“Survey large fields and cultivate small ones”

The moratorium on lengthy entries continues, not that they consisted of “vain repetitions.” However, I believe I’m lifting it by degrees. ;-) I choose to remark briefly upon a topic that shouldn’t be shallow, but so often descends into what President Hinckley observed:

I do not worry very much about the young men and women, including many returned missionaries, who are of such an age that in all likelihood they will be married within a relatively short time. I feel they should not be put under pressure by counsel from Church leaders to rush into it. But neither do I believe that they should dally along in a fruitless, frustrating, and frivolous dating game that only raises hopes and brings disappointment and in some cases heartache. (TGBH, 603)

President Monson offered similar counsel around the very time I was born:

[Young people] have the important responsibility to choose whom to marry—not only whom to date.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie said, “Nothing is more important than marrying the right person, at the right time, in the right place, and by the right authority.” We hope you will avoid too quick courtships. It is important that each of you become acquainted with the person you plan to marry, that there is certainty that each of you is looking down the same pathway with the same eternal objectives in mind. (New Era, Nov. 1979, 7)

Long after graduation from BYU, I briefly moved back from Texas into a stake there, just because I wanted to. That stake had served in prior years as an excellent laboratory for so many of my observations on dating and life in general. One of my recorded thoughts from June 21, 2005:

I hastily write in order to include another quote from Elder H. Burke Peterson’s book, for eventual cross-referencing . . .: “Unless girls have had a model and know what priesthood qualities to look for in an eternal companion, the consequences may be that many families in generations to come will suffer because of wrong marriage choices” (74).

I actually enjoyed institute, even though it was the historically rocky subject of relationships. . . . The stake president made a remark to the effect that in 1999 over 24% of the girls in our stake had NEVER been on a date. No wonder Elder Oaks broached the subject recently—it’s passing away as a method of finding companions, and nothing as suitable has arisen to replace it!

(I might have had in mind something I scribbled out on 09/11/96: “How diff’rent this world in just one generation would be/If all girls sought were brains, character, and integrity!”) While we could certainly always expect more from the guys, it is, was, or should be the specialty of the girls to amaze with their unique sensitivities and perception. I’m reminded of something Robert Browning wrote:

Who was a queen and loved a poet once
Humpbacked, a dwarf? ah, women can do that!
Well, but men too; at least, they tell you so.
(The Poems of Robert Browning [Roslyn, NY: Black’s Readers Service, 1932], 268; I’m not humpbacked, but I can get the point—see the Moses Mendelssohn story, referenced as #6 here; Exodus 4:10-16; Moses 6:31-37 (one of my favorites) for an affliction shared by two of the prophets, along with this verse (with verses 8-10); and a description of Paul)

Anyway, you can see one of the sad results of that dating survey conducted in the BYU 15th Stake in 1999. Perhaps too many of today’s men, upon whom the prophets have placed the initiative, are pygmies. Many years ago, in that same stake, our institute class was specifically about a dating practice termed “friendshipping.” The teacher, knowing that I was in the publishing business at the time, kept trying to get me to put in a word for having his materials published. I might have been more inclined had I not had serious reservations about a lot of his assertions. (Which led to one of my observations that, “The much-loved false doctrine of friendshipping suggests that only extraverts marry.”) I recall with some pleasure what happened when he taught that if we have dating options A, B, and C running at one time, when one fails, we can always fall back on the other. Somebody raised his hand and said, “Uh...we would call someone like that a player.” Messed up as our society currently is, many of us still instinctively feel that the opposite sex would like reassurances, even if on a temporary basis, that commitment is not dead.

Hence this entry’s title use of a phrase oft-used by President Harold B. Lee, which applies well to dating. The world may be my campus, but I can only seriously exert my labors in specific regions. When a roommate pressed me about one girl, I retorted, “[She] has no marks against her in my mind. However, does she have any for her? SOMETHING must stand out, though that sound unreasonable. I can’t date ALL the girls toward whom I have a neutrality of feeling.”

Shortly thereafter, I was trying to get something through a girl’s head, who I think was on that teacher’s plan, though she’d never heard him:

Since you reassert that you want me to believe that you love me, I’ll give you the VERY KEY to my confusion. . . . Excitement to date others and “I love you” are exact opposites. . . . LOVE may have only one fishing line down. . . . What can dating mean but seeking a replacement? . . . Real love inevitably leads to increasing exclusiveness of some sort. (One cannot have eternal companion A AND eternal companion B. Or eternal companion A and flirt partner B!)

Perhaps I need not feel too proud of the fact that I have never been turned down when I asked someone out (with the exception of one of those awkward second date requests). In part, I attribute this to the fact that, with discretion being the better part of valor, I can get a good read on when it would be folly to ask. Maybe they all felt sorry for me. I have always joked that if a girl isn’t brave or honest enough to tell me no, then she deserves the punishment of having to go out with me. After some hemming and hawing, I got a date from one of the hardest-to-get girls in the ward, described on April 18, 2003:

Last night I had what I feel was a fairly reluctant date, on her part. . . . She warmed up considerably. . . .

But I couldn’t fully enjoy it. Not unless she does. “Agency,” I told a roommate, “is a more beautiful doctrine than I’ve given it credit for.” I have power, indeed, to do all things—but back to the matter of working within agency.

This is also why, as recently as August 27, 2007, I pondered, “Of a literal truth, I achieve every desire of my heart . . . and how very dangerous! I ought to discipline that more, for agency could so easily be the means of destruction. How important indeed to learn to ask for what is expedient.” (See Mark 9:23; Moroni 10:23.) You’ll recall that Elder Oaks has on more than one occasion pointed to the fact that marriage is very much concerned with another person’s agency.

Also during that formative BYU time, one of our ward committees handed out some questionnaires. They never did use them for anything, but when I returned mine the following day, somehow it immediately made its rounds through the entire complex. I found it in one of my boxes the other weekend. Everything below each heading (including references) was supplied by myself at that time. I sought my grounding in the prophets, of course.

First Date to Eternal Mate
Describe the importance of or specific characteristics of a relationship based on these principles:

Service/Church Callings
(D&C 98:11-16; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; Joseph Fielding Smith, DS, 2:78U & TGBH, 711; TSWK, 303-4; 309; TETB, 533; Heber J. Grant, GS, 150-1 & THBL, 250M & TGeAS, 115M & TSWK, 303M)
Insofar as a Christlike companion is desired, it’s crucial that she be selfless and giving. Faithfulness to the Church, even unto death, is pretty much #1 on my list. This would be plainly manifest in her approach to callings and so forth. (TETB, 558L...give me, indeed!)

Communication
(Matt. 5:37; David O. McKay, GI, 460M; THBL, 251L & THWH, 129M; 2 Cor. 6:14 & TGBH, 322, 330L, 690, 695 & THBL, 240, 251-2 & TSWK, 315-8 & TETB, 547M & TJS, 410-2 & TGeAS, 113M & John Taylor, GK, 284 & TLS, 135L)
Communication is the sine qua non of any relationship. No matter the feelings, the shared values, the aspirations, if unexpressed the structure will collapse. And absolute honesty is paramount from day one; some things are best revealed early on, with deception or denial as ridiculous options. A couple should be one in all things.

Affection/chivalry
(Rev. 3:15-16; Eph. 5:25; THBL, 241M, 241-2)
I’d say affection is one of the biggest gages by which a relationship may be judged. Why be together if you don’t like each other and why would someone stay if they didn’t know you liked them? Cold and indifferent women are almost immediately scratched from my dating list, and my E.C. should see me as her favorite man! I value sweetness a great deal, which stems, of course, from charity.

Personality/Hobbies
(TSWK, 295-6, 321-2; David O. McKay, GI, 459-60 & TETB, 531-2, 546; Amos 3:3 & DBY, 199L)
Personality=spirit. We marry a person for their spirit. Someone should be varied enough in their interests to be interesting, but have enough in common with mine to be compatible. I like zest in living above and beyond my own—hobbies are more open to interpretation. Agreement on gospel doctrine is imperative.

Commitment
(D&C 42:22-23; THBL, 259M & Joseph Fielding Smith, DS, 2:77L; TGBH, 328-9*)
This becomes progressively more important as we spend more time together. There’s no sense in committing to a dead-end relationship, in which case it’s time to stop spending time together. But if both parties are fully aware of joy in each other’s company, they ought to be prepared to take necessary steps.


After this survey, I created my own, with some things I’d like to know. I never could think of an appropriate way to get it distributed, so it remained on my computer until it was apparently deleted. I will have to reconstruct a few of the queries, as I remember them. The first was adapted from Neil Clark Warren.

1. Rank the importance of these qualities, 1 to 9, with 1 being most important:
Personality
Intelligence
Appearance
Ambition
Chemistry
Spirituality
Character
Creativity
Parenting

2. Elder Holland recently [in a talk that I’m persuaded is still one of the timeliest warnings of our day, along with one of President Hinckley’s final messages] referred to “the Church’s doctrinal campsite.” Are you:

a) a keeper of the fire
b) securely at the campfire
c) at all times within view of the campfire
d) wandering in and out
e) consorting/cavorting with the wolves

3. What are your thoughts on the saying attributed to Brigham Young that any unmarried man over 25 is a menace to society?

4. How do you feel about this statement? “No man who is marriageable is fully living his religion who remains unmarried.”

5. Do you date with a purpose, or to have fun? Please comment freely.

The remaining five questions were fairly standard fare. I don’t feel inclined to share my own answers at this time—just putting it out there as food for thought. I’m welcoming submissions from young single ladies! ;-) Since it’s highly subjective, I also won’t impose my “Dating Bill of Rights” on the public.

You [missionaries] go home and find a person that will stimulate you, one that will keep you on your toes, that will make you bigger than you are—never anyone that will let you relax. I would never be in the Council of the Twelve today if I had married some of the girls that I have known. Sister Kimball kept me growing and never let me be satisfied with mediocrity. . . .

Go all over the Church if you need to, to find the girl that is better than you are. The first time if she measures up, invite her again. If she measures up again, you are old enough to go steady! . . .

Not just a pretty face, not just a beautiful form, but the girl who will help him when life begins to get difficult, when there are questions to be answered and decisions to be made. He wants to have a girl who will help him to pay tithing, help him to get to priesthood meeting on time, help him to rear their children. He will be a man to help her to properly discipline the children who come along, and be a real father, be a real husband. That is what honorable and righteous girls want. They are not interested in the fun things so much anymore. They are mature. . . .

Every Latter-day Saint girl who grows up wholesome, sweet, clean, and personable is entitled to the best and should be satisfied with no less. (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 303-304)

I’m reminded of Bishop Richard C. Edgley’s instruction March 14, 2004 in our stake conference (as I wrote from memory):

Bishop Edgley strongly reiterated, “Don’t ever feel for a moment that you have to compromise your values.”

Oh, and last night he told of Elder Russell M. Nelson putting his hands on his shoulders and quipping that he’d married above himself (referring, of course, to Bp. Edgley). Bishop Edgley responded that they’d all married above themselves or they wouldn’t be there. He told the story of a man, wealthy CEO, who attended his wife’s high school reunion and was relieved to find an old boyfriend who merely scooped ice cream on the corner in the same small town. On the flight home he asked his wife whether she wasn’t glad she’d married him, CEO, instead of ice cream scooper. She retorted that he didn't get it after all these years: if she'd married the other guy, HE’D be CEO!

In conclusion, from that same time period:

My wife and I were comparing notes the other day. “I have a higher IQ, did better on my SATs and make more money than you,” she pointed out.

“Yeah, but when you step back and look at the big picture, I’m still ahead,” I said.

She looked mystified. “How do you figure?”

“I married better,” I replied. (Louis Rodolico, Reader’s Digest, Mar. 2004, 201)