NOM

I have a question for my NOMER friends out there....

This has to do with a paradigm of LDS (or other orthodox) marriage vs. divorce, and where the line is.

I've read several books regarding this, and they are all so one sided I just can't accept them. This one-sided nature crosses over into allowing abuse IMHO, and its this aspect I question.

I have a well meaning sister (not LDS) who subscribes to a very orthodox faith. She gave me some of these "fix yourself" cards...they look like playing cards in size and have "Resolutions" on them. One of these resolutions is as follows:

I WILL be faithful to my wife, to love and honor her, and be willing to lay down my life for her as Jesus Christ did for us.

Whenever I read this stuff, I hear LDS counselors, LDS leaders, LDS parents, LDS GAs ratting around in my brain. So, let me ask some questions to frame what I wonder (in no particular order):

1. Because I am willing to lay down my life for my wife and be faithful to her, she can live how she wants, even if that means gaining massive weight.
2. Because I am willing to lay down my life for my wife and be faithful to her, she can refuse sex as often as she wants because she is tired or has other priorities that are more important to her.
3. Because I am willing to lay down my life for my wife and be faithful to her, she can spend all the money she wants and I will take the hit, even if it destroys me.

OK...these are extremes,...but in one way or another, I've seen these all happen in real life--some to me but all multiple times to others I know.

There is a line in here somewhere when the marriage really is over and divorce may be the best answer. That line is smeared into virtual non-existence because of LDS or other orthodox type teachings,...and its that line I am interested in.

Any thoughts?

Maybe Jesus isn't the answer. Maybe Jesus isn't even the right guy for these situations.

Unless Jesus had an obese asexual wife who spent all of his 401K??

Sorry Jesus for tossing you in front of the bus!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:28 am Maybe Jesus isn't the answer. Maybe Jesus isn't even the right guy for these situations.

Unless Jesus had an obese asexual wife who spent all of his 401K??

Sorry Jesus for tossing you in front of the bus!

RED...you changed your avatar!!!!

Threw me off!

This is the reason well intended ideals can't be summarised in a single sentence, but an actual contract/law/regulation/etc is several pages or even volumes of books. It's impossible to concisely define something so broad in single phrase.

There are implicit assumptions made in a statement such as
I WILL be faithful to my wife, to love and honor her, and be willing to lay down my life for her as Jesus Christ did for us.
But it lacks explicit definitions to account for the extreme caveats you describe.

This is why the church keeps backing away from hard line definitions in most topics and increases bland rhetoric of just love each other, service, etc.

Regard a line in the sand for divorce, I think it's not a narrow line but a wide blurry line. Of course there are exceptions in extreme cases, but for most folks, there is usually not a point where someone says "you crossed a line, we're done."
Using your examples - how much weight is massive weight, exactly? We're OK if you weigh 299 but 300 and we're done.
How often is too often to refuse sex? She denies 79% of all attempts and it's OK, but 80% and we're done. 50%? 95%?
How much is all the money she wants? $1,000? $100,000? 40% of your paycheck? 90%?

I understand what you are asking, the quote you mention seems to deal in absolutes when so much of life is far from absolutes. IMO, the examples provided are still relative. What's acceptable to one couple might not be for another. The line is not smeared because of orthodox teachings, it is smeared to our respective preferences, tolerances, experiences and desires.

I think the quote provided is intended to be inspirational, not literal. The greater problem as it pertains to us as NOMs/TBMs/ExMos is the tendency to take too much of the LDS culture too literal due to leadership influences the past 100+ years.

What about my comment?

Should we really compare our commitments to a spouse to Jesus laying down his life for us?

Technically I'm willing to step in front of my wife to stop a bullet but I don't think it's necessary to make the comparison to Jesus getting nailed and hung out to dry on a cross by his Roman enemies.

When does religion become dangerous?

In regards to your OP, I think it's ok to leave a marriage/relationship when it no longer becomes mutually useful for either party to stay.

I'll also add another extreme to your examples: too much Jesus in the marriage.

Korihor wrote:I think the quote provided is intended to be inspirational, not literal. The greater problem as it pertains to us as NOMs/TBMs/ExMos is the tendency to take too much of the LDS culture too literal due to leadership influences the past 100+ years.

I think your discounting R4H's intelligence here.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:45 am

Korihor wrote:I think the quote provided is intended to be inspirational, not literal. The greater problem as it pertains to us as NOMs/TBMs/ExMos is the tendency to take too much of the LDS culture too literal due to leadership influences the past 100+ years.

I think your discounting R4H's intelligence here.

1 Ne 16:2

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:41 am What about my comment?

Should we really compare our commitments to a spouse to Jesus laying down his life for us?

Technically I'm willing to step in front of my wife to stop a bullet but I don't think it's necessary to make the comparison to Jesus getting nailed and hung out to dry on a cross by his Roman enemies.

When does religion become dangerous?

In regards to your OP, I think it's ok to leave a marriage/relationship when it no longer becomes mutually useful for either party to stay.

I'll also add another extreme to your examples: too much Jesus in the marriage.

This sounds like a limited hedonistic approach. If it's good for both of us we'll keep it intact otherwise, see ya later.

What about my mother when she needs end of life care. It's not mutually beneficial to let her live in my house and care for her. She's a drain on all resources and has dementia so she's not even pleasant to be around.
The only reason I'd keep her alive is some sense of "debt of obligation" that she is my mother and raised me. Love has an immeasurable value that should be worth more than "mutually beneficial"

What about implied "love each other in sickness and in health, rich or poor, etc." just cuause times get tough do we bail?

Maybe Jesus as an metaphor has good value. He laid down his life for us. Greater love hath no man.... etc.
But Jesus took the easy way out and died. I'd argue you love someone more by sticking in the struggle through hard time and loving them regardless vs just dying.

This quote and idea didn't come from the LDS church. But, the idea persists there regardless.....

And what's been said above seems to be about the "subjective" nature of marriage. If the marriage is for the mutual benefit of both involved, why get married?...why not just live together for that benefit? Of course that is a completely valid option to discuss, and many do that, so I mention it here.

It is interesting to me that such extremes as this Jesus thing often come more from orthodox type faiths than not. And its not just Christian type faiths.

Now a reflection or two:
I've never seen so much obesity in my life, in both men and women, as I have these past 5 years in good old SLC Utah. So speaking to the first thing I mentioned, its a problem: self neglect, yet depending on the partner to take the "hit"....(like Jesus did), is an offensive position to me.

I know several people who are seriously frustrated by the lack of physical affection in their marriage. One man I know has gone 2 years now without. I know a woman who has a husband who doesn't spend time with her...so it goes both ways. In both cases, they are taking the hit "to be like Jesus".

I know a man who came home AGAIN to $30,000 worth of CC debt he wasn't aware of. In his case, marriage worked against him because of the shared assets implicitly part of that union.

That quote I put up above?...of course I know its inspirational; but inside a strong orthodox faith tradition, especially one that is patriarchal...how "inspirational" is it really?

These types of ideas really are wide spread in Utah. They influence therapists, doctors, bishops and stake presidents, and even lawyers--and thats a whole new topic. And in the mix there, I think there is a line between plain old life and abuse. Expecting your partner to take the hit...well, somewhere in there you start moving toward that line.

Let me share my own opinion now. I think the idea of taking the hit like Jesus is total BS...plain and simple. I think there are parts of marriage that require effort on both parties, and if one member (or both) decides to give up and just rest on the "doctrine"...well, they have crossed the line.

There is a difference between really trying and succeeding. The first we have control over, and that is what matters to me.

Some examples:

Nomers...if your spouse decided to tank it up, and ballooned to over 350/400 lbs, would you be thrilled to love him/her like Jesus?...this line is subjective of course. Unfortunately religious statements/dogma like I've shown DOES mess with it. You risk becoming shame based, or at least shamed driven. You consider: Well, I will stay in this marriage, even though my partner is hurting me, because Jesus would stay in. And thus you turn the other cheek, while you have an unwilling partner who has let themselves go.

There are situations where there is no choice,...like what Korihor said above. Sometimes partners don't have a choice,...and in this case, I think the inspiritational nature of the quote is useful.

But, where is the line?.....subjective...yes,...but are there any general rules that apply?

Korihor wrote:What about my mother when she needs end of life care. It's not mutually beneficial to let her live in my house and care for her. She's a drain on all resources and has dementia so she's not even pleasant to be around.
The only reason I'd keep her alive is some sense of "debt of obligation" that she is my mother and raised me. Love has an immeasurable value that should be worth more than "mutually beneficial"

Wow, how can you truly mean this? You're saying that you wouldn't take care of your own mother because there's no benefit in doing so?

Rob4Hope wrote:I've never seen so much obesity in my life, in both men and women, as I have these past 5 years in good old SLC Utah. So speaking to the first thing I mentioned, its a problem: self neglect, yet depending on the partner to take the "hit"....(like Jesus did), is an offensive position to me.

This wreaks of insensitivity a little too. What if people have different genetics that over time begin to manifest 15 or 20 years down the road of marriage? Are you suggesting the skinny spouse toss out the marriage because the other spouse has gained weight? Or lost their sex drive?

Would your opinions be different if you were the one with the problem?

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:27 pm Would your opinions be different if you were the one with the problem?

That's the big crutch with 'mutually beneficial'. You've got prove your worth via another means if you fall short in one arena.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 10:41 am What about my comment?

Should we really compare our commitments to a spouse to Jesus laying down his life for us?

Then what can we compare our spousal commitments against? What's an appropriate unit of measure?

It appears you think I am being insensitive based on the hypothetical example of my mother. Inspirational quotes are good, but how is it quantified?

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:57 pm Nomers...if your spouse decided to tank it up, and ballooned to over 350/400 lbs, would you be thrilled to love him/her like Jesus?...this line is subjective of course. Unfortunately religious statements/dogma like I've shown DOES mess with it. You risk becoming shame based, or at least shamed driven. You consider: Well, I will stay in this marriage, even though my partner is hurting me, because Jesus would stay in. And thus you turn the other cheek, while you have an unwilling partner who has let themselves go.

I think the original premise wondering about the potential effect that comparing one's willingness die for their spouse with Jesus Christ can have on one's willingness to stay in a toxic marriage is an interesting question. I see it as a potentially a question of degrees. By definition, marriage is a public and legal commitment to a relationship. An underlying premise is that stable, committed families create a stable society, so we, as a society, have instituted marriage as a policy incentive to create that. There are lost of historical and religious aspects to who and how they can get married that isn't really the point of this thread, but my basic point is that by entering into a marriage, we are committing to another person.

Some marriages don't work and ultimately become unhealthy or even abusive. I have no idea about statistics of whether adherents to orthodox religions stick in abusive marriages longer than others. Anecdotally, the original quote resonates with LDS experience, and it wouldn't surprise me if orthodox religions had a higher percentage of people in unhealthy and abusive marriages stay married.

Physical intimacy and financial cooperation are definitely important aspect of a healthy marriage, so those make more sense to me as aspects that could contribute to a large degree discontent. But even in those instances, communication and a mutual desire to accommodate each other's needs can work through a lot. Alternatively, an unwillingness to do that would be more the harbinger of a doomed marriage than the underlying complaint.

What I don't understand is your example with respect to weight. In particular, I'd love to hear why you think that an overweight spouse "is hurting" the other spouse. What? Are people out there intentionally gaining weight because they want to hurt their spouse? I could understand concern for a spouse's health if they're overweight and a desire for the spouse to be healthier, but your concern seems entirely separated from concern for the spouse and only about whether the [supposedly] fit spouse finds the other one attractive. That's perspective seems self-centered and objectifying to me. If being skinny is what one's marriage commitment hangs on, maybe the overweight spouse should be the one considering divorce.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:27 pm [

Rob4Hope wrote:I've never seen so much obesity in my life, in both men and women, as I have these past 5 years in good old SLC Utah. So speaking to the first thing I mentioned, its a problem: self neglect, yet depending on the partner to take the "hit"....(like Jesus did), is an offensive position to me.

This wreaks of insensitivity a little too. What if people have different genetics that over time begin to manifest 15 or 20 years down the road of marriage? Are you suggesting the skinny spouse toss out the marriage because the other spouse has gained weight? Or lost their sex drive?

Would your opinions be different if you were the one with the problem?

The goal here is not to be insensitive, but to speak an observation. The argument I've heard multiple times is: "Oh, my body has a glandular problem"...or "my body just retains weight."

Fair enough...many do. But, then what is the justification for the greasy fatning foot I often see those people consuming?

Hence the point of the thread. Where is the line?

I've seen a LOT of people who are not very healthy,...with their diet coke in their hand and their chocolate in the other. Diet coke is healthy right?...and chocolate is good for you right?...

My point is there is a line where a real problem exists, and there is a point where you have to take responsibility for the condition you are in.

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:43 pm what is the justification for the greasy fatning foot I often see those people consuming?

Hence the point of the thread. Where is the line?

I've seen a LOT of people who are not very healthy,...with their diet coke in their hand and their chocolate in the other. Diet coke is healthy right?...and chocolate is good for you right?...

My point is there is a line where a real problem exists, and there is a point where you have to take responsibility for the condition you are in.

I thought the point of your thread was questioning whether orthodox religious belief can make us stay in a marriage out of shame and fear longer than we otherwise would.

But, I guess the point is for you to let us know that you think "those [fat] people" should "take responsibility for [their] condition" and we're just searching for the line (weight?) where you'd feel validated for getting a divorce?

It feels like you are being given a version of Jesus that is being used like a stick to threaten you. It's the business end of Old Testament Jehovah who seemed unusually angry for an omnibenevolent deity. Sticking with an abusive situation simply because Jesus gave His life for the church is not the 'quid pro quo' that I would hope for. Christians have been arguing over the nature of God for even longer than Mormons have been arguing over the nature of their version of God. I am inclined to start looking for the version of Jesus that has some compassion for someone who can see the struggles of an individual in a difficult marriage.

I suppose I must acknowledge the established "correct" answer which would include couples counseling. But my background training does not include any kind of therapy. I read the original post and immediately started thinking of tactical and strategic ideas that might rather than comparing an obligation with a spouse to Jesus' obligation with the Christian church.

Shadow wrote:I thought the point of your thread was questioning whether orthodox religious belief can make us stay in a marriage out of shame and fear longer than we otherwise would.

But, I guess the point is for you to let us know that you think "those [fat] people" should "take responsibility for [their] condition" and we're just searching for the line (weight?) where you'd feel validated for getting a divorce?

I think the OP has a valid point but perhaps the examples are too extreme. Insensitivities aside, it's an interesting conversation. Or maybe it's just click bait like ALL of Korihor's posts?

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:45 pm Or maybe it's just click bait like ALL of Korihor's posts?

I didn't know it was a requirement to be a class clown in order to post something on here.

shadow wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:23 pm

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:57 pm Nomers...if your spouse decided to tank it up, and ballooned to over 350/400 lbs, would you be thrilled to love him/her like Jesus?...this line is subjective of course. Unfortunately religious statements/dogma like I've shown DOES mess with it. You risk becoming shame based, or at least shamed driven. You consider: Well, I will stay in this marriage, even though my partner is hurting me, because Jesus would stay in. And thus you turn the other cheek, while you have an unwilling partner who has let themselves go.

I think the original premise wondering about the potential effect that comparing one's willingness die for their spouse with Jesus Christ can have on one's willingness to stay in a toxic marriage is an interesting question. I see it as a potentially a question of degrees. By definition, marriage is a public and legal commitment to a relationship. An underlying premise is that stable, committed families create a stable society, so we, as a society, have instituted marriage as a policy incentive to create that. There are lost of historical and religious aspects to who and how they can get married that isn't really the point of this thread, but my basic point is that by entering into a marriage, we are committing to another person.

Some marriages don't work and ultimately become unhealthy or even abusive. I have no idea about statistics of whether adherents to orthodox religions stick in abusive marriages longer than others. Anecdotally, the original quote resonates with LDS experience, and it wouldn't surprise me if orthodox religions had a higher percentage of people in unhealthy and abusive marriages stay married.

Physical intimacy and financial cooperation are definitely important aspect of a healthy marriage, so those make more sense to me as aspects that could contribute to a large degree discontent. But even in those instances, communication and a mutual desire to accommodate each other's needs can work through a lot. Alternatively, an unwillingness to do that would be more the harbinger of a doomed marriage than the underlying complaint.

What I don't understand is your example with respect to weight. In particular, I'd love to hear why you think that an overweight spouse "is hurting" the other spouse. What? Are people out there intentionally gaining weight because they want to hurt their spouse? I could understand concern for a spouse's health if they're overweight and a desire for the spouse to be healthier, but your concern seems entirely separated from concern for the spouse and only about whether the [supposedly] fit spouse finds the other one attractive. That's perspective seems self-centered and objectifying to me. If being skinny is what one's marriage commitment hangs on, maybe the overweight spouse should be the one considering divorce.

I'm quoting shadow, because with one exception, I agree with this post. Marriage doesn't become abusive. The abuser is abusive before the marriage and brings it into the marriage. This is an important distinction. So many people think that marital counseling is the solution for abuse. It isn't. There are a few reasons why, but I'll concentrate on this one. As I stated, abusers bring it into the marriage. The victim brings their own parcel of problems into the marriage. The two parties have to fix themselves to a certain degree first before marital counseling will work.

I'm going to out myself a little, here. First of all, I'm obese. Very much, so. I don't enjoy it. Part of it is I eat as a way to cope. I'm going to out myself another way. I had never heard the term "self-abuse" before becoming a NOM. I thought self-abuse was mistreating and disrespecting yourself and not eating right and exercising would definitely not fall under that category. So, when I clicked on the first thread I ever saw with the term "self abuse" in the title, it was the end of some innocence for me. That back story is to tell you that I would rather treat myself poorly when I'm frustrated than others and yes, I know it's not healthy. Oh well. Another part is I have a job that keeps me chained to my desk. I may want to move around more, but gotta pay the bills. Oh well.

Next, I don't know if I am, but I believe I have strong leanings toward asexuality. Having said that, in my marriage, I put out every other day and, God, this is no one's business. Anyway, my ex complained it wasn't enough for him. So, some of the other posters have a point about where exactly the line is drawn. My ex complained I spent all his money, but he absconded with mine, was deadbeat for over a year and I can prove it. Nevertheless, our divorce case was extremely unusual, because we walked away from our respective tables very solvent. So, of my ex were reading this thread, he'd jump on and sing, very loudly. In fact, I have a feeling this is behind a lot of the pushback I received from the men in my ward. So...Oh, well.

Back to the asexuality thing. First of all, my ex and I could both claim our marriage left us sexually traumatized. Yet, he's in a new relationship and I am not. I've been offered to be set up and one man did show interest, but I was raising my sons and, no. I didn't make myself a martyr. We are all now free and I can tell you. I'm uninterested. Not that I'm ruling out relationships entirely, but I have a whole lot of other things I'd rather do first. I think that answers a lot of questions.

I could say more on that, but it would only vary the theme. Instead, I'm going to answer the question as gently as I can from the demographic's in question point of view.

First of all, I agree with shadow. She doesn't want to be overweight. There is a lot behind this and many could write for a long time, but I can tell you obese people don't want to be. Not only does it look bad, but it feels bad. It's debilitating. It's frustrating.

Second of all, I was raised with two ideas. The standard of purity that gets lots of time on here, but also to not have sex with someone who disrespected me. In the young women context, this was always a horny young priesthood holder. It was never broached that the disrespecting party could be ones husband, but it can. Disrespect from my ex was a regular part of my day. The yelling, the screaming, the insults, the creepy behavior that I'm now remember that elevated the abuse into a whole new arena. Know what would happen when the evening came? Sex. No apology. No working out of hurt feelings. Just sex, because I was his wife and that's what I do.

In your scenario of the many frustrated partners, I'm wondering if it's more than asexuality. If one party believes that sex is a right and the other believes they shouldn't be having sex with someone who disrespects them, then I see a lot of potential for unhealthy sexual tension there. I don't have the answers to that. You'll notice, I'm divorced.

I'll tell you I didn't want to spend as much money as I did, but a lot of the money I spent was my ex was so blinking angry all the time that I was searching for ways to put a smile on his face and those ways did end up costing money. In addition to merchants don't check with people to see if raising prices is okay with them. Things cost what they do.

Bottom lining the scorned object's point of view from my perspective, I'm going to say this as gently as I can. She probably senses that you view her in these very unflattering ways. As I've illustrated, she's doing her best and she can't seem to get it right.

I'm going to post this and add a little bit in my next post.

Further..

I am definitely at my heaviest, now. I was never chunky or "big boned" or pleasingly plump, but there were thinner girls and I was told by some people I needed to lose weight before they would be my friend. So, I did. You know what? Some followed through and some didn't. From my perspective, I lost respect for everyone in that group. I was still the same person. I had the same interests. I told the same stories and jokes. Yet, to some, I was finally good enough because I'd lost twenty pounds. That chilled it for me. Then, there were the ones that still weren't my friends, I realized it was just an excuse and I'd never be good enough for them.

So, that's the weight loss take. I don't know how else to say it. It just won't go well.

So, she's picking up you are viewing her in this unflattering and uncharitable way. I'm sure she's trying her best and is aware she is a disappointment to you. I'm sure she's not too happy. So, my suggestion is getting into counseling. Work out something that works for you and that may mean ending the marriage so both of you have a better shot at happiness.

Now, I don't mean to silence this thread. When I was contemplating divorce, I considered the possibility of new relationships. I don't mean to offend, but the ideas expressed on this thread are common not just in the church, but in society. I have accepted the fact that things just won't go well for me in the dating market and choose to concentrate my energies elsewhere. Yes, that decision hurt for a bit, but it's old news. Now, you understand what is behind my saying I have no intention of marrying again.

So, guys. I hope you're good, because I am.

shadow wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 3:16 pm

Rob4Hope wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:43 pm what is the justification for the greasy fatning foot I often see those people consuming?

Hence the point of the thread. Where is the line?

I've seen a LOT of people who are not very healthy,...with their diet coke in their hand and their chocolate in the other. Diet coke is healthy right?...and chocolate is good for you right?...

My point is there is a line where a real problem exists, and there is a point where you have to take responsibility for the condition you are in.

I thought the point of your thread was questioning whether orthodox religious belief can make us stay in a marriage out of shame and fear longer than we otherwise would.

But, I guess the point is for you to let us know that you think "those [fat] people" should "take responsibility for [their] condition" and we're just searching for the line (weight?) where you'd feel validated for getting a divorce?

Not at all. I am divorced,...yes. But not because of weight.

I have a question however. Why do people wear makeup? Most of the women I know wear makeup. There is a MASSIVE industry around this. Why do people get their hair cut and styled? Why do people shop for clothing, trying things on and ask: "How does this look on me?"

To say that looks don't matter is completely out of touch with reality. And...is weight part of that? From the discussion above, I wonder. Perhaps weight doesn't matter--but I don't think that is reality either.

I chose the topic of weight because it is one that I see a lot of justification around. And the religious card of "love me like Jesus does" is a BIG one on this -- a type of justification for poor choices and bad behavior.

Let me change it up a little--lets talk about something other than weight a moment.

Suppose you are with someone who stops showering, or brushing their teeth, and they begin to smell. or to kiss them you have to plug your nose and gargle after. What if your partner didn't wash their hair and got lice and just stopped. Well,...can you confront your partner and discuss this? If you could and their response was: "Its just my way...and you should love me anyway [like Jesus does]"...well, how would that sit?

Unless there is something emotionally wrong or some other compelling problem, people have a choice over whether they bath or brush their teeth.

People also have a choice over what they eat.

I don't want to offend anyone...but i'm not talking about a few extra pounds here. In a statement above, I believe I used the word obesity.

Now,...back to weight. Suppose obesity doesn't matter. You should love someone despite that.

Have you ever taken someone to the hospital because they had a stroke or heart attack? I have. When someone lets themselves go, it hurts. It hurts a family, it hurts society, it costs and raises bills; it hurts.

Where is the line where you have to self preserve because loving like Jesus is no longer possible lest you destroy yourself?