Do not take the chance of dating nonmembers, or members who are untrained and faithless. A girl may say, “Oh, I do not intend to marry this person. It is just a ‘fun’ date.” But one cannot afford to take a chance on falling in love with someone who may never accept the gospel…In isolated instances a lovely young woman might be so far removed geographically from other Church members that she would either have to marry out of the Church or stay unmarried. Some might feel justified in such circumstances in making an exception to the rule and marrying a nonmember but, justification or not, it is important to recognize that the hazards in such a marriage would remain. To minimize the dangers the girl should by all means make sure that she marries a man who is honorable and good, so that even if he cannot at present be brought to accept the gospel there is a fair chance of his being converted later.”
Source: “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball.”
Can I ask M* readers to respectfully discuss this quotation, keeping in mind that Pres. Kimball was a prophet of the Lord?
Basically, there would be no church in Florida (or not for several decades later, and more from Utah emigres than locals) if strong Mormon women had not ignored (or more likely not heard) this advice and gone ahead and married non-members and raised posterity unto the Lord.
The first missionary from Florida was the product of a part-member family. And so are lots and lots of local members and leaders.
BYU prof and LDS marriage guru Brent Barlow did his doctorate at Florida State University, and his dissertation discussed the trend of LDS women marrying non-members in North Florida. When a man in our ward was finally baptized, a few weeks before their 50th wedding anniversary, I thought I should drop him a line, but never did….but during those 50 years of marriage, she had raised all three children to be strong in the gospel and marry in the temple, and their grandchildren were serving in bishoprics, etc.
“For the Strength of the Youth,” the current bible of behavioral standards, says nothing about dating nonmembers. It limits itself to “Date only those who have high standards and in whose company you can maintain your standards.” That should not be controversial.
I find his statements to be non-controversial and backed up by my personal observations. You marry who you date.
Next….
This is good advice for the Utah bubble. As for the rest of the world, it is only good advice as long as there are enough good Latter Day Saints around to date. Or does (I mean did) President Kimball intend for young women in say, Romania who join the church to be single their whole lives? In Romania, few men join the church, and fewer still adhere to the standards that Kimball desires.
There comes a time in your life that for your own survival you’ve gotta just go with the best you’ve got.
Did everybody read the whole statement?
Pres. Kimball begins with his advice to not take a chance dating a non-member or an “untrained” (?) or faithless member.
But he concludes the statement by cautioning about the risks in marrying a non-member and by counseling that they marry one who is “honorable and good.” Implicit in these statements is the assumption that some Mormons will date (and marry) people outside the Church.
This doesn’t seem too far removed from the current statement in For the Strength of Youth.
It seems that Naismith either ignored (or did not read) the last sentence of Pres. Kimball’s statement.
A few comments:
1)I think context is important on this quotation. Pres. Kimball as a stake president and then GA had seen a lot of people divorce because they were so different culturally. If you study his talks and his writings, he spends a lot of time discussing the importance of marrying people who are like you culturally. I think some of this was probably framed by his experience as a stake president in Arizona and the long, troubled history of Indian-white interaction in that area. That should be kept in mind.
2)It seems like basic, common-sense advice to me to marry “somebody who is like you.” It’s the advice I would give to my kids (although I would respect and try to love whomever they marry — it’s their lives, not mine).
3)I don’t see it as a commandment or Church doctrine — just advice. There will obviously be exceptions to the rule that will work fabulously. I know many, many people who think they are “madly in love” with somebody who is not like them culturally or spiritually, and then they get married, and it is a disaster. Opposites attract, but don’t appear to stick together long, in my personal experience. This doesn’t mean it always doesn’t work, but I have many, many examples of people I’ve known of opposites not working out and relatively few cases of it working out.
4)It is basic common sense that if you want to get married in the temple you should marry somebody who is temple worthy. This does not mean that conversions can’t happen — they happen all the time. It just makes things easier if you marry somebody temple worthy.
5)Having said all that, I also agree that sometimes it’s better to get married to a good person who is not a member than to not get married at all. I think that is what Pres. Kimball is saying.
I think that #4’s comment dovetails nicely with the current prophetic counsel for members to stay and build the Church in the countries where they live instead of emigrating to “Zion.” However, it seems that if you live in certain countries in Europe and elsewhere (as well as some regions within the United States), the two will come into conflict. Your options may be between staying in your own country, trying to remain active in the Church and building it up, and marrying a non-member OR moving to Utah and trying to marry a member, while doing very little towards the rolling forth of the Gospel abroad. In my opinion, your own salvation comes first. You emigrate, you marry a member, and do the best you can. Pres. Kimball’s advice is theologically sound (if you want to get into the celestial kingdom, you need to marry in the temple, and you need a member for that). However, the realities of the gender imbalance in Church membership outside the US makes this difficult to follow.
Oh, and that being said…even if the counsel is difficult to follow (most prophetic counsel tends to be, at least for some people), that does not signify that it isn’t prophetic…
It calls to mind a young couple I met in Rio Gallegos, Argentina (on the Atlantic coast, not far from the Magellan Strait). The husband at that time (1985) was president of a branch of about 80 saints and they had a two-year old son. When the couple had dated, the wife informed her then-boyfriend that she was going to marry in the temple. The nearest temple was in Sao Paulo, Brazil. The boyfriend said they said they could marry first and go to the temple some day in the future. She refused such deferral, and so he started working overtime trying to scrape together money for a trip to Brazil. At work, they asked why he was putting in so much overtime, and he explained his situation. His boss gave him a couple plane tickets to Sao Paulo. The husband telling this story expressed gratitude for being able to start his marriage with sealing in the temple and have his son already bound to him by covenant.
When I heard this story, I was amazed. Any rational person would have told the girl to just count herself lucky she had found a Mormon boy to marry. As Shaw said, we need irrational people to push the world forward.
Not to confuse the issue with scriptures, but Pres. Kimball also quoted 2 Corinthians 6:14 on this issue. That’s the “don’t be unequally yoked” scripture.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/6
I think there are a variety of ways of interpreting this scripture, but one way of looking at is that we should marry people who are like us spiritually.
I’ve known too many scumbag Mormons to consider that the number one priority when dating. If my daughter asked my advice on who she should date, I would tell her in order of importance.
1. Someone who treats their mother with respect.
2. Someone who is kind
3. Someone who listens to her
4. Someone who is responsible
5. Someone who is LDS
6. …
20. An RM
Had my then-girlfriend heeded this advice, we would not have dated, gotten engaged, be married & sealed in the Denver temple, had 4 children BIC, etc…
I’m scouring my memory and failing to come up with a single girl (or even woman under 30) who grew up in my ward who’s married an LDS person she didn’t meet in Utah, Arizona, etc. I wonder sometimes whether the cultural difference between a Mormon growing up in the middle of an all-LDS environment and a Mormon growing up in the “mission field” might not be bigger than that between a Mormon growing up in the “mission field” and a local Catholic kid.
For the record, I’ve never dated a Mormon. I’ve wondered sometimes whether it’d be any different from the guys I have dated, who have been uniformly supportive of the FTSOY guidelines as far as what we did and where we went. One even tried to stop swearing as much for me, which was awfully sweet.
Sarah, down here in Miami, most active people I know find their future mates either at the single’s ward or through on-line dating services like LDSsingles.com.
There have been a few cases of people meeting non-members and eventually the non-members convert.
And of course there are plenty of people who go away to school in Utah/Idaho and meet their mates there.
Recently, the on-line dating seems to have become really popular and successful for people in my stake, especially those over 30.
Re rules and exceptions:
Elder Nelson:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-2946-1,00.html
“Through the years you will note that apostles and prophets teach the rule. We don’t teach exceptions to the rule. Exceptions are left to individual agency and accountability. The Lord knows we live in an imperfect world. He knows it is ‘ripening in iniquity’ (D&C 18:6). His judgments will be fair, just, and merciful.”
Elder Oaks:
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2006.htm/ensign%20june%202006.htm/dating%20versus%20hanging%20out.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0
“The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.”
One of our high councilmen said that his daughter has a program of building up the number of men in the church:
“Date ’em, dunk ’em, and dump ’em.”
I put forth a solution to finding suitable mates for the faithful women who outnumber faithful men in the church. Proselyte populations where the men outnumber the women.
China:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html#People
43 million more males than females under age 65.
India:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html#People
37 million more males than females under age 65.
India is already open to missionary work, and one LDS mission has been established there in Bangalore.
The ostensible reason for the excess number of males is female infanticide practiced in those countries.
1. Someone who treats their mother with respect.
This is not the first time I’ve seen this qualification right at the top of one of these lists. Is respect for one’s mother really so uncommon a trait in a man that it needs such specific mention? And, um, incidentally, how exactly would a man go about making that respect more apparent to a potential wife, I mean, to the degree she would say, “Well, this guy is REALLY something else!”
What does this even mean in 2007, when ‘dating’ is hardly practiced at all by young people? One could counsel youth/singles to follow this advice, and they could still ‘fall in love’/get involved with a non-member, since so much social interaction is casual/hanging out type situations these days.
Clairec has a good point — I’ve also never dated someone I haven’t spent at least a few hundred hours with in an informal social setting (*not* school or work.) And given the number of YSA activities throughout the year, it’d take me till my 32nd birthday to spend an equal amount of time with the LDS guys here in Ohio. Provided that any of them would actually go with regularity — they usually move to Utah. Shy of setting up camp at the Institute building, or dragging the guys to the activities I like to do (let’s see, would they rather do Irish set dance, or Russian film night at the university?) or doing things I don’t care for… yeah.
I actually have the stupidest reason on earth not to join a site like LDSSingles.com (besides the general creepy “meat market” vibe that makes me hate YSA dances) — one of my friends is a customer service rep for eHarmony, and let’s just say I’ve heard all the worst stories possible. Oh! And one of the *very* few messages that got to me through the “oh, hey, don’t some of the sisters do something in the Primary?” ward information barrier in the last three years was a reminder that there are lots of still-married psycho guys on LDS networking sites. The other was… well, actually, I’m not sure if we’re allowed to say what it was on M*. I’d have to check the guidelines. I felt, as a non-endowed member, that I was probably going to get some awful punishment from God for hearing it in the first place.
MBD – I’m pretty sure this is a “younger guy” thing; a lot of college aged people (both sexes, but more guys than girls) seem to think it’s a sign of maturity to denigrate their parents. I’ve heard more than a few guys brag about how they’ve fooled their mom in some way (gotten money, made her think they’re not sleeping around, whatever;) that’s usually what I think of when I hear the “respect their mom” line. Though, I’ve also seen families where no one respects anyone (they seem to enjoy putting each other down, for instance,) which would also apply.
This is by far the LEAST controversial thing Spencer W. Kimball said.
I understand Spencer W. Kimball’s message here. But from this same topic, I have the following question’s. I’m seen more and more frequent Divorces within couples in the church, and most of them temple married ( since that’s the first they do ).. does this mean anything ? does it mean that the way people in the church date or should we be taught how to really date and not jump into conclusion as soon as we come out of the mission? .. Just an observation.
Now a bit more related, I think there’s always an exception to the rule, as half my family have married with non-members, and today husbands and wifes are leader’s in their wards. I think that one has to be strong and spiritual enough to want to marry a non-member, that so one can influence them one way or another.
Good topic Geoff. We need more of this:
“A prophet said this. But what do you think? “
This elicits all the counter-examples, justifications etc. Perhaps there are some good counter examples but when did prophets teach specific application as opposed to general principles?
The Holy Ghost (not quorum meetings, blogs, etc.) teaches us the application of a principle to our personal situations. Anyone who looks to a forum like this is looking the wrong way.
An Apostle said this:
1 Cor. 7:
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
And, um, incidentally, how exactly would a man go about making that respect more apparent to a potential wife, I mean, to the degree she would say, “Well, this guy is REALLY something else!”
Here’s one possibility, from the August 1984 Ensign:
I guess the key would be to be seen with your mother by girls a lot. It reminds me that I met my mother-in-law before I met her daughter. I think getting out of age-restricted ghettos would help many singles form the social connections that lead to meeting suitable courtship partners.
Geoff,
Last Lemming (comment # 2) said what I was going to say.
Another data point, fwiw. Of our twelve apostles, three of them (Scott, Nelson, Bednar) are children of marriages where at least one spouse was nonmember/inactive member.
“Had my then-girlfriend heeded this advice, we would not have dated, gotten engaged, be married & sealed in the Denver temple, had 4 children BIC, etc…”
This is nice, and I’m glad it worked out for you. But I think the last time I saw the numbers, this kind of situation was statistically unlikely. The spouses of most who marry outside the church never get baptized. In fact, I think it’s as likely that the active spouse goes less active as the non-member spouse gets baptized.
I don’t have those statistics in front of me, though, so I might be guilty of Twain’s admonition (lies, damn lies, statistics).
I’m going to expand a little bit on bbell’s eloquent summarization.
1. I don’t care where you live. You should marry in the temple.
2. In this particular day and age, #1 is much easier to do (some exceptions are noted).
3. If you live in an area where there aren’t any members, you should either convert them or move. After all, that’s one of the reasons the Church built BYU. I have sympathy for people who live where there aren’t many members, but if marriage is then a priority, maybe they should move. Or reevaluate what constitutes the “perfect spouse”. Or do more missionary work.
And by the way, I’m so NOT kidding on #3. One reason my parents pushed my siblings and I to attend BYU was (in addition to the superb education) the sheer numbers of LDS people to meet. In Northeast Ohio, those options were pretty darn limited.
(That said, I think bbell would agree with me that there is an acceptable line between “going on a date” and dating. Living where I live, I won’t freak out if my daughter goes to a movie or a dance with an upstanding young man from her school who isn’t a Church member. But she’s not going to be dating him.)
The whole fact that there are divorces amongst temple married people (and somehow using that as a reason to marry compatible people outside the Church) is completely irrelevant to a prophetic direction to marry within the faith.
My “I don’t care where you live” comment was referring mostly to US-based Mormons. I realize it’s really difficult for people in foreign countries and I don’t have an opinion, since I don’t live there.
I should have made that more clear.
Jimbob – I have heard the statistic that 1 in 7 non-members spouses join the Church. Having spent a season as a ward clerk, I would agree with the general statistic, and also with your observation that it’s much more likely that the member spouse goes inactive than the non-member spouse join the Church.
Sometimes, the “hey, if I just work hard enough and want it badly enough, I can make the universe bend to my will” mindset just doesn’t work.
Felipe, I think the divorce rates among temple-sealed LDS has less to do with who they date and more with the attitudes they have going into marriage. My observation as somebody coming from Texas, but having lived in Utah for a number of years, are these:
1. Dating and marrying non-LDS people in Texas is more common than in Utah, and the rate of subsequent spouse converts is comparatively higher in Texas than in Utah.
2. Members who marry in Texas seem to have a higher long term success rate than Utah members who marry, proportionally.
3. Utah members who date/marry non-members seem to have a higher potential for inactivity.
4. Texas members who marry young are more successful than Utah members who marry young.
That last point can be explained, in my opinion, by the attitudes our Utah young people tend to have going into marriage. Despite the fact that the realities of marriage are hammered out quite well in institute classes, young Utah LDS seem to have this rosy, nothing can go wrong attitude about marriage. They tend to overlook potential problems and focus on this perfect life they’ll have.
So they get married and two things eventually kick in- money issues and identity crisis. In Utah, there is an absolutely overwhelming urge to “keep up with the Joneses.” They need the house, the car, all the stuff their parents have they want now. They go into debt they can’t handle and the stress weighs heavily on the relationship.
The other thing that tends to happen is that a few years after the marriage, the wife starts thinking she missed out on a lot of stuff by getting married so young. She’s changing diapers, settling fights, trying to pay bills, and wondering how things would have been different if she would have just waited a few more years to jump into marriage. The husband is trying to pay the bills and comes home to a wife who isn’t exactly happy to see him. There’s baggage, more stress, and the relationship starts to go. Both parties have premature mid-life crises, and they’ve punched their ticket on the train to divorce.
I point out, however, that these are functions of culture, not religion.
I concur with #27, 28, 29, and 30.
I have to say that #31 is just opinion and there are no studies to back up his comments
I have seen the 1-7 non members spouses join the church stat as well. The stat gets worse when you start talking about a sealing. I think it jumps to 1-15 to 1-20 will get sealed.
Temple divorce rates are to be honest pretty low.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_divo.htm
“A 1993 study published in Demography [magazine] showed that Mormons marrying within their church are least likely of all Americans to become divorced. Only 13 percent of LDS couples have divorced after five years of marriage, compared with 20 percent for religiously homogamist unions among Catholics and Protestants and 27 percent among Jews. However, when a Mormon marries outside his or her denomination, the divorce rate soars to 40 percent — second only to mixed-faith marriages involving a Jewish spouse (42 percent).” 7
I have to say that #31 is just opinion and there are no studies to back up his comments
Right, which is why I called them observations. This is what I’ve observed in both states. No scientific studies. You probably didn’t need to reiterate that. You may observe a different pattern. Fine. This is what I have observed. Nothing more.
Bbell, #32, thanks for bringing some actual statistics to this discussion. Those are sobering stats.
I think observations are also appropriate, however. People make decisions based on their experiences, so what somebody has observed is relevant.
Dating and marrying non-LDS people in Texas is more common than in Utah, and the rate of subsequent spouse converts is comparatively higher in Texas than in Utah.
Because there is more of a selection, perhaps, in Utah. But you’d have to really dig down into how many of these people are active in the first place. If they’d lived in Utah, it would be “easier” to find another Mormon to marry, whereas in Texas you might have to work just a bit harder (although, nothing like, say, Ohio).
I have noticed a growing trend of people in recent years in our part of Texas who met in the singles ward. Several are moving into our ward.
I guess my experience, here in Texas, is that there are SO many youth around and so many singles, that it’s not a huge impediment to a native Texan who doesn’t go to BYU to find a Mormon spouse in Texas.
(Disclaimer: I’m from Ohio, so I have a pretty good idea what a scarcity of Mormon girls in a non-Utah ward looks like. The big areas of Texas don’t have these problems, and Texan girls are prettier than Ohio girls. Although I married a Salt Laker.)
Queuno,
I am of the view that TX has enough members that finding an LDS spouse should not be that big of a hurdle.
For pets sake there is a member on almost every street in my subdivision.
Regarding statistics, my recollection (and personal observation) are that a much larger percentage of LDS single women over age 21 are active in the church than single men over age 21. If every active LDS single male married an active LDS single female, that leaves quite a few unmarried active females. If the counsel is that it is better unmarried than “unequally yoked” to a nonmember (or less active LDS), and that counsel were followed, then we might well anticipae a further decline in the birthrate in the Church.
In that “ideal” world, of course, Elder Bednar and Elder Scott would not likely be with us, or their spirits would have been sent “elsewhere.”
My further personal observation is that if the member spouse is active, and the nonmember spouse supportive, the children also tend to be active and well-adjusted, and the likelihood of later conversion seems pretty high.
bbell – I agree with you 100%, as long as we’re talking about the big areas in Texas. If I were to live in say, Odessa, I might be a bit more concerned. I don’t think my children will have any problems finding an eligible spouse should she never leave the area to go to school.
Which only helps my point that a temple marriage should be an minimal standard. Tossman’s point about non-member marriages in Texas is not generally a function of not being able to find a member to marry, it’s a function of not being *interested* in marrying a member.
Growing up in Ohio, though, if you weren’t at least open to going to a prom with a non-member, you might never attend a prom (I managed to find a Mormon prom date, though, but a couple of my siblings — who are now married in the temple — dated non-LDS girls in high school simply because there wasn’t any other option with 20 miles). And thus, it’s no surprise that I – and virtually other active LDS kid I knew – left Ohio for greener pastures.
I would have been surprised to see this quote from Kimball if I wasn’t so familiar with the “For Strength of Youth” pamphlet. On the page for Dating, it has “2 Corinthians 6:14” at the end of the section in innocent looking italics. But behold, further investigation of this scripture reveals that we are not to marry nonbelievers. And I’m not just paraphrasing. Look:
And when you look at this scripture at LDS.org, it clarifies that “yoked” specifically means married.
As for my opinion, for what it’s worth this late in the game, I have to say that I don’t agree with the attitude that contributes to the statement. I was a non-member once, and because a kind and faithful LDS boy took a chance on me, I’m now happily a member myself.
For all the times that the LDS faithful have earned our persecution complex, it seems to me that we hand it back to non-members way too much. We would do well to remember that the worth of all souls is great in the eyes of God, including the ones that haven’t been saved yet. How can we “be one” if we’re constantly seeing member vs non-member instead of the divine potential that is within all men and women?
Paradox – Personally, I’m overjoyed it worked out for you. But statistically, you are very much in the minority, and I’d rather my children not take that chance.
No offense.
Regarding the respect their mother advice. I received that advice over 25 years ago, and found it to be the best advice I have ever been given. You would think that respecting mothers is common. But all too often it is not. A man that has never been taught to respect his mother will probably not respect his spouse. I have taught my daughters this as well.
Also we live in a small town in AZ. We have just a handful of teens, and our stake dances encompass a 140 mile radius. Not much of a dating pool. I have encourged my kids when they date that character and respect are as important as being mormon. Now my oldest is in college and going to a singles ward, it’s a little overwhelming, not in a bad way, for her. And her first date from an institute class, left her at the beach because he wanted to be “friends, with benefits”.
One more thing, my husband was not a member when we started dating, but converted shortly before we got married. Would I recommend being involved with a non-member? Not really. Sometimes it works, but not as often as we would like. But then sometimes choices are limited.
I think this advice falls under the 90% rule. That is it will be helpful to 90% of the people 90% of the time. We all know couples who did not follow this advice and all turn out well for them; and we also know couples who did follow it and it turned out badly. They are the 10%. If you feel you are the exception – in the 10% – then don’t listen to it. But if you are like most of us in the 90%, this is probably pretty good advice to having a successful eternal marriage. It comes down to how much risk you are willing to live with. As for me, I met my spouse at BYU like all good LDS are supposed to (insert smiley face here).
queuno #40:
“But statistically, you are very much in the minority, and I’d rather my children not take that chance.”
Could you clarify that? Are you saying, “Don’t marry a non-member” or “Don’t even date a non-member”?
My father wasn’t a member when my parents started dating. I’m pretty sure my mother-in-law wasn’t a member when she started dating my father-in-law, I know she’s a convert.
I’m fairly sure my in-laws married right off in the temple. If not they were sealed not long after. My father wasn’t a member long enough when my parents were married by her home ward bishop, but they were sealed a little over two years after they met.
Queno is correctly stating that if you desire to stay active in the church, have your kids stay active in the church etc. You are better off base on the stats to marry a member in the temple.
We all know of success stories of friends and family members that married outside of the church initially and then there was a conversion and sealing later.
But most of the time the non-member spouse never converts and if they do they rarely get sealed.
The inactive roles in a typical ward are full of people married to non-members
The stats/studies done by BYU professors back this assertion by Queno up.
Queno, I have all sons. In a few years we should set them up with your girls. Hopefully you do not require a “Bride price”
Fine then – my mother’s bishop (now an apostle) should have condemned her to outer darkness for letting this agnostic follow her around everywhere.