Do you all ever feel shortchanged by your culture's insistence on early marriage

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

By all accounts, SU is happily married, and his wife is leggy as the day is long.

My personal take is that marriage, like a magnifying glass, only reveals flaws and strengths that are already within a person.....by itself, marriage generally does not create them.

I would actually say that when you are married, the potential for moral transgression is substantially increased.

Completely agree.

In my experience, it seem that the majority of people who had serious problems before marriage had them after as well. Very limited sample, but surprisingly true. IPU even said this--those who had premarital sex were more likely to commit adultery, i.e. the marital status really didn't affect their commitment to the Gospel.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The article is why I responded to BDB's comment. I only scanned it, but it still seems to fall in the "single = unhappy, married = happy" school. I would really like to see an article about someone who's sincerely found happiness and fulfillment as a single, phrased about like BDB's comment.

Try reading the article instead of just scanning it. I don't think "single = unhappy, married = happy" is what it's saying at all.

A quote:

Finding satisfaction, meaning, and happiness in life may require singles to first confront their sense of loss and then learn to live more peacefully with “what is,” neither ignoring nor overemphasizing the future. They may then begin to reshape their idea of a successful life, develop a flexible support network of family and friends, and learn new life skills. Accepting rather than resisting current singleness allows a focus on what one can learn—not just what one might lose—by being single.

[fusnik11]

Early marriage is encouraged primarily to protect the virginity of 19 year old girls and 21 year old returned missionaries. The average male and female, depending on who you ask, has 7 and 4 partners respectively during their life.

Isn't it ironic the puritanical stance we take on sex given our history?

Joseph, Brigham, John and Wilford would have many more sexual partners than your average run of the mill LDS.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

My impression is that the Church is already preaching this very thing. The Gospel encourages us to have joy and to have a perfect brightness of hope.

The Church has definitely counseled YSAs to not delay marriage. This is often misunderstood as a blanket cattle call to the altar. In reality, that message is directed at those who are in a legitimate position to get married, often multiple times, but for whatever reason, he or she decides to delay. The Church is not addressing those sisters and brothers would love to be married, yte have a hard time finding the right date.

Maybe...but can you imagine BDB's comment being published in the Ensign? I can't--simply because of a fear that some might view it as a tacit endorsement of the single life. That's too bad.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The article is why I responded to BDB's comment. I only scanned it, but it still seems to fall in the "single = unhappy, married = happy" school. I would really like to see an article about someone who's sincerely found happiness and fulfillment as a single, phrased about like BDB's comment.

I doubt I would be a good test case. After all I was married and had 5 kids.

However, I can tell you I have been single for about 22 years and I am one really happy guy, not gay, but happy.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

Try reading the article instead of just scanning it. I don't think "single = unhappy, married = happy" is what it's saying at all.

A quote:

I stand corrected.

I don't have an Ensign in front of me, but as I was flipping through it, it seemed to be in that school of thought. It sounds like they're trying to correct that idea--good.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I stand corrected.

I don't have an Ensign in front of me, but as I was flipping through it, it seemed to be in that school of thought. It sounds like they're trying to correct that idea--good.

Don't feel bad if you leap to that conclusion though. It is a pretty strong tradition through our culture to indicate marriage = happy, single=unhappy.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I stand corrected.

I don't have an Ensign in front of me, but as I was flipping through it, it seemed to be in that school of thought. It sounds like they're trying to correct that idea--good.

It's just putting lipstick on a pig.

Doctrine: without sealing no exaltation
Doctrine: without sealing happiness is finite
Doctrine: without sealing one becomes subservient to exalted beings
Doctrine: this is the time of one's preparation to meet their maker
Doctrine: without a personal sealing you are unable to stay with family

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Don't feel bad if you leap to that conclusion though. It is a pretty strong tradition through our culture to indicate marriage = happy, single=unhappy.

Come now, let's be reasonable. The culture of marriage is strong in the church, and it's true we define people by it (incorrectly, in my view). But the doctrine of happiness has never been predicated on marriage and people who hold such a tradition are either lying to themselves or terribly naive about the world around them. Certainly few church leaders fall into that category.

Originally Posted by fusnik11

It's just putting lipstick on a pig.

Doctrine: without sealing no exaltation
Doctrine: without sealing happiness is finite
Doctrine: without sealing one becomes subservient to exalted beings
Doctrine: this is the time of one's preparation to meet their maker
Doctrine: without a personal sealing you are unable to stay with family

Bah. What nonsense. Any person who wishes to be sealed will have an opportunity to be sealed, if not in this life then in the next.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Tex

Bah. What nonsense. Any person who wishes to be sealed will have an opportunity to be sealed, if not in this life then in the next.

On your mission did you tell people, 'it's ok if you reject our message and our baptism because fortunately in the life to come you will have another opportunity.'