This is not to say that I was ever any good at old style dating, either, but I’m astonished at the rapidity of its passing. What a difference just the last decade has made! With increasing frequency, I learn from young women that they have only been on a handful of dates in their lives, and far too many have never been on any at all. Just as one is prepared to berate all the men for dereliction of duty, we hear discouraging tales from their side of mind-bogglingly strange behaviors in the better half (a quite literal image in my apartment complex). Family life and their mothers’ examples in no way prepared the poor men to interpret these quixotic quirks, the majority of which, I’m sorry to say, would contravene the avowed goal of marriage—I’m not just saying marriage to undesired suitors, but marriage EVER.
I follow several cynical blogs where each side tries to counsel the other. One of the major problems? They’re trying to prop up a system that even prophets are now informing us has seen its demise (see, for instance, Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, June 2006, 10-16), certainly not to be replaced by anything better. It would seem to me that most of its worst features have been preserved and nearly everything else has fallen out.
Good people everywhere are retreating, reminiscent of the oft-quoted Yeats line: “The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” To whom do they leave the embattled expanse? Well, I see a lot of predatory figures (mostly male), contributing to a growing volume of horrible dating stories. These cretins strike over and over again. Still others are yet in the field because they are playful at heart, but this too often contributes little to the benefit of the race. In escaping all injury themselves, they dance in every direction but toward the target. This tends to be injurious to others who appreciate the gravity of the situation. As with any field of human endeavor, there’s a group of incompetent nincompoops. I also discern a body of courageous souls, determined to do what’s right and necessary. If I honestly believed that the outcome of dating depended upon courage and/or persistence alone, you would see me fighting my way through until life’s end, heedless of all past trauma (and in keeping with President Hunter’s rather direct counsel on that matter of holding dismay, based on past experience, in abeyance). I seriously like to think I’m not afraid to face anything needful, but this particular topic certainly evokes unpleasant feelings within me.
Dating as it is presently constituted more nearly resembles a battlefield of uncertain dimensions, filled with smoke, tumult, and violent, pervasive, deadly mortar fire. Another difficulty is that the objective is indeterminate through the confusion. We think we know where this could lead, but experience teaches us that “success” (i.e., marriage?) may apparently be obtained with at least equal facility through any number of alternative approaches, all of which nonetheless hinge on that elusive principle of timing. There is simply no good intelligence on the enemy’s strength and position, and linking up with our ally is the challenge of the situation. Knowing this, to advance carelessly would blight any commander’s record, but to remain paralyzed with fear will never do. I definitely would not advocate “hanging out” in the midst of this barrage. I’ve been woefully misunderstood if anything I say here is construed as cause for retreat. I don’t really believe in retreat, though I do recommend that one save their desperate actions for such time as their backs truly are against the wall. I believe very little even in feigned retreats, in most cases, as those all too easily become the very rout you were pretending to have.
Additionally, I don’t claim love is a battlefield. Dating is a battlefield, where one finds little of love, respect, or even of “friendship,” much-used though the phrase might be. When you do discover those qualities, you’re probably sensing victory. At one time, my father offered warning counsel that “love shouldn’t feel like that.” Love should only hurt for the other person . . . not from them—at least not often, and not for long, if they are at all serious about being with you in the eternities. In this arena, we’ve seen some heavy casualties as a result of misidentification of friend and foe.“Friendly fire” is also a complete oxymoron, yet hopefully of shorter duration. Knowing when to hold your fire is among the most valuable of skills.
I affirm most daringly from my “wizened” (read “old and cantankerous”) perspective that the essential assumption of risk for progression can hardly be applied to advancing indelicately into that fray. My mother, who knows me best and in this regard knows what’s best for me personally, has applied the humorous definition of insanity to my leading a headlong charge into that swirling void: “insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.” War is not a game, and neither is collecting wounds in the fervent hope that acquisition of enough of them will somehow eventually confer access to the companionship we desire. Believe me, I know. We create ourselves, not others. The most maddening part of this process is that we must instinctively/adaptively know what we are looking for without prejudicially predetermining exactly what we are looking for. May I make some rather forward observations from the forward observation post? I would not say a word to deter one from this fight, but it’d be nice to see people go out better prepared for victory (or loss) with valor.
First, we must learn how to look. We as members often talk about looking deeper into the soul when dating, but continue to do little to develop that ability. I love to quote Bytheway on this because he certainly tapped into this need before the groundswell became apparent:
When a teenage girl looks across the dance floor and squeals with delight, "Oh, he’s so gorgeous!" that’s definitely a feeling, but it’s not real love. On the big screen, when eyes meet across a crowded room and the music swells, that’s a feeling too. But on such an occasion, you don’t hear the actors say, "Wow, suddenly I’m filled with cleanliness, progress, sacrifice, and selflessness." Real love is, "I’ll take the baby for a while; you go take a nap." Real love is, "I’ll be out with the car, can I get you anything?" Real love is, "Wow, I guess it was something you ate. . . . I’ll clean it off the carpet; you go lie down." They don’t show that part in the movies. (John Bytheway, What I Wish I'd Known When I Was Single [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1999], 114-115)
Perhaps I should back up and discuss how to be, which will enact the change in perspective noted above. Rather than stopping short with satisfaction upon asking, “Are they Mormon?”, perhaps we should strive to know what kind of Mormon they are. (What’s more, we should be at least as scrutinizing with ourselves continually.) Among other things, charity “rejoiceth in the truth” (Moroni 7:45), or the knowledge of things “as they really are, and . . . as they really will be” (Jacob 4:13; see D&C 93:24). That is one reason why, as President Hinckley said, “The girl you marry will take a terrible chance on you.” To continue:
Now is the time to prepare for that most important day of your lives when you take unto yourself a wife and companion equal with you before the Lord. . . .
The girl you marry can expect you to come to the marriage altar absolutely clean. She can expect you to be a young man of virtue in thought and word and deed. . . .
The girl you marry is worthy of a husband whose life has not been tainted by this ugly and corrosive material [pornography]. . . .
She will wish to be married to someone who loves her, who trusts her, who walks beside her, who is her very best friend and companion. She will wish to be married to someone who encourages her in her Church activity and in community activities which will help her to develop her talents and make a greater contribution to society. She will want to be married to someone who has a sense of service to others, who is disposed to contribute to the Church and to other good causes. She will wish to be married to someone who loves the Lord and seeks to do His will. . . .
And so, my dear young men, you may not think seriously about it now. But the time will come when you will fall in love. It will occupy all of your thoughts and be the stuff of which your dreams are made. Make yourself worthy of the loveliest girl in all the world. Keep yourself worthy through all the days of your life. . . . There can be so much of happiness if there is an effort to please and an overwhelming desire to make comfortable and happy one’s companion.” (Ensign, May 1998, 49-51)
In the face of worsening statistics, such that I understand as many as half of the young men (at BYU) are afflicted with the plague of pornography, my bishop advised the young women that they had the right to ask searching questions when getting more serious with the men. I’d in no way deny those who struggle their own dating opportunities (once the Atonement cleanses their lives), but it sure is a shame to see so many problems arising from their involvement in the dating scene while many worthy men are sidelined. I’ve seen one sad little Facebook group, “BYU Boys Aren’t Quite What I Hoped For.” This is crowded with girls who aren’t quite what we hoped for, either. When it comes to dating . . . well, seldom have I seen such an unbridgeable gap between expectation and action. Are the ladies asking the right questions (e.g., President Woodruff’s recommended “Is he a man of God?”) before committing their hearts? Do we all constantly reappraise in that sort of light? In one of his classic talks, Elder Bednar placed the urgent need for discernment in this very context, describing beautifully how everyone can benefit from its protection.
One of the most helpful restorations to scripture is the JST for Matthew 7:1-2. Elder Oaks has commented at length on its application to intermediate judgment calls we must constantly make in life. Our own Master of Life and Salvation, of whom it was said in prediction that “there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2) does not judge “after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears” (Isaiah 11:3) but with superior spiritual vision. I have actually had others in the past discredit the possibility of my receiving insight into someone’s soul by proximal contact, when the scriptures are replete with examples of God protecting people by just such a method. The consistency of people discounting my goals in this respect very nearly overturned my track in life, when they overrode my internal reactions by insisting that I ought to be interested in someone. Now not even a girl herself can convince me to like her contrary to my own sentiments. Or dissuade me from liking her! ;-)
I sometimes wonder—since you know it’s going on—how many times girls have entertained future church leaders unawares. By this, I generically mean the strength of the Church in coming days, though extending it to the upper echelons really enlarges that food for thought. Think about it; are the ranks of the general authorities filled with elitist intellectuals or vacuous-minded pretty boys? Can you imagine President Monson’s wife saying that she wanted him to ask her out because he was so “ripped”? Or that he had a bit of a bad boy wild side in him? No. He was an authentic nice guy who did what the Lord expected of him. What’s more, he was what she was looking for, and vice versa. In so many cases, though, I see people dismissed for implausible reasons, if one were simply to view people the way God sees them. I doubt the fact that a guy sings too loudly, or laughs oddly, or that a girl has extra pounds, etc. is of any significance to He who reigns in the heavens. Several years ago, one of the kinder guys I've met had a hopeless crush on the roommate of a girl I was dating. It was ever so painful to watch her send him packing, essentially because he had a hand tremor.
One World War II veteran, and Medal of Honor recipient, expresses a portion of what I'm relating about character going ignored because of the flesh. Ralph Neppel was the only survivor in his machine gun emplacement after taking a direct tank hit which threw him 10 yards. With one leg missing and the other reduced to a stump, he dragged himself painfully the entire distance back to his gun to wipe out the infantry support for that tank. He tells people, "Everybody's handicapped in some way. In some of us it just shows more." Who, if granted the insight which sets aside outward appearance, would prefer a date in serious need of cleansing of the inward vessel over someone who has the intestinal fortitude to defend their faith and family against any onslaught?
I introduce the example of Elder Neal A. Maxwell’s courtship, which contains sweet elements concerning interaction and expectation that I personally have seldom witnessed in the past decade, as our world becomes ever more fixated on the perishable things. Keep in mind that throughout his earlier school days, Elder Maxwell also suffered from disfiguring acne and the social stigma from raising pigs.
It was not an unpleasant surprise the day Neal called her to ask for a date. The only problem was that "he talked so fast." His approach on the phone somehow "made her feel she was number fifteen on a list of girls he’d been calling." In her version, she turned him down "just for spunk." Looking back, Colleen and Neal have somewhat different perspectives on this event. She remembers she "was impressed that he seemed to have so much charisma. People were looking to him for answers and just had a great regard for him." Then Neal adds, "So much charisma [that] she turned me down when I first asked her for a date." Fortunately for both, he called again, and this time she said yes.
It didn’t take them long to overcome slight differences in their backgrounds. . . .
Even so, Colleen found herself increasingly drawn to him. She found him "really cute and interesting," even if he did lack just a little social polish. He didn’t care for dancing and didn’t like small talk, both of which were more important to other people than they were to her. He “was so knowledgeable and such a good speaker, even though he did talk fast. But if you could listen fast you could learn a lot.” As Neal came to know her better, he was impressed with her maturity, her sensitivity to other people, and the depth of her spiritual convictions. He began feeling a “spiritual impetus that this was a young woman out of the ordinary.” . . .
Meanwhile, at the Maxwell house, Emma remembered, "Our first introduction to Colleen was when you came home one night and said, I've got to see more of that girl. She has some thinking under her hood.' It was your habit to sit on the side of our bed when you came home from a date and tell us about it. There was never anyone who compared to Colleen." . . .
Colleen gasped as she realized the depth of Neal's commitment to the Church [when he responded, as a married man, for the second time to a call for missionaries]. Then her thoughts reverted to her pioneer heritage. She thought again about those women "who stayed home" in the Church's early days "when their men went off for years" as missionaries. Her commitment was equal to theirs--and to Neal's. But still she was relieved when their bishop explained that the request was for men who had not yet served missions.
Neal also came soon to see how right he was about that thinking going on beneath Colleen's "hood." "I knew I was not dealing with an eighteen-year-old co-ed who was so anxious to please me that I'd have my way when I shouldn't," he said. "We hadn't been married long before I knew I had a kind of Gibraltar--someone who would be tough and strong in the storms of life." . . .
Neal also found that Colleen had reading interests different from his own. His preferences were strong enough that he wasn't sure why anyone would read Anne Morrow Lindbergh or Mother Teresa if one could read military history or political biography. Then, taking Colleen's subtle hints, he began to read some of what she enjoyed. Soon Neal discovered a whole new genre of valuable literature, such as Lindbergh's Gifts from the Sea, which became the source of a quotation he liked so much he later had it framed and placed on the wall of his busy office: "My life cannot implement in action the demands of all the people to whom my heart responds." . . .
He also found that, in his writing and speaking, Colleen could be a gentle but very constructive critic. Once in his early years as commissioner of education, he was trying hard to use a series of rhetorical devices to develop the theme of a written speech. He asked a colleague at work to read through the draft and offer suggestions. The friend thought his stylistic tools were calling too much attention to themselves. As the friend groped for a polite way to say what he was thinking, Neal sensed the concern and said, "It's too cute, isn't it? That's what Colleen thinks." The friend sighed and said, "She's right." Neal completely reworked the draft.
Over the years, Neal's respect for Colleen has just kept growing, along every front. (Bruce R. Hafen, A Disciple's Life: The Biography of Neal A. Maxwell [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2002], 186-191)
Now, to return to a few of the unpleasant realities of present day and present circumstances. It’s my assumption that even dispensation heads might have difficulty finding dates in the current climate. Joseph Smith might not pass the demanding “career test” or, worse still, the popularity test. Emma’s parents didn’t even approve of him, and the community certainly didn’t. Two other great men might not stand up to the initial conversational requirements of rapid-fire ward mingling. Enoch replied to God, “[I] am but a lad, and all the people hate me; for I am slow of speech” (Moses 6:31). Is it possible that the man who “led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled . . .” (Moses 7:13), and on whose account “all men were offended” (Moses 6:37) might have earlier flinched a great deal at the battle of dating? Moses also (after someone of no inconsiderable strength, as demonstrated in JST Exodus 4:24-26, had seen fit to marry him) pled that he was “slow of speech, and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10), which many commentators have taken to mean that he stuttered. This might have helped him become “very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3), another virtue not terribly prized on the competitive scene. I’m also reminded of Mormon’s concern about his awkwardness in writing (a reversal of the brother of Jared’s ability, verifying that our weaknesses come in all shapes and sizes) in Ether 12:25-26.
Sometimes, when I feel the atmosphere of a room change, with girls and guys eying each other for forthcoming conversation, I’m reminded of school days where I know I won’t be chosen for the basketball team. I can usually make myself laugh by picturing that they’re stocking their side with the tallest, but what if they suddenly learned instead that the near future contains a limbo competition? Just the other night I dreamed that I was being herded away from the others by Gestapo agents. I awakened with the perfect insight that “dating is Darwinian.” And Darwinian runs in opposition in every way to God, who creates things spiritually before temporally. Imagine if we dealt with people in such terms! I shocked my roommates once by proclaiming, truthfully, as we might about anyone, that “if I have no spiritual identity, I’m not fit to live.” When the inane question is posed, “Why aren’t you married?” I can say, “In the past, because of gross character mismatch; at present, because I’m short,” which is to say that in 2007 I was thrown back onto the field where innate qualities are overlooked in favor of the irrelevant.
As for meekness, it almost seems as though a certain amount of arrogant braggadocio is demanded by the dating superstructure. I was horribly offended once upon a time when a class on friendshipping methods more or less posited that only extraverts and “players” can find companions. What this world needs is not more men whose voice is always and loudly heard, but men whose voices will always be heard on the side of what’s right. (Had the class only asserted that men are still required to take the initiative, I would not have faulted it.) Why do girls—and I don’t know whether the guys do it in return—come up with seemingly insurmountable obstacles in order to justify themselves when ruling someone out? Do they not realize that men should not be everlastingly, boastingly lassoing the moon? Given a shred of hope as to WHY we ought to do something, then you will see some performance. Any gentleman awaits proper invitation.
Recently one of my roommates remarked that he could tell I would cross the Sahara for a certain girl. At the time, I had an acute injury to the posterior region, so I told them that I would slide on my rump the whole way too, IF ONLY I had her specific request to do so. We can ill afford to expend all our energies trying to please everyone on matters of passing importance in the big picture, though. I don’t believe in competing; in reality, in at least some areas there is simply no competition, but if the girl feels the need to scientifically or otherwise unreasonably compare and contrast, I refuse to submit to such a procedure—yet another reason that I don’t infringe when a girl of exceeding interest is strangely absorbed in another man, to the
I prepare to close by utilizing a quotation I shared with others on Sunday, followed by two more that seem appropriately linked.
Brother Truman Madsen shared the story of how Elder LeGrand Richards proposed to his wife: Shortly after returning from his first mission, "He was walking along with her, and everything was well between them, when he said, 'Ina, there is someone who will always come before you.' She gasped. She cried out, and she ran. When LeGrand caught up with her, he stopped her and said: 'Wait, wait, you don't understand. On my mission there were times when the Lord was so close that I felt I could almost reach out and touch Him. He has to be the foundation of our lives; but, Ina, if you want to be second, I want to marry you.'" (Robert K. McIntosh, How Do You Know When You're Really in Love? [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 2000], 61)
Seek women of faith, women of pure lives; and then be sure, be very sure that you are in love with the women you espouse and hope to marry. I would not say to love them with all your heart and soul, because that belongs to God. That duty is to him alone. But be sure you love the young woman sincerely and truly, and be sure that she is a good woman. (Rudger Clawson, CR, Oct. 1930, 79)
As we love God more than anything else, we find that things inimical to His character become unappealing to us. We do not wish to break the commandments; we strive to keep them. We do not lust after what is forbidden; we shun all evil. Even the desire for fashion and fad is replaced with a simple yearning to be neat and comely. That which we love determines that which we become. . . .
When I married my dear wife, I knew I would always be number two in her life. This is because she loves God more than she loves me. Over the years my understanding and appreciation for the paramount importance of this “first and great commandment” has deepened. You see, because she loves God more than anything else, she is able to love me more than everything else. How grateful I am that the keeping of this commandment helped her overlook some pretty major deficiencies. (Keith B. McMullin, in Brigham Young University 2003-2004 Speeches [Provo, UT: BYU Publications & Graphics, 2004], 120-121)
In many instances, these times call for unconventional warfare. Some of my dated journalistic thoughts from 2003 about the terrain: “I can be an intensely active member without subjecting myself to competitions the very rules of which torment me. Not all that is religious is social, and by all means not all that is social is religious. . . . I play more by the LIMITS it [dating society] has set, though, than any particular RULES.” Again, pray do not think me hypocritical and inquire, “How’s that working for you?” ;-) I still won’t adopt lesser methods. General Ulysses S. “Unconditional Surrender” Grant was NOT noted for avoiding peril and losses, but he DID know where and when to commit troops, gaining the advantage where others did not so much as perceive an opportunity. (Is the bolded word too subtle for dating application?) He, as a great general, knew to hit fast and hard in the time and place of one’s own choosing. Opposing forces must not dictate the terms to us; we must act and not merely be acted upon. (I realize that this portion is largely directed to the men, but women have their own peculiar gifts for deflecting, accepting, withholding, and insinuating in ways nigh unto action. It is also the actions off the field that set the stage for successful execution on it.)
We cannot afford a charge like that in the (heavily edited) Last Samurai, where men rode to their deaths knowing full well that their old code would be cut to ribbons by the up-to-date, cold, and calculating weaponry. If I thought occasion called for it, then I'd be the first to say saddle up and let’s go! We must practically assess our foe at every opportunity, while refusing to descend to its level. Let us call upon our Supreme Commander, the Lord of Hosts, for strength beyond strength of arms. Let us not be softened up or driven back. We need hardy men to reconnoiter the place, as well as more women of resolve to secure and beautify the other parts of the zone, assisting men in recognizing an area worth striking out for in spite of all hazards. Men are not the foe and women are not the foe, though we have occasionally been pitted against each other by the enemy of our souls. When in unison, they are a force to be reckoned with. “Neither man nor woman can rise to the highest possible destiny, alone; righteous men and women constitute the Church of Christ. There is no sex-war among the Latter-day Saints” (John A. Widtsoe, MS, 94:136; see Doctrines of Salvation, 3:142-143).
Who is on the Lord’s side?
