I understand there's some kind of a trade-off between 'being/remaining yourself' and being open to "Fine Tuning", being open to compromise, adjusting certain priorities, likes/dislikes, etc to make a relationship work for the 50s - 60s crowd (i.e. myself, others).

I'm speaking to the fact the people mature, as opposed to young, pliable younger people/couples.

this is 'sort of' a non-question in the LDS culture... "Live the gospel, no further instructions necessary", etc

I realize this isn't Hard Science type stuff, and ultimately up to each couple to decide... but:

Does anyone with experience have insight in this area?
thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2014 11:20PM by guynoirprivateeye.

I think of it this way:

The core essence of a person does not change. Tiger does not change her stripes. You are who you are.

However, with new information, one can change behaviors, attitudes, preferences, even your needs can (and do) over time and with experience and as your circumstances change.

Maybe it's important to do a mental exercise where you separate out traits and qualities (the core essence -- who you are) versus behaviors and preferences.

For example, I believe honesty is an important characteristic and it's a core part of who I am. I am capable of lying and lying well, but my default is honesty. To take a job, say in advertising, where I might be required to lie? I couldn't do it. It would be compromising my integrity. But maybe this sitting at a desk being an editor (also a big part of my identity, but not a core characteristic) is starting to not work for me anymore and I decide to get certified and become a personal trainer. I do not see that as compromising my integrity. Perhaps what interests me or lights me up has changed. That doesn't mean I won't still be an honest person; I'd just be doing something else for a living.

Do you see the distinction?

I think the reason exmos struggle with this sort of thing is because the church deals and communicates in vague generalities, which forces you to interpret the meaning for yourself; most of us will simply project our needs and desires on to whatever we just heard to make it work for us. When ferreting these things out for yourself, you have to drill down a little deeper and think in specifics to get anywhere.

So you can "live the gospel" your entire life but what your definition of "the gospel" is can change radically over time. You would be demonstrating integrity to maintain your commitment to living the gospel, but you would not compromise your integrity if you changed what "the gospel" means to YOU.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 11:53AM by cl2.

guynoirprivateeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand there's some kind of a trade-off
> between 'being/remaining yourself' and being open
> to "Fine Tuning"

....for the traditional conceptualization of marriage/relationship.
And this very concept sabotages everything subsequent.

The traditional marriage/relationship idea is actually just a quid-pro-quo business arrangement.
The idea is to manipulate the other (by rules, cajole, mind-games, dominance, submission, passive-aggressive, I'm the boss, let's see who is stronger, etc) to suit ones own ends.
If you observe the situation dispassionately: at the core each partner is thinking of "me:" "How can I get what I need."
At the root is actually exploitation of the other. It is a contest of wills.

Couple in their 50's:
- Each is at core completely independent, but every morning freely chooses to be with the other. So infidelity is not even a remote concern. No one is entrapped. No one hungers.
- Over 20 years each has changed radically professionally and personally; but because there are no "rules" about "don't change, you have to stay the same for me" (or the converse, "you have to change for me") growth is genuine. It proceeds naturally, poses no difficulty, and is welcomed. Oddly enough, their growth has each independently tracked parallel courses.
- Each delights in the freedom and growth of the other. Of being witness to the development of the other. Change is not feared.
- Each has given up the need to dominance and control over the environment, and each other. The thought of trying to enslave or control the other is anathema. So there is no power contest. Things that need to be done, are done. Things happen smoothly, effortlessly, seemingly of their own accord. Work is done, and then forgotten.

Because of the core structure, adversities that might threaten the traditional business deal (years recurrent separation because of career, frivolous law suit lasting years from someone trying to get rich quick) have only accelerated their growth and bond.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2014 12:51PM by zenjamin.