[Note: The following text was taken verbatim from the “M Men-Gleaner Manual, Love, Marriage, and You” used in 1956-1957. Previous entries in this series can be found here.]
Lesson 13
Temple Marriage
In 1940 two young people of outstanding characters and abilities decided to marry. The girl, age twenty, was active and very much interested in her Church. She had worked for two years and wanted to “settle down.” The fellow was twenty-five, had a superior intellect, a fine personality and was well-respected by his associates. This couple had gone together for nearly three years and were well acquainted with the many phases of personality of each. They basically agreed on nearly everything except religion and the place for their marriage. The girl had always hoped and dreamed of being married in one of the temples “for time and eternity.” The fellow was an inactive member of a Protestant church and had been investigating Mormonism for nearly two years. He still felt that he was not ready to ask for membership. This was their major stumbling block. What should they do? What did they do? The boy finally promised the girl that he would join the Church soon after they were married and then they would be married in the temple later. What happened? The young man joined the Church soon after their marriage but only because he had promised he would. He was ordained a deacon but that was as far as he progressed in the priesthood. Discord and difficulties crept into this marriage relationship and although two fine children were born, divorce resulted.
Quickie Questions
1. Why is temple marriage so important to Latter-day Saints?
2. What are the requirements for getting a temple recommend?
3. How might divorce have been prevented in this case?
________________________
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
Problem #1–why was a 17-year-old dating someone who was 22?
The solution to divorce is obvious: don’t get married in the first place.
PS Only a deacon! Only a deacon!!
mmiles, don’t get worked up. In a year, he’ll be 23 and she’ll be 18, and then it’ll be totally legal.
I agree with mmiles. Mature 22 year olds do not date seniors in high school.
If you want to get married in the temple, you should marry someone who also wants to get married in the temple. If you don’t want to get divorced, you should marry someone who is too lazy to get divorced. It’s worked for my husband and me; therefore it is true.
After the “logic” post, this is such a no-brainer. They got divorced? Wimps.
In my case, two cheapskates got married for whom divorce is too expensive.
That is such a sad story! But there is a logic error. If she was so active and dedicated, why was she dating a non-member?
Dating a guy into the church is dangerous. this is a likely result. And then there is the story of the snake. “You knew what I was when you picked me up”
“And then there is the story of the snake. ‘You knew what I was when you picked me up.'”
My Freud-dar just went off with that one. A minor blip, but a blip.
Shouldn’t WWII have intervened in this story somewhere?
Uh-oh.
Isn’t it the scorpion that said “you knew what I was when you picked me up”? In which case this is extra freudian.
Typical woman, trying to change the man. (tongue in cheek, I am a woman)
Natalie, The US entered WWII in December of 1941. The OP says they considered marriage in 1940. It doesn’t say when they divorced, but perhaps it was because he was a draft-dodging deacon.
“But to have a superior intellect is good if…”
(The true answer is that they should have just lived together, a la Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy. They just ended a five year relationship, and from the beginning swore they would never get married, because that way they would never get divorced. The split was very amicable.)
You know who else had a superior intellect? Two famous people:
-El Guapo
-Khan Noonien Singh
If she married either of those two guys then I would think she’s in for trouble.
re the snake, our own Brother Matsby once shared a similar parable:
Anyway, my point was, I always felt like the story about the snake works better if it’s named Poindexter.
Steve: Yours… Is… Superior.
I shall avenge you!
My wife is five years younger than me. But we didn’t meet until she was in the singles’ ward and we didn’t start dating until a year or so after that. So even though it occasionally weirds me out when she talks about being in fifth grade when I was in high school, I’m comfortable with our age difference.
But a 17-year-old girl dating a 22-year-old guy? Not so cool. Also, the story indicates that the guy has a bit of a superiority complex, and the girl was surely going into the marriage thinking of him as a Project. Never a good foundation for eternal bliss.
17 seems pretty tame compared to the 13 yr old marriage TMQ from a few weeks ago. My grandma from this same era was married at 17 to a GI recently returned from the Pacific, so perhaps we are applying too much modern culture while looking at the past.
Steve G,
Here is the catch: it was the same girl.
To me, the obvious catch is the “inactive Protestant” and “investigating for 2 years” – seems clear he was not a valiant then, and hadn’t changed since he got married. Give the poor guy a break, some of us have a harder time rising to the challenge. =) (At least he followed through on his promise.)
The key to a long-lasting marriage is what has worked for my husband and I: neither of us wanted custody of our kids. We couldn’t divorce because when the question came up and we both said, “No, YOU take the kids, I’ll visit on the weekends” we realized our children wouldn’t have anywhere to live during the week. Impossibly hard children = united marriage out of fear of single parenthood.
I was dating a 22-year-old when I was 17. But then I’m pretty much a walking object-lesson. If my daughter tries that, I will lock her up. ;)
Our current YW president was a 17 year old bride to a 21-22 year old RM groom about 10 years ago.
“They just ended a five year relationship, and from the beginning swore they would never get married, because that way they would never get divorced. The split was very amicable.)”
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. As a lawyer, you should know better. People who try this usually screw it up by commingling assets and having kids together. When that happens, you have to get divorced in most states, whether you actually got married or not. Bummer!
and although two fine children were born, divorce resulted.
They couldn’t even save the marriage by having children? Well that just doesn’t make sense. I’m inclined to reject this story completely.
B.Russ is going to B.Banned if he doesn’t stop being cutesy with monikers.
Tracy,
Mine was 23! Bad–bad–bad.
Steve G.,
“so perhaps we are applying too much modern culture while looking at the past.”
Or when looking at Arkansas where you can be 13–or a number of countries around the globe. Or maybe there is just some progress in the world and women are gaining status.
BBell,
If I had a nickel…
Steve–no need to ban him. We’ll just decide to call him Vicky, no matter what moniker he wants.
My guess, #23, is that it’s your shared antipathy for the objective case that’s keeping you together.
And, I’m also guessing that the guy in the story was 4F. Or a Section 8 discharge. Either way, the marriage was doomed from the outset, superior intellect or highly developed sensitivity to the contrary notwithstanding.
Once again, as previous examples in these quickies, causality is assumed. We don’t have information as to whether or not the divorce is a direct result of them not getting married in the temple. After all, he did actually join the church. Whether his whole heart was in it or not, he chose of his own free will to take on those covenants.
1. There are fewer temple sealing divorces than regular marriage divorces, though this is probably because of the small size sample. The distinct quality of the temple sealing is the permanency of the act. The sealing is for time and all eternity.
3. Since we don’t know the cause, we cannot properly give a diagnosis.
You could read this as saying it was the number of children that was the problem. Two? Now if it had been four or five, these children could have saved the marriage. What was wrong with them that they only had two children? Were they using birth control in the 40’s when the Church was opposed to it? Was he distracted by his porn addiction? There is more to this story than we are told.
My grandmother was a young teacher back in the little red schoolhouse days. She married one of her 8th grade students, my grandpa. They were married 68 years.
Was he distracted by his porn addiction?
Well, its a pretty obvious subtext that this is the case. They used euphemisms in the fifties to express this problem – “Discord and difficulties crept into this marriage relationship” I mean, come on Eric, its as clear as day that thats the real problem here. And had they had a temple marriage, then he certainly wouldn’t have become addicted.
Pls explain.
Interesting that you mention this! Because of all the talk about pr0n on John C.’s post, I actually checked out the chapter on Chastity, which was the source for the first TMQ in this series, to see if pr0n was mentioned. If this manual is representative, as of 1956-57, it appears that pornography was not yet on the radar for moral problems, as it is not mentioned once.
In today’s culture I like to use the Pervert Rule when it comes to deciding whether age difference is appropriate or not. The Pervert Rule = Half your age + 7. If the younger person falls out of range then it’s a likelihood that it’s inappropriate.
Being 22, his limit should have been (22/2+7) 18. However, by the time he reached 24, it would have been ok, according to the Pervert Rule.
Scott,
#37,
Simply that a small, less diverse sample size tends to have vastly different results than a larger, more diverse sample size. So for example, we really won’t know if a temple marriage would be as successful if everyone in America were Mormon and getting sealed in the temple. Other factors that are not found in the current Mormon sample would bring a higher divorce rate. Mormons tend to view themselves as exceptional because we believe we have the full truth, or at least the conduit to the full truth, but I think in reality, the “average” Mormon isn’t that different in living his life than, say, a Lutheran. Or even the strength of the marriage relationship.
#7 – Believe it or not, a person can actually date non-members without bringing his/her activity or dedication into question.
Until, of course, the heathen influence takes over and the subject sprouts horns, but, meh, what are you gonna do? :-)
Wow, Mikeinweho! That’s some relationship. Grandma’s a cougar?
When i was 14 I had a platonic friendship with this guy who was 25. I went over to his house, we went to the movies, ate out at restaurants. He taught me how to play the guitar and what music to listen to. It never developed into anything, but years later I asked my mom why on earth did she ever let me hang out so much with this guy. And in my typical mom fashion she just says, “oh, I could tell he was harmless, and I trusted you. Mother’s can tell.”
So, a) isn’t that kind of bizarre?
and b) why couldn’t this girl’s mom tell if this guy was trouble, and c), except for the divorce part, this kind of sounds like my own case study : married to an inactive protestant w/2 kids. From personal experience, I can tell you that the girl here needed to let it go. you can’t force someone to be active or get sealed to you. Besides, instead of getting divorced, she should have remembered this scripture:
40
I don’t know offhand how many people have been married in the temple, but I would assume its at least in the 100s of thousands.
From a purely statistical standpoint, 100,000 is a HUGE sample size. (1000 is large enough in most circumstances to come to statistically significant solutions).
Other factors that are not found in the current Mormon sample would bring a higher divorce rate.
Well, since you’re being particularly vague, I can’t really argue. But I imagine that if that if “everyone in America were Mormon and getting sealed in the temple” that many factors that differentiate us would diminish through temple-worthiness, at least long enough to get married, and we would assume in many cases for life – drug use, alcohol abuse, gambling, sexual liberalism to name just a few.
Was his name Boo Radley?
No.
Meems,
Normal 25 year-olds don’t hang out with 14 year-old girls. Just sayin’.
Don’t forget belief in evolution or membership in the Demoncratic Party!
1. Why is temple marriage so important to Latter-day Saints?
Disney Princess stories…
2. What are the requirements for getting a temple recommend?
ummm not drink Tea?
3. How might divorce have been prevented in this case?
By the husband lying and pretending instead of coming clean.
Moan…
Normal 25 year-olds don’t hang out with 14 year-old girls. Just sayin’.
Neither do “harmless” ones.
btw my answers were tongue in cheek… just in case people decide I’m an “Anti” or something… :P
47
I assumed those went without saying.
I married a 29 year old man when I was 17. That was 43 years ago and I am still hoping he will grow up some day.
Scott,
#45,
Pls explain.
B Russ,
I’m talking about how different a particular segment of society is (like Mormons) when they are the size of, say, Catholics. Historically, I have never seen a period where a very very large group of people managed to voluntarily keep their standards as high as a large group as they did as a smaller group. Adhesiveness wanes the further out from the center, or to put it in an analogy President Monson has used in the past, the logs on a fire don’t burn the same everywhere the larger the pile is simply because of size.
those old examples drive me nuts. Here is a neat story by Pres Monson about a sis who was married to a man of another faith. Sadly plenty of sisters/brothers have been married in the temple with unhappy endings too.
Link:
http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-479-37,00.html
part about the sister:
A love for the Savior, a reverence for His name, and genuine respect one for another will provide a fertile seedbed for a testimony to grow.
Learning the gospel, bearing a testimony, leading a family are rarely if ever simple processes. Life’s journey is characterized by bumps in the road, swells in the sea—even the turbulence of our times.
Some years ago, while visiting the members and missionaries in Australia, I witnessed a sublime example depicting how a treasury of testimony can bless and sanctify a home. The mission president, Horace D. Ensign, and I were traveling by plane the long distance from Sydney to Darwin, where I was to break ground for our first chapel in that city. En route we had a scheduled fueling stop at a remote mining community named Mt. Isa. As we entered the small airport, a woman and her two young children approached. She said, “I am Judith Louden, a member of the Church, and these are my children. We thought you might be on this flight, so we have come to visit with you during your brief stopover.” She explained that her husband was not a member of the Church and that she and the children were indeed the only members in the entire area. We shared experiences and bore testimony.
Time passed. As we prepared to reboard, Sister Louden looked so forlorn, so alone. She pleaded, “You can’t go yet; I have so missed the Church.” Suddenly, over the loudspeaker there was announced a 30-minute mechanical delay of our flight. Sister Louden whispered, “My prayer has been answered.” She then asked how she might influence her husband to show an interest in the gospel. We counseled her to include him in their home Primary lesson each week and be to him a living testimony of the gospel. I mentioned we would send to her a subscription to the Children’s Friend and additional helps for her family teaching. We urged that she never give up on her husband.
We departed Mt. Isa, a city to which I have never returned. I shall, however, always hold dear in memory that sweet mother and those precious children extending a tear-filled expression and a fond wave of gratitude and good-bye.
Several years later, while speaking at a priesthood leadership meeting in Brisbane, Australia, I emphasized the significance of gospel scholarship in the home and the importance of living the gospel and being examples of the truth. I shared with the men assembled the account of Sister Louden and the impact her faith and determination had had on me. As I concluded, I said, “I suppose I’ll never know if Sister Louden’s husband ever joined the Church, but he couldn’t have found a better model to follow than his wife.”
One of the leaders raised his hand, then stood and declared, “Brother Monson, I am Richard Louden. The woman of whom you speak is my wife. The children [his voice quavered] are our children. We are a forever family now, thanks in part to the persistence and the patience of my dear wife. She did it all.” Not a word was spoken. The silence was broken only by sniffles and marked by the sight of tears.
54 – I would probably agree. However that has nothing to do with sample size and everything to do with growing pains of a large organization.
And your argument doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me. What you’re saying is that the temple marriage is nothing special because if the church were to grow, and thereby change the requirements for a temple marriage so that it looked more like a normal marriage, then it would fail just as often as a normal marriage. So?
Quinn cites a temple divorce rate of approximately 5.3%; in 2000, an oft-reported statistic was 5.6% Given the growth between 1965 and 2000, I’d say that changes in temple divorce rate are likely to change over time, but more likely as a result of institutional policy changes, temple recommend requirement changes, etc…than simply because of the growth of the organization itself. The difference, Daniel, I think is that you’re thinking in terms of activity rates and talking in terms of temple marriages. While growth in the organization well may cause more and more people to slip through the cracks, those slipping are precisely _not_ the people we’re talking about: active, engaged, TR-holding believers. Because of the nature of TRs and requirements for sealings, I think it is entirely plausible that the divorce rate among temple marriages would be considerably less volatile than other measures of religiosity and behavior among Mormons.
This is just off the top of my head–perhaps JNS (or someone else) has some better data they can point to something else or point out my errors, upon which I’ll gladly change my mind.
Scott,
Even temple sealed couples leave the church, which is something that could occur at greater rates with a larger number, thus weakening the link to the temple.
When i was 17, he was 35. But I had a bit of an Oedipus complex .. not to be confused with Freudian
Dan,
It’s like you didn’t read what I wrote.
Scott,
I’m tired of being treated by you as if I don’t know what I am talking about. Of course I read what you wrote. Look if you don’t care what I say, don’t bother replying to my comments. I prefer that from you than your condescending comments.
The obvious answer to “how could divorce have been prevented” is “Don’t get married in the first place.” Duh.
B Russ,
I’m just saying that the natural inclination of an ever increasing organization of people will tend to have less of the quality you find with a smaller organization, and that includes even temple marriages.
If we are going to take one portion of the Mormon population (the active, temple marriage group) and compare them to other WHOLE religions, how is that proof of anything?
Why not take a portion of the Catholic church and compare it to the WHOLE of Mormonism? You’d get completely different results.
Types of Catholics could be: Relapsing Catholics, who returned to the faith when stressed; and nominal Catholics, the tick-the-census-box types; the anti-Catholic Catholics, baptised but who hate Catholicism; the smörgåsbord Catholics, who take bits they like and leave those they don’t (“cafe Catholics”); and the faithful, orthodox, strict practicing Catholics.
If you take the orthodox portion of Catholics, who fear divorce is a great sin, one that could send them to hell, I wonder how low that group’s divorce rate is.
Take any religion and select the most believing, orthodox portion and THEN compare them to temple marriages.
The examples from the M Men-Gleaner Manual do not give enough information to make a clear and fair decision. For example, she should have known he was not a member and not “investigating Mormonism” for the first year of dating. Does the manual insinuate that because they were not married in the temple that “discord and difficulties crept into this marriage”? Because she was 20, did she want to “settle down” because she was worried that she would not marry otherwise? Their marriage straddled the end of the Great Depression and the beginning of WWII. Were there stresses because of what was going on the the world? I have to read too much into these lessons to make a decision. However, honestly speaking from my own life, one young man did not want to ask me to marry him because I was a convert. I was the only member in my family to join this church. I truly thought that if I could be married in the Temple, I would live the fairy tale life that I saw in the members on Sunday morning. When the man that I married asked me to marry him, I asked Heavenly Father if I should. The answer was that it would be hard, but it would be worth it. Since then, we have had more than two and less than eight children. I now know that Heavenly Father does not use hyperbole when answering your questions. It has been very hard and very worth it. And we were married in the Temple and are both very active in the church, yet we have so many shortcomings. I think it will only be the way we both are humble and repentant and come closer to the Saviour in the next 25 or so years that determine if our marriage will become some similar example in some future manual. I hope not!
64
Scott T., I would feel honored to have Temple Marriages compared to the most “faithful, orthodox, strict practicing” of any religion. If it were to turn out that the divorce rates are similar it wouldn’t take away from the fact that they are still much lower than the population as a whole. Wouldn’t that still be something to seek after if one were looking for a lifetime (or eternal) marriage?
And that aside, less than 6% is still phenomenal. I mean, its jaw-dropping. (although I’m not exactly optimistic of how that number will change over the next decade as my generation messes things up.)
I thought that was the purpose of the TMQ series…
Alex, you err in assuming anything I post has a purpose.
re: 42 That is creepy about you and the 25 year old. You’re lucky nothing happened. I can’t see how that was appropriate from any angle.
Just to clarify (lest anyone think Grandma was a perv), my grandparents were less than five years apart in age. It was one of those only-in-1935-on-the-farm situations. She was teaching very early and he was old for his grade.
Someone in my family got married when she was 17 to a man who was a year younger than her mother (which made him 32). He was also an escaped convict and heroin addict, and it only gets worse from there.
Somehow “discord and difficulties crept into this marriage relationship” does not sound like enough reason to divorce when compared to “he beat her head against a wall.”
I married a non-member that is six years younger than me. We just had our second child. I guess discord and divorce is all I have to look forward to.
Oh well, at least I’ll still have my superior intellect.
Story time. In my home ward long ago in a galaxy far, far, away, lived a woman who married a gentile. She was miserable and made life miserable for her spouse because he would not join the church. Luckily it was in the age where divorce was not so common so they stayed together in misery, she wanting a real priesthood holder, he very unhappily resisting.
Add 20 years. I was made home teacher of a couple though the block. She was LDS, he was not. Clearly the situation had polarized into the above indicated standoff. She in one corner with her kids, he in the other gnashing his teeth. I quit going to her corner and he and I became great friends, being both engineers (he had more of a knack than I had). He never joined the Church but happily supported her best efforts. They did not let the Church divide them, finally, and to this day they are pleased with life and love each other. Nice couple, nice kids, good friends.
Love conquers all, even the temple. Such a marriage will become celestial if it is not already. Teach unity and love, not division.
SVB,
No, love does not conquer all. HOME TEACHING conquers all. It is the assignment might and strong.
Can we have this kind of open discussion in RS please? Lots of different answers and ideas?
Thanks, Cheryl–we try.
Scott B.
off thread
I loved Frank. If all home teachers would love and all homes would accept that love…. My wife loved his wife. My children loved his children.
We did our own Daddy-Daughter camping trip, I and my four and he and his two. It was a blast. We family camped with them at the Grand Canyon. Home teaching without love is dry bones. What will make the bones dance?
Black magic? Voodoo? Music from Oingo Boingo?
“Discord and difficulties crept into this marriage relationship and although two fine children were born, divorce resulted.”
I see – the couple didn’t realize how “fine” their children really were. When parents divorce, kids know it’s something they did wrong. Too bad these “fine children” failed to show their parents know their true quality.
right?
Scott, I apologise. I should know better by now. What I should have said is that if there was a point to TMQs, it would be to see how our 21st mentality makes us stare aghast at the absurdities of way back when.
Or that you really just do it to see how long you can make Stephanie uncomfortable with discussing Quickies on Thursday mornings.
Now you’re getting warm, Alex!
Mostly, I do it because I’m a goof off and this book is a crackup.
Just for the record, Scott B., my wife says I do not know irony when it is intended. I guess she is right. Thanks.