the amount of food we eat, I expect it would be to advise us to cut back and watch what we eat. This whole thread is the equivalent of "But doesn;t he know there are anorexic people out there! He should have also spoken about people being sure they got enough food!"

And I am probably going to get called down of my high horse - so be it. The prophet said what he said and didn;t say what he didn't. Certainly everyone is welcome to their opinions and sharing their opinions. But my feeling is we are critical (even if it is constructive criticism so to speak) of the messages of the general authorities and especially the prophet at our own peril.

No hard feelings Col. I love you to death, I really do. If your thread had merely stated "I think that along with President Monsen's message, that being in love with the person is also important." I would have had no problem with that, because you didn't disparage the talk at all, you just would be saying that you thought that was important as well, and a discussion could have gone from there. But I think the attitude that the prophet "fell short" or "really missed an important aspect of his topic"...can you see the difference?

Original_Intent: You see it exactly like I do. I don't intend to offend any of you, but I am a right wing extremist, so my posts are sometimes a bit on the harsh side, and perhaps void of tact. I accept everything the Prophet says at general conference, even if I don't like what I am hearing. I just hope he never asks me to live plural marriage. That would test my loyalty to the limit.

[Mark]

I don't agree that it has been a good discussion. The prophet didn;t talk about those other concerns that you wish he would have, because the need wasn't there. People rushing into marriage is hardly a problem compared to the numbers that are delaying. I have found the entire thread as detracting from the great talk President Monsen gave. The OP is critical of the prophet's talk no matter how one wants to dance around the issue - certainly not "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed" by any stretch, but certainly "righting the ark".

Elsewhere in conference it was said that the speakers had spent much time being guided by the spirit, and making sure they were not conveying the message that THEY wanted to say but rather what the Lord wanted them to say.

If the prophet had "improved" upon his talk the way you would have liked, Col., is it not likely that many young men would have used that as the reason to continue to delay? Some young men and women already expect the heavens to part and angels to break forth into triumphant song the moment they lay eyes on "the one".

If the prophet were to speak to Americans about the amount of food we eat, I expect it would be to advise us to cut back and watch what we eat. This whole thread is the equivalent of "But doesn;t he know there are anorexic people out there! He should have also spoken about people being sure they got enough food!"

And I am probably going to get called down of my high horse - so be it. The prophet said what he said and didn;t say what he didn't. Certainly everyone is welcome to their opinions and sharing their opinions. But my feeling is we are critical (even if it is constructive criticism so to speak) of the messages of the general authorities and especially the prophet at our own peril.

No hard feelings Col. I love you to death, I really do. If your thread had merely stated "I think that along with President Monsen's message, that being in love with the person is also important." I would have had no problem with that, because you didn't disparage the talk at all, you just would be saying that you thought that was important as well, and a discussion could have gone from there. But I think the attitude that the prophet "fell short" or "really missed an important aspect of his topic"...can you see the difference?

I tip my surfboard to you Bro. You are very wise in your observations here. It is so critically important that we as LDS be very careful in how we express our differing opinions publicly when it comes to conference addresses from the Prophet of the Lord. I will not second guess what the Prophet decides to emphasize in his talks. By doing so I am putting myself in jeopardy of beginning to question the revelatory powers of the Lords anointed servant and that leads to nothing but trouble.

[Col. Flagg]

I don't agree that it has been a good discussion. The prophet didn;t talk about those other concerns that you wish he would have, because the need wasn't there. People rushing into marriage is hardly a problem compared to the numbers that are delaying. I have found the entire thread as detracting from the great talk President Monsen gave. The OP is critical of the prophet's talk no matter how one wants to dance around the issue - certainly not "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed" by any stretch, but certainly "righting the ark".

Elsewhere in conference it was said that the speakers had spent much time being guided by the spirit, and making sure they were not conveying the message that THEY wanted to say but rather what the Lord wanted them to say.

If the prophet had "improved" upon his talk the way you would have liked, Col., is it not likely that many young men would have used that as the reason to continue to delay? Some young men and women already expect the heavens to part and angels to break forth into triumphant song the moment they lay eyes on "the one".

If the prophet were to speak to Americans about the amount of food we eat, I expect it would be to advise us to cut back and watch what we eat. This whole thread is the equivalent of "But doesn;t he know there are anorexic people out there! He should have also spoken about people being sure they got enough food!"

And I am probably going to get called down of my high horse - so be it. The prophet said what he said and didn;t say what he didn't. Certainly everyone is welcome to their opinions and sharing their opinions. But my feeling is we are critical (even if it is constructive criticism so to speak) of the messages of the general authorities and especially the prophet at our own peril.

No hard feelings Col. I love you to death, I really do. If your thread had merely stated "I think that along with President Monsen's message, that being in love with the person is also important." I would have had no problem with that, because you didn't disparage the talk at all, you just would be saying that you thought that was important as well, and a discussion could have gone from there. But I think the attitude that the prophet "fell short" or "really missed an important aspect of his topic"...can you see the difference?

Well said OI - you've made me re-think my take on what Pres. Monson said - I should have worded my original post a little differently because I did not intend it to come across as scolding Pres. Monson - I just wish he would have emphasized some of the other, more important aspects of marriage, that's all. Like Mark said - your words are wise ones.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

Does this mean I can get back up on my high horse? :p

[iamse7en]

Does this mean I can get back up on my high horse? :p

With that, you're already back up there.

[ChemtrailWatcher]

Isn't the air great up here iamse7en? It's kind of addictive, don't ya think?

[natasha]

I don't agree that it has been a good discussion. The prophet didn;t talk about those other concerns that you wish he would have, because the need wasn't there. People rushing into marriage is hardly a problem compared to the numbers that are delaying. I have found the entire thread as detracting from the great talk President Monsen gave. The OP is critical of the prophet's talk no matter how one wants to dance around the issue - certainly not "evil speaking of the Lord's annointed" by any stretch, but certainly "righting the ark".

Elsewhere in conference it was said that the speakers had spent much time being guided by the spirit, and making sure they were not conveying the message that THEY wanted to say but rather what the Lord wanted them to say.

If the prophet had "improved" upon his talk the way you would have liked, Col., is it not likely that many young men would have used that as the reason to continue to delay? Some young men and women already expect the heavens to part and angels to break forth into triumphant song the moment they lay eyes on "the one".

If the prophet were to speak to Americans about the amount of food we eat, I expect it would be to advise us to cut back and watch what we eat. This whole thread is the equivalent of "But doesn;t he know there are anorexic people out there! He should have also spoken about people being sure they got enough food!"

And I am probably going to get called down of my high horse - so be it. The prophet said what he said and didn;t say what he didn't. Certainly everyone is welcome to their opinions and sharing their opinions. But my feeling is we are critical (even if it is constructive criticism so to speak) of the messages of the general authorities and especially the prophet at our own peril.

No hard feelings Col. I love you to death, I really do. If your thread had merely stated "I think that along with President Monsen's message, that being in love with the person is also important." I would have had no problem with that, because you didn't disparage the talk at all, you just would be saying that you thought that was important as well, and a discussion could have gone from there. But I think the attitude that the prophet "fell short" or "really missed an important aspect of his topic"...can you see the difference?

Well said OI - you've made me re-think my take on what Pres. Monson said - I should have worded my original post a little differently because I did not intend it to come across as scolding Pres. Monson - I just wish he would have emphasized some of the other, more important aspects of marriage, that's all. Like Mark said - your words are wise ones.

Glad you could "re-think", Col....I agree with OI and Mark. If you will just step back for a minute and look back over similar type posts you've made regarding what the brethren have said and/or haven't said, you might recognize a pattern. Your choice, though. I again want to say that I thought Pres. Monson's talk was wonderful and timely. No where in his talk did I get the idea that you shouldn't love someone. Having lived as many years as I have, though...I am inclined to think that often that "woo-woo" feeling we have regarding another is often mistaken as love. Hollywood, advertisments, the attack on the family, all these things and many others have "programmed" many into what a lot of people "think" is love. Love is quiet...confident...and enduring.

[natasha]

I was blinded by the cultural customs of what I thought I needed. I found something far better, and only got married when I decided to get off my butt, and worry about the few things that matter. I chose to fall in love with my wife, and I have fallen in love more deeply than I had ever expected.

But... is love something you choose? I think it either happens naturally or it doesn't. I don't think it is something you can choose - love has often been defined as 'a feeling you feel that you've never felt before' - that isn't something you can 'choose' per se, IMO anyway.

Yes...I believe love IS something you can choose just as it is something you can choose NOT to be in. That is part of what Pres. Monson was talking about....making a choice NOT to be in love is what has happened to some of our young people who have found themselves "graduating" from the singles wards back into regular wards. It's prioritizing and being the kind of person you are looking for in someone else.

[tmac]

Although I too am not very comfortable with the apparent second-guessing of the message and/or delivery of God’s Prophet, I do think this is an interesting discussion, and one that I don’t have time to really sink my teeth into at this point, so I haven’t read the whole thread, which remarkably bloomed into four pages in a relatively short amount of time. I also think this discussion is a good example of just how far afield we are in the Church in our true understanding of marriage -- which is probably one of the big reasons why conditions are such that God, through his prophet, felt the need to address it the way He did in General Conference.

This is a subject that I have some practical experience with – both personal experience, on several sides of the fence – as well as professional experience, associative experience, and a whole lot of observation.

I once heard a good LDS marriage counselor call it “God’s Big Bait & Switch.” What he meant by that is that is that if you look at sheer numbers, statistics, and general tendencies across the board, “love” really has little to do with it. If you take all the couples that thought they were “madly in love” and look at them 10-20 years later, in most cases, it’s a totally different story. What so many thought was “true love” was actually based a whole lot more on twitterpation, infatuation, and lust than it is about real love, which most 20 somethings, or anyone who hasn’t actually been in the harness for a long time doesn’t even begin to understand. But it was often the infatuation that got them married in the first place. Without it, they never would have. That’s why he called it the great bait and switch. While it looks so inviting, twitterpation and infatuation doesn’t last. But for most people, once they get into it, it turns out to be a whole lot different than they had thought, and just a whole lot of work, obligation and responsibility. That is the switch part. If marriage isn’t built on a whole lot more than “love” it’s going to have plenty of problems.

From my perspective, the whole “dating scene” that is the method and process by which most Americans today choose spouses and get married is essentially a broken, ill-conceived system, that for the most part really has little to do with courtship and the serious business of finding a compatible mate. But the vast majority in the Church have completely embraced the way of the world in this regard. Consequently, from my perspective, we shouldn’t be surprised with the results.

On the other hand, the scriptures are replete with examples of marital relationships, including those of great prophets, etc., that really had nothing to do with “love” in the conventional sense that we view it today. Think of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph & Mary, Nephi, etc., etc., Think of all the plural marriages in the early days of the Church, many of which had nothing, whatsoever to do with “love” in the conventional sense. Think about how many of our General Authorities and Church leaders are products and descendents of those relationships. Ultimate, true lasting and enduring love is a choice. If both spouses choose it and do what they should do about it, how they felt in the beginning will have little actual relevance in the long run. If anything, it will have simply been the thing that brought them together. But there are a whole, whole lot of other choices that will have to be made to keep them happily together after that.

Based on my experience, I have given my own children a heads-up that their own experience in “getting mated-up” is going to be a whole lot different experience than the conventional, worldly approach. Based on our own family values, etc., I think finding good, worthy, compatible mates for them is going to be about like finding a needle in a haystack. Based on our family values and objectives, I think even in the Church the number of people who would actually fit the bill is probably only 1-5%. So, obviously, a lot of guidance and direction from the Lord is going to be needed. But love/lust/infatuation is probably not going to be the all important determining factor and criteria.

One last parting thought on the subject from Elder Gordon B. Hinckley (before he was the prophet):

"Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he has been robbed. The fact is that most putts don’t drop, most beef is tough, most children grow up to be just like people, most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration, and most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. Life is just like an old time rail journey ... delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders, and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed. The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride."
— Gordon B. Hinckley, Cornerstones of a Happy Home

[buffalo_girl]

Tmac has nailed it! I'm quite sure that's exactly what President Monson was saying.

I think finding good, worthy, compatible mates for them is going to be about like finding a needle in a haystack. Based on our family values and objectives, I think even in the Church the number of people who would actually fit the bill is probably only 1-5%.

In response to the above statement, the 'Arranged Marriage' concept is certainly interesting in terms of bringing both sets of parents into the process.

Each of our three sons - not LDS - have been married and divorced. In each situation, as parents of the sons we had NO interaction with the daughter-in-laws' families. Thank goodness, there were no children from those marriages! We would have had absolutely no contact with our own grandchildren. To each of our daughters-in-law - we were nonexistent in their lives.

They were gorgeous, accomplished, independent young women, but they seemed to lack any concept of extended family.

[ChelC]

Yes, tmac has nailed it. Few people get it these days, it seems.