Crisis of Faith - Dear John Letters

[Lostboy289]

Just now, Backroads said:

One last question: @Lostboy289, how do you think a person should go about ending a relationship?

That's a hard question. It really varies so much on why the relationship is ending and how committed it was.

Id say that a few good ground rules are:

1. No dating other people until your current relationship is over

2. A certain expectation of respect for the other person's feelings is not out of line.

3. If the relationship is deep enough where marriage was on the table, atleast some reasonable amount of thought and effort should probably be put into salvaging it. 

4. If any promises were made, they should be honored if at all possible.

5. No text message breakups or ghosting

[Backroads]

2 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Oh I certainly agree that going after the girlfriend of somebody close to you will have consequences.  I'm just saying it isn't a sin.  It could very well be that the one for you happens to be dating a friend of yours when you first meet her.  Just by spending time with your friend you wind up spending time with her and she comes to realize her feelings for you are stronger than her feelings for your friend and you come to realize you love her too.  So she leaves him for you.  Painful for him, yes, but not immoral.  Or, same situation but when you meet her the spirit tells you she is the one so you actively set out to win her over.  Also painful but not immoral, and temporarily (or permanently) it may affect your friendship with him, but marrying the right one is a higher priority.

Breakups like that are part of life.  People have to learn to deal with it, it's part of the game all over the place.

Of course, if the girl were decent, she would break up with your friend when she realizes she prefers you. Still painful, yes. There is no way to get around that.

Good thing we get sealed to our spouses and not our friends.

[Lostboy289]

This is really messed up for me.

In the non-Mormon world, going after your friend's girlfriend is considered one of the most horrible things you can do to someone, and is pretty much the ultimate sign of disrespect, betrayal, and a complete lack of integrity.

That even though your marriage is still the most important relationship in your life, respect and loyalty towards your friends is still important, especially when you aren't even married yet.

Breakup first or not is irrelevant, since you shouldn't be in that position in the first place.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

18 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

This is really messed up for me.

In the non-Mormon world, going after your friend's girlfriend is considered one of the most horrible things you can do to someone, and is pretty much the ultimate sign of disrespect and betrayal.

Breakup first or not is irrelevant, since you shouldn't be in that position in the first place.

I understand this view.

But she's a person, not your friend's pen that you pocketed. And as a person she has a right to make her own marital decisions.

No, you don't try to seduce soneone in a committed relationship. But that doesn't stop feelings. We are saying that if through whatever interaction someone feels attraction for someone other than her non-spouse boyfriend and judges this attraction and interest to be greater than that of her current relationship, she may end the current relationship to start another. 

I suppose I don't understand the above enough, because it sounds like girlfriends and boyfriends are treated more as objects to collect than people. I really don't mean that in nastiness. It is late and eloquence escspes me.

Last attempt: I think dating should be allowed regardless of history.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Backroads

[Lostboy289]

13 minutes ago, Backroads said:

I understand this view.

But she's a person, not your friend's pen that you pocketed. And as a person she has a right to make her own marital decisions.

I suppose I don't understand it enough, because it sounds like girlfriends and boyfriends are treated more as objects to collect than people. I really don't mean that in nastiness. It is late and eloquence escspes me.

Last attempt: I think dating should be allowed regardless of history.

Its less of an object thing and more that you are showing not only a respect for your friends feelings (where more of an emphasis is placed on loyalty), but respect for the concept of their commitment, even if one of them doesn't want to honor it any more. You might say doing so even disrespects the concept of monogamous love and people's desire to believe in it. 

I cannot stress enough (and I say this with 100% seriousness) how badly it would be taken if you broke up a friend's engagement.

Honestly the complete lack of integrity that would be displayed to a non-Mormon that witnessed this would be considered a major black mark against your character.

This isn't simply a "risk losing your hurt friend" type of deal. This is more of a "you will lose all of your friends, even the ones not involved, since no one wants to associate with someone like this" situation. You would have a hard time getting anyone to trust you ever again.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Guest]

Well, you are talking about a world that accepts the concept of "starter marriages", vs. a church that preaches eternal marriage.

 

Also I really think you're having a hard time seeing past your hurt and you might feel differently in a few years. 

[Backroads]

So at what point can the Friend of Guy and Ex of Guy begin dating if they feel an attraction?

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

In the non-Mormon world, going after your friend's girlfriend is considered one of the most horrible things you can do to someone, and is pretty much the ultimate sign of disrespect, betrayal, and a complete lack of integrity.

In the non-Mormon world, your friend and his girlfriend are probably sleeping together, without sleeping, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIknowyoudo. Sex makes it basically a marital relationship without the actual marriage. Thus, the wicked world has adopted a code of ethics that caters to this, declaring such a "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship a virtual marriage (which it is) and attaching the appropriate social stigmas to its violation.

In LDS culture, we don't have sex before marriage. So the whole sacrosanct nature of boyfriend/girlfriend evaporates. Until they're married, they are single. There is no in-between no-man's-land. It's a clear line of demarcation.

[Backroads]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

In the non-Mormon world, your friend and his girlfriend are probably sleeping together, without sleeping, ifyouknowwhatImeanandIknowyoudo. Sex makes it basically a marital relationship without the actual marriage. Thus, the wicked world has adopted a code of ethics that caters to this, declaring such a "boyfriend/girlfriend" relationship a virtual marriage (which it is) and attaching the appropriate social stigmas to its violation.

In LDS culture, we don't have sex before marriage. So the whole sacrosanct nature of boyfriend/girlfriend evaporates. Until they're married, they are single. There is no in-between no-man's-land. It's a clear line of demarcation.

Yes. In the Mormon world, we court. If we want that serious, devoted relationship, we marry, having used courting to select a marriage partner.

So much easier than having to guess the seriousness of Billy's relationship with Jean and ultimately leads to less confusion and hurt feelings.

[Lostboy289]

Quote

In LDS culture, we don't have sex before marriage. So the whole sacrosanct nature of boyfriend/girlfriend evaporates. Until they're married, they are single. There is no in-between no-man's-land. It's a clear line of demarcation.

So just so I'm clear, when my girlfriend asked me to be her boyfriend and date me exclusively, what did I agree to?

I guess is it too much to ask for the best of both worlds?

An eternal marriage and all the benefits we talk about, started with a healthy relationship with a certain level of expected fidelity, trust, commitment, and stability that increases over time?

I'm not saying that the non-Mormon dating culture is perfect, because it definitely isn't. Theres a lot of messed up things about it, sex included (though it isn't the hedonistic Calligua you'd think it to be). Though to its credit, it does show a lot more respect towards the fidelity and commitments that come in stages before marriage.

Quote

So at what point can the Friend of Guy and Ex of Guy begin dating if they feel an attraction?

Dating your friend's ex is a whole other kind of situation that varies from case to case.

But if we are still talking about your friend's GF or Fiance, the question is never. Never ever. If you sense a budding attraction or flirtation, the general etiquette us to distance yourself from the situation.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

8 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

So just so I'm clear, when my girlfriend asked me to be her boyfriend and date me exclusively, what did I agree to?

You agreed to date exclusively until you marry or break up. Is that so difficult a concept? 

What's happening here? Is your girlfriend demanding a commitment to exclusively date for 14.5 months? Do you really put temporal boundaries on exclusive dating? At that point, Mormons get married.

No one is saying cheat on your partner. No one is saying don't fix relationships. 

We are just saying you are allowed to end a non-marital relationship if that's what you want to do.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Backroads

[Vort]

34 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

So just so I'm clear, when my girlfriend asked me to be her boyfriend and date me exclusively, what did I agree to?

You agreed to date her exclusively. It is an important but informal emotional commitment. If you have integrity, you will continue to date only her unless and until you inform her (or she informs you) otherwise. This used to be known as "going steady". When either of you informs the other that you want to widen your dating pool, your exclusive relationship is dissolved, and you are merely friends who date -- or perhaps not even that.

[Backroads]

And if, post exclusive dating dissolution, Gal wishes to date Guy's Friend and Friend recipricates desire, Gal and Friend date without exorbant worry over Guy's feelings because Guy is a gallant and realistic gentlemen aware of courtship rights and does not hold Gal emotionally hostage just because he used to date her. (Of course, Gal and Friend tread this respectfully and thoughtfully, but recognize  Gal is not beholden to Guy in her choice of courtship selections.)

When Guy, Gal, and Friend settle on romantic partners with whom they foresee eternal marriage, they select the exclusive relationship with the least risk of breaking up: marriage. Because that involves a contract, a covenant, and the assumption both partners are willingly committed. Contrast this with a non-marriage relationship where Guy and Gal say they want to date exclusively for 35 months 2 weeks and 4 days and just hope the other doesn't leave. Because unless there is some non-Mormon dating protocol I am not aware of, even those exclusively dating can always break up.

By the time Gal and Ultimate Romantic Partner are married, their relationship has, obviously, progressed in seriousness, devotion, and loyalty. We know this because they are married. If their relationship did not progress through those, they probably wouldn't have gotten married. It's a natural, proof-in-the-pudding development. Just done with marriage entering in earlier than what may be the worldly norm.

There's our culture difference. We don't put long-term rigid exclusive dating requirements on people we aren't married to. Especially if we aren't there to nurture the relationship  (such as on a mission, though I would grant something like a military deployment is a different matter. ) If we made a promise, we admit the scenario has changed and take comfort in the fact we weren't married. Prevention is best in this area because there is just no ideal way to clean up that sort of unfortunate mess and I doubt anyone can give a foolproof general plan.

So, if I congratulate a bride who ended a relationship with a missionary and married someone else, I am not praising her for abandoning her missionary. I am just recognizing an independent adult who selected a husband and wishing them a good marriage. No more, no less. The missionary is neither here nor there.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Backroads

[estradling75]

7 hours ago, Lostboy289 said:

Have you paid attention to what ive said at all?

A conference talk specifically addressing this matter, and not just kindness or integrity in general. The problem is that people cannot see this situation as a natural extension of those two principals.

I have paid very much attention

So now you have given a tangible workable change you calling on the church to make.  So let imagine it happening.

President Monson gets up next conference and with the limited time his health allows says the following.  "We have repeatedly counciled that people should be honest and kind and considerate of each other. But make sure everyone knows that if you promise someone that you would wait for them to return from a mission. But you treat them like a backup relationship. Dropping them without warning or preamble once you found someone you like better.  That is a violation of what we have been teaching you and such actions are more then a bit despicable. Stop it."

So he talked specifically about the matter... and so what happens... Well Lostboy289 feels better for a awhile but not much else changes.  Because for simplicity sake the members of the church can be divided into two groups.  Those that will follow and those that will not.  Those that follow don't need such specific instructions.. they are already applying the general principles as best they can, and they will continue to do so.  Those that will not follow already make excuses for themselves to not follow and they will continue to make excuses on why they can still do what they want.

Sure a prophetic injunction might change the faces in each group.  Some in the second group might feel pricked in their hearts and repent... whereas some in the first might burn out with this additional command being the proverbial straw.

This second group has been with the Church since the beginning... and all of us fall into it from time to time.  And all the talks in the world do not make it go away. Thus the change you are asking for changes nothing.

[Lostboy289]

7 hours ago, Backroads said:

And if, post exclusive dating dissolution, Gal wishes to date Guy's Friend and Friend recipricates desire, Gal and Friend date without exorbant worry over Guy's feelings because Guy is a gallant and realistic gentlemen aware of courtship rights and does not hold Gal emotionally hostage just because he used to date her. (Of course, Gal and Friend tread this respectfully and thoughtfully, but recognize  Gal is not beholden to Guy in her choice of courtship selections.)

When Guy, Gal, and Friend settle on romantic partners with whom they foresee eternal marriage, they select the exclusive relationship with the least risk of breaking up: marriage. Because that involves a contract, a covenant, and the assumption both partners are willingly committed. Contrast this with a non-marriage relationship where Guy and Gal say they want to date exclusively for 35 months 2 weeks and 4 days and just hope the other doesn't leave. Because unless there is some non-Mormon dating protocol I am not aware of, even those exclusively dating can always break up.

Who, non-Mormon or otherwise, has ever planned out exactly how long a relationship will last?

In the non-Mormon world, if Guy and Girl Break up and Guy's Friend feels attracted to Girl, its usually seen as inconsiderate to his friend to start dating Girl. There's a bit of room to work with though. Its generally considered good form to atleast see how the Guy feels about it first.

However what is definitely not ok is if Guy and Girl have been going steady for awhile and are starting to think about marriage, Guy's Friend comes along and decides he likes her too and begins trying to woo her away from Guy behind his back. Girl eventually dumps first Guy to date his Friend. That's a hard and fast "wrong" for non-Mormons and I'm really surprised to see its ok here, considering they also seem like pretty logical extensions of integrity, loyalty, and kindness.

I understand that a celestial marriage is the most important covenant we can enter into. More important than friendship. But where I see that argument fall apart is that while you are dating her or attempting to do so, she isn't your eternal companion. She is simply a girl you are interested in. And when the church teaches us that literally any worthy Brother and Sister can form an eternal marriage, there is no point other than selfishness in insisting that woman be someone that your friend has already chosen as his.

 

Quote

President Monson gets up next conference and with the limited time his health allows says the following.  "We have repeatedly counciled that people should be honest and kind and considerate of each other. But make sure everyone knows that if you promise someone that you would wait for them to return from a mission. But you treat them like a backup relationship. Dropping them without warning or preamble once you found someone you like better.  That is a violation of what we have been teaching you and such actions are more then a bit despicable. Stop it."

President Monson isn't the only one who can give a talk during conference first off.

Secondly; yea, those words work pretty well for me.

Quote

So he talked specifically about the matter... and so what happens... Well Lostboy289 feels better for a awhile but not much else changes.  Because for simplicity sake the members of the church can be divided into two groups.  Those that will follow and those that will not.  Those that follow don't need such specific instructions.. they are already applying the general principles as best they can, and they will continue to do so.  Those that will not follow already make excuses for themselves to not follow and they will continue to make excuses on why they can still do what they want.

This is a much larger debate. However overall I tend to come down on the side that whenever a rule is made, more always follow it than before it was made, regardless of how unpopular that rule is.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Lostboy289

[Backroads]

40 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

Who, non-Mormon or otherwise, has ever planned out exactly how long a relationship will last

Those who demand a person wait for a missionary regardless of changed feelings. Those who say you will be my SO for two years whether you like it or not.

Quote

 there is no point other than selfishness in insisting that woman be someone that your friend has already chosen as his.

Again, we are not advocating luring someone away. We are simply saying Person A is at any time allowed to break up with Person B, even if that is so Person A can pursue Person C.

Frankly, it's weird to force someone to stay with you when they don't want to.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Backroads

[NightSG]

36 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

This is a much larger debate. However overall I tend to come down on the side that whenever a rule is made, more always follow it than before it was made, regardless of how unpopular that rule is.

More accurately, there's a large contingent of "this (not limited to this issue, but plenty of others as well) happens all the time and the Church has never specifically addressed it, so it's obviously not such a bad thing even if it is technically wrong" types.  Once the specific behavior has been called out, they're not willing to openly rebel against it.

[Vort]

53 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

In the non-Mormon world, if Guy and Girl Break up and Guy's Friend feels attracted to Girl, its usually seen as inconsiderate to his friend to start dating Girl. There's a bit of room to work with though. Its generally considered good form to atleast see how the Guy feels about it first.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, but this is one of the great stupidities of the non-LDS dating world. Thank heaven that Mormon culture does not require the permission of someone you used to date before you are allowed to date her sister or friend or acquaintance.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Vort

[Latter-Day Marriage]

8 hours ago, Lostboy289 said:

That's a hard question. It really varies so much on why the relationship is ending and how committed it was.

Id say that a few good ground rules are:

1. No dating other people until your current relationship is over

2. A certain expectation of respect for the other person's feelings is not out of line.

3. If the relationship is deep enough where marriage was on the table, atleast some reasonable amount of thought and effort should probably be put into salvaging it. 

4. If any promises were made, they should be honored if at all possible.

5. No text message breakups or ghosting

1.  For sure.  Thing is that people tend to want to avoid confrontations, or avoid hurting other people's feelings so it isn't unusual for somebody to break that one.  I'm not justifying it, just saying it isn't uncommon for people to break that one.

2.  Agreed, but just because somebody feels hurt doesn't automatically mean the other person is in the wrong somehow.

3.  I would say if somebody wants to leave a relationship they have no obligation to try and work things out.  The other person can try and win them back, but when there are no covenants and no kids involved there is no obligation to stay.

4.  People's feelings change, people change, and saying you'll love somebody forever is not a promise or contract, it is how they feel in the moment.  The only promise that counts is the marriage vow.

5.  Agreed, with the exception of where there is reason to fear a violent reaction.

[zil]

54 minutes ago, Lostboy289 said:

However overall I tend to come down on the side that whenever a rule is made, more always follow it than before it was made, regardless of how unpopular that rule is.

 

9 minutes ago, NightSG said:

More accurately, there's a large contingent of "this (not limited to this issue, but plenty of others as well) happens all the time and the Church has never specifically addressed it, so it's obviously not such a bad thing even if it is technically wrong" types.  Once the specific behavior has been called out, they're not willing to openly rebel against it.

Ah, so all we need is to bring back the Law of Moses, send out the scribes and Pharisees, and then everyone will step into line?

I am reminded of my teenage years, when there were three of us teens, none of whom wanted to get out of bed first to shower (we always wanted to be last, for that extra bit of sleep), so dad posted the "Law of Moses Shower Schedule" with our assigned rotation.  The best part was when we went out of town and a friend of my parents stayed in the house to take care of the pets, and she had a non-member friend over for dinner, and said friend saw our "Law of Moses Shower Schedule" posted on the board in the kitchen, and wanted to know just what sort of weird things these Mormons do in the shower.

In other words, to have to spell out every right / wrong thing for someone is going backward¹, and indicates they are slothful, and not wise.  I'm liking @mordorbund's solution more and more.

¹ ...literally, for at least a couple of decades, the church has been visibly moving farther and farther from spelling it all out, and more to "here are principles; figure out how to implement them in your life"...

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

I am reminded of my teenage years, when there were three of us teens, none of whom wanted to get out of bed first to shower (we always wanted to be last, for that extra bit of sleep), so dad posted the "Law of Moses Shower Schedule" with our assigned rotation.  The best part was when we went out of town and a friend of my parents stayed in the house to take care of the pets, and she had a non-member friend over for dinner, and said friend saw our "Law of Moses Shower Schedule" posted on the board in the kitchen, and wanted to know just what sort of weird things these Mormons do in the shower.

That. Is. AWESOME!

[NightSG]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

¹ ...literally, for at least a couple of decades, the church has been visibly moving farther and farther from spelling it all out, and more to "here are principles; figure out how to implement them in your life"...

And that's fine when it works.  Obviously, there are plenty of things it doesn't work for.

The current attitude is akin to hearing a crash in the house at night, and going back to sleep because your locked front door should be good enough to keep the burglars out.

[Lostboy289]

38 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Those who demand a person wait for a missionary regardless of changed feelings. Those who say you will be my SO for two years whether you like it or not.

Again, we are not advocating luring someone away. We are simply saying Person A is at any time allowed to break up with Person B, even if that is so Person A can pursue Person C.

Frankly, it's weird to force someone to stay with you when they don't want to.

And in your example, how would Person A leave Person B for Person C if her and Person C weren't in some way cultivating that relationship beforehand? How would they even know that the feelings are reciprocated if there wasn't some kind of discussion about it?

Especially if Person A and Person C were close friends, that's cold. And frankly, regardless of relationships working out or not, its weird for a friend to show so little concern for his friend's feelings just because he wants his friend's girl.

[zil]

1 minute ago, NightSG said:

And that's fine when it works.

Actually, it's fine when it's the Lord's will, even if it doesn't seem to the humans that it's working.  Perhaps it's working exactly as intended.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

9 hours ago, Lostboy289 said:

I cannot stress enough (and I say this with 100% seriousness) how badly it would be taken if you broke up a friend's engagement.

Honestly the complete lack of integrity that would be displayed to a non-Mormon that witnessed this would be considered a major black mark against your character.

This isn't simply a "risk losing your hurt friend" type of deal. This is more of a "you will lose all of your friends, even the ones not involved, since no one wants to associate with someone like this" situation. You would have a hard time getting anyone to trust you ever again.

The only people that can break up an engagement are the engaged couple.  Either one of them has the right to back out at any point, for any reason and no other guy is able to come along and force her out of it.  It is her choice, and her right to make that choice.  Nor does getting engaged bind every other guy in the world to some covenant to back off.  The social norm is to do that but there is no lack of integrity trying to win her over before her wedding.  If somebody is willing to pay the social price for it he is free to do so.