marrying too young...

[clackamascoug]

You bringing your clubs?

I'll probably put them in the Sprinter just in case, but it's a delicate topic to be sure.

[Donuthole]

PAC's post was a nice high water mark.

As our 22 year old daughter prepares for marriage next month in the Las Vegas Temple, all I can say is that we did our best and hope for a bright future. It hurts like hell having her leave my life on a daily basis. She's everything a young woman should be. The future SIL seems to be a nice person, and has a true baseline of love and respect. I hope he's a better husband and father than I was.

What can you do?

You bringing your clubs?

[clackamascoug]

PAC's post was a nice high water mark.

As our 22 year old daughter prepares for marriage next month in the Las Vegas Temple, all I can say is that we did our best and hope for a bright future. It hurts like hell having her leave my life on a daily basis. She's everything a young woman should be. The future SIL seems to be a nice person, and has a true baseline of love and respect. I hope he's a better husband and father than I was.

What can you do?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm writing a talk for tomorrow, which means that I basically just plagiarize PAC, JL, KL, and Solon, and I came across this old gem which needs to be dusted off from time to time, just so we can all remember the wisdom contained therein.

That was indeed a great post. Thanks for the bump.

And good luck with your talk.

[wuapinmon]

I’ve found the quoted view to be widely shared, and rather sad. It’s like Woody Allen’s response, after Mia discovered he was sleeping with their daughter (his stepdaughter), Soon-Yi: “The heart wants what it wants. There's no logic to these things. You meet someone and you fall in love and that's that.” That view treats “to love” as a passive verb; it just happens, and you run with it. Love is simply one batch of hormones calling out to the other, and a relationship rests on the hope that one’s partner won’t find a more attractive deal down the road. But that makes marriage a marketplace, not a committed relationship.

Genuine commitment requires the view that love is an active verb. Even in those times in which you don’t like your spouse very much, you continue to love him/her, behaving and doing things that look like love, and shunning thoughts and behaviors that don’t. The cool thing is that eventually the thing that peeved you about your spouse, or the allure of someone else, eventually subsides, and your active behavior of “loving” your spouse makes your passive “love” greater than before. If one doesn’t take that approach, then each spouse is simply waiting and hoping that a better deal doesn’t come along for the other.

[PAC Marriage Tip No. 34 (newsletter subscriptions available)] As great as she is, there are times when She Who Must Be Obeyed bugs me (admittedly, often the cause of this annoyance is my fault, but still...). I’ve come to realize that I have a choice. I can focus on the annoyance and let it fester, I can succumb to the flirtations of an office assistant or work acquaintance (sadly, these flirtations are coming far less often in my fifties), I can fell sorry for myself, etc. After a brief wallow in self-pity, I pull out the mental DVD collection I have in my head that features many dozens, even hundreds, of memories of Mrs. PAC in action: by her side at childbirth; holding her hand as she struggled through a miscarriage; vacations with the kids; vacations without the kids (including, e.g., a memorable drive to a Maui hotel—there’s an extensive Adults Only collection in my memory); mile 80 of our first century when we came up behind a small group of serious riders I knew I could pass but was concerned if the missus could keep up, and then from right behind me I simply heard the words “Jam it!,” and we cruised past the group; and “those thousand decencies that daily flow from all her words and actions,” as Milton wrote of Eve. As I focus on Mrs. PAC’s Greatest Hits, whatever ill feelings I might have had toward her, or the warm fuzzies I might be feeling about the office Lolita, shrink to insignificance.

We married when I had just turned 22, and Mrs. PAC wasn’t quite 21. We will celebrate our 35th anniversary this summer. Other things being equal, I’d recommend people wait longer before making the commitment. But once the commitment is made, I think in most cases it’s possible to make it work, and work very well. People do change, but if the focus remains on actively loving the other, the change can be for the better, for the couple as well as the individual.

Sorry the length, but I didn’t have time to make it shorter, or less preachy. My focus can now turn to basketball and the size of Goatnapper’s breasts.

I'm writing a talk for tomorrow, which means that I basically just plagiarize PAC, JL, KL, and Solon, and I came across this old gem which needs to be dusted off from time to time, just so we can all remember the wisdom contained therein.

[byu71]

Is marrying at 22 considered marrying young by mormon standards?

I would doubt it, but then again I have heard it isn't standard procedure for the MP to tell a missionary to marry ASAP after he returns home. I haven't heard young people cautioned in GC, about the desire to get an education stopping them from getting married ASAP

[Uncle Ted]

Advice for a Happy Life by Charles Murray

[…]
1. Consider Marrying Young

The age of marriage for college graduates has been increasing for decades, and this cultural shift has been a good thing. Many 22-year-olds are saved from bad marriages because they go into relationships at that age assuming that marriage is still out of the question.

But should you assume that marriage is still out of the question when you're 25? Twenty-seven? I'm not suggesting that you decide ahead of time that you will get married in your 20s. You've got to wait until the right person comes along. I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't exclude the possibility. If you wait until your 30s, your marriage is likely to be a merger. If you get married in your 20s, it is likely to be a startup.

Merger marriages are what you tend to see on the weddings pages of the Sunday New York Times: highly educated couples in their 30s, both people well on their way to success. Lots of things can be said in favor of merger marriages. The bride and groom may be more mature, less likely to outgrow each other or to feel impelled, 10 years into the marriage, to make up for their lost youth.

But let me put in a word for startup marriages, in which the success of the partners isn't yet assured. The groom with his new architecture degree is still designing stairwells, and the bride is starting her third year of medical school. Their income doesn't leave them impoverished, but they have to watch every penny.

What are the advantages of a startup marriage? For one thing, you will both have memories of your life together when it was all still up in the air. You'll have fun remembering the years when you went from being scared newcomers to the point at which you realized you were going to make it.
[…]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...65244191453008

Is marrying at 22 considered marrying young by mormon standards?

And for SU…

4. Take Religion Seriously

[CardiacCoug]

Also from the LA Times article:

So it appears that lower rates of divorce are found with religious people who are not necessarily conservative religiously and/or don't get married young and have kids right away.

Yep, being religious is OK as long as that religiosity is moderated by education and common sense/secularism (in avoiding young marriage and young child-bearing). Sounds exactly right to me.

[Katy Lied]

my catholic friends seem to work very hard on their troubled marriages, rather than seek divorce. I see a real difference in their commitment to the marriage.

[Uncle Ted]

Not to mention, aren't divorce rates among Mormons lower than national average? Mormons tend to marry young, fast and because of tradition, right?

Catholics claim to have the lowest divorce rates...

Catholics Continue to Have Lowest Divorce Rates

Recent studies on marriage show that, while their rates of divorce are significant, U.S. Catholics are less likely to divorce than people of other religious affiliations.


“Although the Catholic ‘divorce rate’ is lower than the U.S. average, it is still a daunting figure,” said the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.


In a Sept. 26 blog post, the research group explained that divorce among Catholics “represents more than 11 million individuals,” many of whom “are likely in need of more outreach and ongoing ministry from the Church.”


In its article, the organization explained that different ways of tallying divorce and marriage rates create a range of different divorce figures, including the oft-quoted statistic that “half of all marriages fail.”


Looking at national surveys, the post stated, “Catholics stand out, with only 28% of the ever-married having divorced at some point,” compared to more than 40% of those with no religious affiliation, 39% of Protestants and 35% of those of another religious faith.
[…]

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news...#ixzz2r9TPojlu

Of course, if you divorce in the catholic church you are pretty much excommunicated so most seek for annulment$$$ instead.

[Pelado]

Not to mention, aren't divorce rates among Mormons lower than national average? Mormons tend to marry young, fast and because of tradition sex, right?

FIFY

[smokymountainrain]

Divorce is accepted now, even if it is not desired. And non-religious people might marry less frequently until they are very committed? Whereas a religious couple will marry because of the tradition?

There are too many variables to be able to make much out of these studies.

Not to mention, aren't divorce rates among Mormons lower than national average? Mormons tend to marry young, fast and because of tradition, right?

[Topper]

Also from the LA Times article:

So it appears that lower rates of divorce are found with religious people who are not necessarily conservative religiously and/or don't get married young and have kids right away.

Divorce is accepted now, even if it is not desired. And non-religious people might marry less frequently until they are very committed? Whereas a religious couple will marry because of the tradition?

There are too many variables to be able to make much out of these studies.

[Paperback Writer]

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldno...#ixzz2r8PcAOVT

Also from the LA Times article:

Wilcox added that the study also showed that more “secularism” – people not adhering to any religious tradition – was also linked to higher rates of divorce.

So it appears that lower rates of divorce are found with religious people who are not necessarily conservative religiously and/or don't get married young and have kids right away.

[Uncle Ted]

[…]
The study, slated to be published in the American Journal of Sociology, tackles the “puzzling paradox” of why divorce is more common in religiously conservative “red” states. If religious conservatives believe firmly in the value of marriage, why is divorce especially high in places like Alabama and Arkansas?


To figure that out, researchers from the University of Texas and the University of Iowa analyzed county divorce statistics against information from an earlier study of religious congregations. They categorized Protestant denominations that believe the Bible is literally true as "conservative Protestants."


Researchers discovered that higher divorce rates among conservative Protestants were tied to earlier marriages and childbearing – factors known to ramp up divorce. Starting families earlier tends to stop young adults from pursuing more education and depresses their wages, putting more strain on marriages, University of Texas at Austin professor Jennifer Glass said.
[…]

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-sci-sn-red-states-religious-conservative-divorce-20140116,0,7835151.story#ixzz2r8PcAOVT