I have serious issues with this attitude in the church and statement's like this:

[Rosebud]

I disagree with this 100%. My spouse will always be number one. She's my eternal companion. I'm not saying that I don't love my kids or that I won't ever sacrifice for their needs. I do and have. But my wife will always come before they do. Or better said, our kids will never come between us. I think the attitude you suggest is prevalent in Mormon culture and rather unfortunate. I think it breeds resentment in most marriages and I have heard from the pulpit Church leadership counsel against the very position you take.

I don't think Portland was suggesting that your spouse shouldn't be number one, Surfah. Read the sentence within its context. He's making the observation that those who take marriage seriously can expect their spouses to change over time and that accepting those changes demonstrates their love for them. Have you only been married a few years?

[Rosebud]

This attitude makes no sense to me at all. You're marrying a person, not an ideal. Why stay together with someone you're not in love with? "Respectful", "Honest", "Attentive"? That's a legitimate basis for marriage. Sounds pretty dreary to me. I can understand staying together for the sake of the kids, but kids aren't around forever. After the kids leave the house, and all you come home to every night is respect, honesty, and attentiveness, you're going to wish you had more than a simple devotion to an ideal. What was it Emerson said about foolish consistencies?

I didn't see anything in Portland's post about foolishly staying in a "dreary" marriage even after the kids are gone. No fair trying to make him sound overly idealistic when his post was actually very realistic.

[Non Sequitur]

I didn't see anything in Portland's post about foolishly staying in a "dreary" marriage even after the kids are gone. No fair trying to make him sound overly idealistic when his post was actually very realistic.

"I think the commitment needs to be to MARRIAGE and to any offspring more than it is to that person that you marry on that day."

I don't think I was being unfair at all. The entire post is about how people change during a marriage and that that change shouldn't be the basis for divorce. I just happen to think that that is a silly notion. Some people change, but they still grow closer and their love matures. It's wonderful and fortunate when that happens. But some people change and those changes cause them to grow apart and fall out of love. When that happens, there is little purpose served by remaining together simply for the sake of the marriage.

[Rosebud]

Forget about work. Just try to start an in-depth discussion of polygamy in Sunday School or priesthood meeting and watch what happens.

Not that I want to avoid getting into another polyandry debate , but demonstrating that Mormon doctrine has changed might be a little more simple if we use the example of the Adam-God theory.

For those who trust wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_theory

[Gidget]

Although I agree with my husband (and I will admit it is hard for me to say that, because I freakin' love my daughter so much it hurts, seeing her grow up actually depresses me at times) I think I understand what Portland is saying, maybe.

Children are temporary. They are forever yours eternally, but here on earth as we know it they grow up and have to start their own lives and move on from us as parents and become parents themselves, and on and on . . . so that is where the devotion to my spouse must be paramount. Surfah will be there with me far after my kids leave our home. And in our opinion our relationship must be number one in our lives to make our marriage work and to even raise the kind of kids we want to see in 18 years.

BUT - marriage is an institution. An institution that requires a commitment so big that when love and life are doing their natural ebb and flow, it is the commitment to what marriage is that brings you through those changes. I fully expect Surfah and I to change in the many years to come. And I am sure not all of those times will be easy, but I am committed not only to Surfah - I am committed to what marriage is. I am sticking with him and with the commitment I made.

[Rosebud]

I don't think I was being unfair at all. The entire post is about how people change during a marriage and that that change shouldn't be the basis for divorce. I just happen to think that that is a silly notion. Some people change, but they still grow closer and their love matures. It's wonderful and fortunate when that happens. But some people change and those changes cause them to grow apart and fall out of love. When that happens, there is little purpose served by remaining together simply for the sake of the marriage.

I agree. Based on my reading of his post, though, I'm just not sure Portland would disagree. I think you miss the meaning of his post if you reduce it to the idea that people should stay in bad marriages once their kids are gone. But I'll let Portland speak for himself.

[Non Sequitur]

Not that I want to avoid getting into another polyandry debate , but demonstrating that Mormon doctrine has changed might be a little more simple if we use the example of the Adam-God theory.

For those who trust wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_theory

I've gone down that road, and the standard rebuttal is always that the doctrine didn't change, just that Brigham Young got the doctrine wrong. The more interesting debate is why have prophets if they can get doctrine wrong.

[Rosebud]

(and I will admit it is hard for me to say that, because I freakin' love my daughter so much it hurts, seeing her grow up actually depresses me at times)

I hear you. I think it's difficult to explain the strong commitment that good mothers, at least, have to their children. The truth is that there is very little that my children could do that would weaken my commitment to them. I hold my husband, on the other hand, to a higher standard.

[Gidget]

I hear you. I think it's difficult to explain the strong commitment that good mothers, at least, have to their children. The truth is that there is very little that my children could do that would weaken my commitment to them. I hold my husband, on the other hand, to a higher standard.

I totally hear ya.

[All-American]

Not that I want to avoid getting into another polyandry debate , but demonstrating that Mormon doctrine has changed might be a little more simple if we use the example of the Adam-God theory.

For those who trust wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_theory

I was disputing that the doctrine regarding polygamy has changed. The point you bring up speaks to a different argument.

[Rosebud]

I was disputing that the doctrine regarding polygamy has changed. The point you bring up speaks to a different argument.

Which takes us back to statman:

Yes - doctrines don't change.

[All-American]

Which takes us back to statman:

No, it doesn't. That's not the point I'm arguing.

[Surfah]

I don't think Portland was suggesting that your spouse shouldn't be number one, Surfah. Read the sentence within its context. He's making the observation that those who take marriage seriously can expect their spouses to change over time and that accepting those changes demonstrates their love for them. Have you only been married a few years?

I read the sentence in it's context and came to a different conclusion. If he intended what you suggest then I am fine with that. However, from the part of the post I quoted and what he went on to say made me believe that despite the way we change we should remain committed simply because we are married and have children. At least that is how I read it. If I read that wrong I apologize and I hope PU and clarify his position so I can better articulate my response.

Regardless, I stand by my post on it's content if not a rebuttal to PU's comments.

And I am not sure what my being married only a few years has to do with the argument. I don't hold any illusion that me or Gidget will remain the same beings we were the day we were sealed. I know she will change and has changed. And I know she hopes I'll change.

[FMCoug]

Wow ... what a thread.

Two quick thoughts:

1. It amazes me how easy it is to make blanket statments about hypothetical situations when the real world is a lot messier than that. I would think we'd give a lot of weight to the opinions of those who have actually been through this situation (or any other) than the theoretical / Sunday School answer.

2. Clackamas may be CUF's first true mullah.

[Rosebud]

No, it doesn't. That's not the point I'm arguing.

Did you read the thread?

2. Clackamas may be CUF's first true mullah.

Maybe he'll stick around and teach us all a thing or two .