...for an LDS gal (or otherwise) to pressure a semi-active member boyfriend into marriage, by indicating that she will no longer continue to date unless he is fully temple-worthy and there's an engagement ring?

I know someone who did this and the boyfriend complied. I have to say to me, it seems manipulative. Am trying to recall what it was like to date and whether or not in or out of church I would ever have tried such a strategy. I think not likely, as that would feel like if the other party succumbed to the pressure, it might not last or be a sincere love.

That shouldn't surprise you
The whole religion is manipulative

You're right, this is manipulative and definitely NOT OK.

I think it's OK for a person to say I'm looking for marriage so if you're not we shouldn't date any more.

Not OK to pressure someone by extending a "reward" if they succumb to your wishes.

Converting to a religion or becoming more active in one than you were due to pressure from anyone, for any reason, is not a good idea for either party.

I agree with you the relationship may not last as it's built on coercion, one party in effect forcing the other to bow to their will rather than it being an equal and honest partnership.

I would not want to get a ring and a promise based on manipulation such as this.

Besides, I believe a person should be content to love another the way they are without undertaking a reno on their character, beliefs, goals and the very essence of their being. If they need such massive remodelling in one partner's opinion it's a big clue they're not suited for each other. Or else that the one wielding the hammer is asking for too much and/or asking the wrong party the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

I totally agree with Nightingale on this.

I agree too. I forgot to mention the possibility of saying 'I want marriage' (something I've never done ;-). There's nothing wrong even with saying 'I want marriage (or whatever) with someone who shares my views'.

I'm sure it makes things much easier, because ity is indeed the case in our couple. We share nearly all our opinions - and certainly all the important ones. I suspect this is partly because we've been together since our early 20s and so we have grown up together. I can't imagine being in any other sort of relationship.

Anyway, as usual, Nightingale said it better than me :-), but what's wrong is to make love conditional, because then it's not really love.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, as usual, Nightingale said it better than
> me :-),

Thank you, kind sir, but not so much. :)

For example:

Soft Machine wrote:

> but what's wrong is to make love
> conditional, because then it's not really love.

Most excellently expressed. As usual.

Yeah, it just didn't sit right with me.Just the thought of doing this to someone strikes me as wrong, unhealthy, etc.

Am a bit surprised that the relationship in question has lasted but maybe should not be if the party who was coerced is the kind of person who is somewhat easily controlled and or bullied.

You could say that some now believe in LDS version of hell.

    

Manipulative? I would also add

scheming
calculating
cunning
crafty
wily
shrewd
devious
designing
conniving
and very very Mormon

I don't think it's manipulative. I think it's being honest. What's wrong with letting someone know where you stand on marriage before you take that step.

Manipulation would more like not saying anything, getting married civilly, then tell them they need to get temple worthy and active in church or the deal is off.

At least by being up front and honest, the other person has a chance to think about it and make an informed choice.

I sometimes feel like people on this BB are looking to find any fault they can with the church, even if they have to "manipulate" what they see into a fault. That's not OK.

Points of view and definitions I guess. I see it as she manipulated the situation. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I wouldn't disagree but would reframe--being me and all who runs through words like they are fields of wildflowers.


She laid her cards on the table as a strategy to get what she wants. Isn't that crafty, wily, and cunning? Not bad attributes to have if used wisely, and, honestly. Which I'd say she did. She was open.

When she laid her cards on the table she played her ace of hearts. Shrewd move. Whether her beau makes a wise decision depends on the body part that is doing his thinking. Head? Heart? Other? So that is where he needs to volley in kind.

I put very very Mormon at the end of my list because that is where I learned the art of manipulation , yea, even passive aggressiveness. I didn't adopt it as a life style but I know the ins and outs when in a tough situation---that I would like to manipulate.

I pretty much agree with what you say, but, I don't see that manipulation is necessarily dishonest. More like chess. It's all there but you better pay attention.

Is this still going on? I remember this as very common behavior in the 70s. In her defense, this is what she wants and she asked for it accordingly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/13/2021 03:13PM by moehoward.

How many of us were manipulated into going on a mission and would not have gone without the threats of a s***storm and/or the promise of rewards?

How many of us were manipulated into staying in LDS Inc basically the exact same way? Like TDR1 said, LDS Inc, and I would add cults in general, function and succeed by being deeply and deceptively manipulative.

Was Seven Brides for Seven Brothers okay?

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Was Seven Brides for Seven Brothers okay?

Barely. :)

I agree with Roy G Biv

I don't think its wrong to be upfront with a person you hope to share your life with and tell them what is important to you and that if it's not important to the other person that the marriage won't work. I think it's good to be honest. If the other person doesn't want to comply, they can walk away before they enter a contract.

Changing or adopting faiths is often a requirement for marriage. My mother converted to Catholicism to marry my dad. My dad later converted to Judaism to marry wife #2. Happens all the time. Is it manipulative?

I think the Mormon church is manipulative and uses their temple as a means of control and to ensure a flow of cash. The boyfriend should have run but he chose not to. His decision.

I think it's wrong, and setting oneself up for failure, to pressure anyone into any type of relationship.

in 4 links to pics ~


then RfM can decide ~

He told me many times he would convert, but not believe. He felt that a couple should be on the same page where religion is concerned for the kids' sake. I didn't see a future there. I couldn't believe he could do what he said he would, that it was a recipe for disaster. Even several of the mormon guys we worked with thought I was nuts to not marry him. And eventually I thought so, too. Mormon guys just weren't in to me. Any nonmormon I wanted to date, I could without any work at all on my partner and they treated me EXCELLENT.

So years later after my gay/straight marriage, he got divorced and we've been in a relationship since. I converted to leaving the LDS church long before he showed up again. Well, I made contact with him through my old boss who was good friends with my boyfriend.

Has it been perfect? No. But it is a lot more perfect than my gay straight marriage. At the very least, he is attracted to me.

Even though I'm at "peace" with my ex, there are still so many problems from the fallout of this ridiculous marriage and our kids have paid a price. It infuriates me some days. Today is one of those days. For one, my ex needs to GROW UP and act a father.

aside he told me "I don't believe in any of this crap." Kind of made my day.

I sure would not want to marry a "my way or the highway person"

I began to read this thread and it was eye opening.

OMG that was me a hundred years ago give or take.

Was I the horrible person described in the early comments?

I was 20 years old and deep-in delusional.

I told him what I wanted. He said he would marry me in the temple.

He did.

I finally figured out that he never believed any of it. He did what he wanted--quietly. I don't think he cheated.

I felt lied to. Maybe I was manipulative.

Engagement is romaniticized. Really it's a negotiation.

Is there a shotgun involved ?

As long as a couple has had sufficient time to get to know each other really well, I have no problem with it. Most of the really prime potential mates will be off the market by a certain age (for nevermos I would say mid- to late 20s.) Plus young women are under a time deadline in terms of starting a family. So I don't think that asking your partner to make the call after a suitable amount of dating time is at all unreasonable.

Some people will waste as much time as you will give them.

Also, you *want* to discuss important topics such as religion, money, etc. in the dating process. If a temple worthiness/marriage is important to a young person, then it should definitely be a part of the conversation. Again, I don't see putting a deadline on this as unreasonable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2021 06:34AM by summer.

Hormones and blue balls may have a lot more to do with it--he might agree to anything if sex is his "reward."

And even then might be disappointed.

P.S. The Beyonce video for 'Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)' would be quite different in the Mo' version. :-)

Well, if that is the way she feels she shouldn't have been dating him in the first place. Hormonal Converts often resent it down the line. Not a good way to start out a marriage.

Exactly. When the rush of infatuation wears off, the tendency is to feel a bit used and stupid.

She should have been explicit from the first meeting rather than waiting until all the strong feelings had developed and then using them as leverage to get what she wanted.

It is manipulative, which is not okay at all. Unfortunately, I see it happening all the time in the Mormon world.

how I'm feeling right now, I was DEFINITELY MANIPULATED into the marriage I ended up in. By leaders and by my "HUSBAND." Things I had no clue about until the past few years. We've been "married" 37 years.

It's not ok but it's what happened when you're raised in a cult and brainwashed. :-( I'm ashamed, but I thought I had to make guys more "mormonized" before I could continue to date them. Then married the first one that was a returned missionary because it's all I was taught really mattered.

kerri Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm ashamed, but I thought I had to make guys more
> "mormonized" before I could continue to date them.

It's understandable because that's what leaders and parents emphasized as being the most important thing. What are you going to do if you're taught to proselytize to everyone who's still breathing, no matter the circumstances or relationships. And re looking for a mate - what to do if there's no available BIC that you're attracted to? You have to convert someone or else face the difficulties marrying out can cause, including disapproval of bishops and parents.

Re shame: I hope you can shed it - it's such a downer and none of any of the BIC experience is the BIC's fault. Rather, it's imposed by Mormon parents and leaders. Too, many of them, of course, were also caught up in the traps and vice grip of Mormonism. One eternal round in Mormonism for sure.


> Then married the first one that was a returned
> missionary because it's all I was taught really
> mattered.

Exactly.

Plus so many Mormon parents and ward members expect it that it's difficult for BICs to withstand the pressure. You're on the treadmill from birth until you marry young with no time to think, imho, until after your third baby is born. Then you're kind of in a pickle.

A big Mormon pickle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2021 05:35PM by Nightingale.

Tell him to RUN! There will be more manipulation to come.