I Have Seen Your Sacrifices in Obedience

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

I’m not! And I don’t believe for one second that Christ wants me to be his slave. 
I understand Paul’s somewhat ironic use of the metaphor, but it is distasteful to me.  I hate slavery.

Too many people on this benighted planet don't hate it, unfortunately. And I was using the word in the same sense Paul used it. In case you missed it.

Edited November 16, 2025 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Too many people on this benighted planet don't hate it, unfortunately. And I was using the word in the same sense Paul used it. In case you missed it.

Paul seems to have been perfectly fine with slavery of all kinds. Using a metaphor about God being a slave owner seems to reinforce that.

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And I was using the word in the same sense Paul used it.

Which was what?  A guy who saw slavery as normal?

Edited November 16, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

The Greek word that Paul uses in Romans 1:1 (δοῦλος) to say he is a slave "of Jesus Christ" is also translated as servant, and that Greek word could definitely have both meanings.  Being a "servant" or "serving", being "subject to" can be either willing or unwilling, and the Thayer's Lexicon definition gives "one who gives himself up wholly to another's will" as one of the possible meanings. 

I don't think we should pick on the apostle Paul for using the word to mean "slaves" as he might accept that practice in his day, because Jesus used the same word often and even implied that he himself was such (i.e. Matthew 8:9, 10:24, 10:25, 20:27, 24:45-46, 48, 50, Mark 10:43 for a few examples).

Edited November 16, 2025 by InCognitus

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Which was what?  A guy who saw slavery as normal?

Paul lived in a time when slavery was a normal part of civilization. Of course he saw it as normal. He even offered advice to slaves to be obedient to their masters. 

No, I am Christ's slave in that:

I’ll go where you want me to go, dear Lord,
Over mountain or plain or sea;
I’ll say what you want me to say, dear Lord;
I’ll be what you want me to be.

I am where I am today because He called me to go there.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

don't think we should pick on the apostle Paul for using the word to mean "slaves" as he might accept that practice in his day, because Jesus used the same word often and even implied that he himself was such (i.e. Matthew 8:9, 10:24, 10:25, 20:27, 24:45-46, 48, 50, Mark 10:43 for a few examples).

I wasn’t picking on him.  I just think given the modern context it is highly problematic to use slavery as a metaphor for relationship between God and man.  There was a very different context/world view back then that we likely can’t even get our heads around to understand all the layers of meaning that were involved for them.  It is not on Paul if we start to imply some forms of slavery are good, it’s on us.  God has continued to give us greater light and knowledge.  I see it as refusing the gift if we won’t use it for things like this.

I think it’s a bad idea to try and liken scriptures to ourselves that come way too culturally baggaged and even involve criminal behaviour.  In this case it is too easy to infer that God is okay participating in criminal behaviour.  There are plenty of other scriptures we can use that won’t take us so far down a dangerous path.  I feel the same way about scriptures that promote child abuse, such as using a rod to discipline children or being okay with stoning offspring for disrespecting parents.  It’s okay imo to simply say whatever they were trying to say back then, we aren’t able to translate it in a moral to our time way, whether because of our lack of understanding or because God has taught us better paths in some ways.

Edited November 17, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Paul seems to have been perfectly fine with slavery of all kinds. Using a metaphor about God being a slave owner seems to reinforce that.

Yes, yes, so what? God seemed to have been perfectly fine with it, too. Why did He permit it among the Israelites? Why didn't the mortal Jesus condemn it, and afterwards when His apostles were running the store, why didn't He give His apostles a revelation supporting abolition of slavery as a Christian doctrine? When God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet, did He give His prophet a revelation calling for the abolition of slavery? No he did not.

Are you going to claim I am an advocate for slavery because I acknowledge that God isn't all that quick to condemn it? 

I claimed to be Christ's slave. Why can't you just accept that without getting up in arms about it? 

"I’ll go where you want me to go, dear Lord,
Over mountain or plain or sea;
I’ll say what you want me to say, dear Lord;
I’ll be what you want me to be."

Ever sing that one before? Or is this idea new to you?

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just think given the modern context it is highly problematic to use slavery as a metaphor for relationship between God and man.  There was a very different context/world view back then that we likely can’t even get our heads around to understand all the layers of meaning that were involved for them.

I agree.  I have never liked the Bible translations (like the NLT and NET) that render Romans 1:1 as "a slave of Christ Jesus".

I find this portion of the preface of the ESV translation to be applicable to this discussion:

Quote

 

[Y]ou may be troubled when you see words like "slave," "servant," and "bondservant." You will likely wonder if the Bible approves of the sort of slavery that existed in the United States and other nations in past times and that still exists in some nations today. The Bible condemns such slavery many times, and it often explains how people in these situations should be treated.

As the ESV notes will tell you, the Old Testament uses the Hebrew word ebed to describe all sorts of servants. A servant could be someone who agreed to work for someone else for pay, or to repay a debt. In some cases, he might have agreed to work for someone for the rest of his life. A servant could also be someone captured in war and made to serve someone else, or someone sold into slavery. Readers have to pay attention to each situation. In the Old Testament the ESV uses the word "slave" when people were owned by someone else and had little chance of freedom. Otherwise it normally uses the word "servant."

The New Testament uses the Greek word doulos (or sundoulos) to describe people in the same types of situations. The ESV translates the word as "slave" when someone had little hope of becoming free. It translates the word as "bondservant" when someone could gain freedom by paying a set price or by serving for a set length of time. It translates the word "servant" when a person simply worked for someone else. As with "man" and "brothers and sisters," the ESV includes notes to help you know which kind of situation you are reading about.

 

I think this is a thoughtful consideration of the translation because of our modern views on slavery. 

[Senator]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, yes, so what? God seemed to have been perfectly fine with it, too. Why did He permit it among the Israelites? Why didn't the mortal Jesus condemn it, and afterwards when His apostles were running the store, why didn't He give His apostles a revelation supporting abolition of slavery as a Christian doctrine? When God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet, did He give His prophet a revelation calling for the abolition of slavery? No he did not.

 

You keep that up you’ll have me convinced the narrative is a load of crock!😉

[Pyreaux]

Actually, Roman and Biblical slavery was some straightforward honesty, calling a spade a spade, part of a known social contract Now the lower working classes are offered a far more sophisticated, if permanent, reward of chasing debt while simultaneously being told they are "free."

Apostle Paul's idea of social justice was to merely tell the enslaved to, "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart" (Ephesians 6:5). If only Paul had anticipated the ingenuity of modern day. Paul's great failure was a failure of imagination. He simply couldn't envision a society that abolished the word "slavery" only to invent a dozen subtler, more pervasive forms of economic servitude, exploitation, and permanent class stratification that required no whip, only an omnipresent financial ledger and an empty bank account.

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Paul lived in a time when slavery was a normal part of civilization. Of course he saw it as normal. He even offered advice to slaves to be obedient to their masters. 

That advice was given to people who expected Jesus to return any day now. It was next to advice to not marry, not have children, not change your job, and basically just don’t alter your life because it wouldn’t matter soon.

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, I am Christ's slave in that:

I’ll go where you want me to go, dear Lord,
Over mountain or plain or sea;
I’ll say what you want me to say, dear Lord;
I’ll be what you want me to be.

I am where I am today because He called me to go there.

And because he will discipline you harshly if you don’t. In a very loving way of course.

Using the master/slave relationship as a metaphor for the gospel doesn’t do God or ourselves any favors.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Actually, Roman and Biblical slavery was some straightforward honesty, calling a spade a spade, part of a known social contract Now the lower working classes are offered a far more sophisticated, if permanent, reward of chasing debt while simultaneously being told they are "free."

Don’t disagree with this.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Actually, Roman and Biblical slavery was some straightforward honesty, calling a spade a spade, part of a known social contract Now the lower working classes are offered a far more sophisticated, if permanent, reward of chasing debt while simultaneously being told they are "free."

Apostle Paul's idea of social justice was to merely tell the enslaved to, "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart" (Ephesians 6:5). If only Paul had anticipated the ingenuity of modern day. Paul's great failure was a failure of imagination. He simply couldn't envision a society that abolished the word "slavery" only to invent a dozen subtler, more pervasive forms of economic servitude, exploitation, and permanent class stratification that required no whip, only an omnipresent financial ledger and an empty bank account.

If people actually listened to what is taught about our responsibility towards the poor and the needy in the NT, life would be so much better for everyone (not perfect as there will still be selfishness and evil, but removing desperation would go a long way).

Edited November 17, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I wasn’t picking on him.  I just think given the modern context it is highly problematic to use slavery as a metaphor for relationship between God and man. 

I think it’s a bad idea to try and liken scriptures to ourselves that come way too culturally baggaged and even involve criminal behaviour.  In this case it is too easy to infer that God is okay participating in criminal behaviour.  There are plenty of other scriptures we can use that won’t take us so far down a dangerous path.  I feel the same way about scriptures that promote child abuse, such as using a rod to discipline children or being okay with stoning offspring for disrespecting parents.  It’s okay imo to simply say whatever they were trying to say back then, we aren’t able to translate it in a moral to our time, whether because of our lack of understanding or because God has taught us better paths in some ways.

I agree.

Though doesn't incognitus provide valid ways to translate it to our time?  As in Paul meant giving our will to God, which is also taught in Mosiah 3:19.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Edited November 17, 2025 by bluebell

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

You keep that up you’ll have me convinced the narrative is a load of crock!😉

It’s always interesting to observe how unbelievers will put the worst possible spin on any scriptural concept, principle or narrative in order to justify their unbelief. God forbid that it should ever be considered for a moment that there might be a positive and spiritually edifying way to understand what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he spoke of being slaves to Christ. Why give Paul the benefit of the doubt long enough to to conduct some research to determine if being a slave to Christ might have some positive connotations when hastily jumping to the worst possible conclusions will serve to validate the predetermined conclusions of the unbelievers that Paul, a man highly favored of God, was morally deficient, knuckle-dragging ignoramus?

After reading a few of the latest posts on this thread, I immediately went to Goggle and AI provided the following perspectives on what it actually means to be a slave to Christ. And heaven forbid, there’s actually a positive way to understand what Paul meant when he spoke of being slaves to Christ as being the only way to be truly and fully liberated from sin and the grim servitude of spiritual death.

To be a "slave of Christ" means to completely belong to Jesus, surrendering one's will and life to Him because He has redeemed them from sin. This is not a call to grim servitude, but a voluntary, loving submission to a "good Master" who is faithful and provides for His followers. It involves living with singular devotion, total dependence on Christ, and being personally accountable to Him. 

 

Characteristics of being a slave of Christ

• Complete submission: 

  It means one's life is not ruled by their own will, but by the will of Christ, whom they follow and obey. 

   

• Singular devotion: 

  A slave of Christ is completely devoted to Him, as no one can serve two masters. 

   

• Total dependence: 

  This includes depending entirely on Christ for provision, not on oneself. 

   

• Personal accountability: 

  Christians are accountable to Christ for their actions and will give an account to Him. 

   

• Freedom from sin: 

  The term also signifies a release from the slavery of sin and death, resulting in freedom to serve God. 

   

• Motivated by love: 

  The servitude is motivated by love, not fear, and is a willing surrender to follow His commands. 

   

• Exclusive ownership: 

  Christians are not their own, but belong to Christ, who paid the price to redeem them from slavery to sin. 

   

Key implications

• A reversal of the master-slave relationship: 

  While modern interpretations of slavery are negative, this term is used to emphasize the unique relationship with Christ, who is a loving and benevolent master. 

   

• A higher calling: 

  It is not a lesser status but a higher privilege, as Paul considered it the highest honor to be a slave of Christ. 

   

• A life of purpose: 

  It means surrendering one's will to God's glory, resulting in a life of righteousness and eternal life.

 

Edited November 17, 2025 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Actually, Roman and Biblical slavery was some straightforward honesty, calling a spade a spade, part of a known social contract Now the lower working classes are offered a far more sophisticated, if permanent, reward of chasing debt while simultaneously being told they are "free."

Apostle Paul's idea of social justice was to merely tell the enslaved to, "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart" (Ephesians 6:5). If only Paul had anticipated the ingenuity of modern day. Paul's great failure was a failure of imagination. He simply couldn't envision a society that abolished the word "slavery" only to invent a dozen subtler, more pervasive forms of economic servitude, exploitation, and permanent class stratification that required no whip, only an omnipresent financial ledger and an empty bank account.

While I think the current situation is bad in many ways comparing this kind of feeling poverty to chattel slavery is hyperbole. 

Smacks a little too much of this kind of thinking:

 

The Romans were equally deluded about slavery and how violence controlled their society. They created the whole paterfamilias thing where slaves were part of the household to soften the idea of slavery. Slaves, women, and others were caricatured as violent and sexually rapacious and only the wise educated Roman citizen was moral enough to control them. So they had to control them using violence (often sexual violence). So the whole system was set up to convince the people doing all the violence were only doing it to prevent all the violence. There were similar justifications in the pre-Civil War South. The fear was that abolishing slavery would lead to widespread murder and rape. It did, except it was the KKK and their ilk doing almost all of it.

Never believe someone who says they have to be violent and predatory and rapey for the good of others and/or for society as a whole.

[Senator]

54 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s always interesting to observe how unbelievers will put the worst possible spin on any scriptural concept, principle or narrative in order to justify their unbelief. God forbid that it should ever be considered for a moment that there might be a positive and spiritually edifying way to understand what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he spoke of being slaves to Christ. Why give Paul the benefit of the doubt long enough to to conduct some research to determine if being a slave to Christ might have some positive connotations when hastily jumping to the worst possible conclusions will serve to validate the predetermined conclusions of the unbelievers that Paul, a man highly favored of God, was morally deficient, knuckle-dragging ignoramus?

After reading a few of the latest posts on this thread, I immediately went to Goggle and AI provided the following perspectives on what it actually means to be a slave to Christ. And heaven forbid, there’s actually a positive way to understand what Paul meant when he spoke of being slaves to Christ as being the only way to be truly and fully liberated from sin and the grim servitude of spiritual death.

To be a "slave of Christ" means to completely belong to Jesus, surrendering one's will and life to Him because He has redeemed them from sin. This is not a call to grim servitude, but a voluntary, loving submission to a "good Master" who is faithful and provides for His followers. It involves living with singular devotion, total dependence on Christ, and being personally accountable to Him. 

 

Characteristics of being a slave of Christ

• Complete submission: 

  It means one's life is not ruled by their own will, but by the will of Christ, whom they follow and obey. 

   

• Singular devotion: 

  A slave of Christ is completely devoted to Him, as no one can serve two masters. 

   

• Total dependence: 

  This includes depending entirely on Christ for provision, not on oneself. 

   

• Personal accountability: 

  Christians are accountable to Christ for their actions and will give an account to Him. 

   

• Freedom from sin: 

  The term also signifies a release from the slavery of sin and death, resulting in freedom to serve God. 

   

• Motivated by love: 

  The servitude is motivated by love, not fear, and is a willing surrender to follow His commands. 

   

• Exclusive ownership: 

  Christians are not their own, but belong to Christ, who paid the price to redeem them from slavery to sin. 

   

Key implications

• A reversal of the master-slave relationship: 

  While modern interpretations of slavery are negative, this term is used to emphasize the unique relationship with Christ, who is a loving and benevolent master. 

   

• A higher calling: 

  It is not a lesser status but a higher privilege, as Paul considered it the highest honor to be a slave of Christ. 

   

• A life of purpose: 

  It means surrendering one's will to God's glory, resulting in a life of righteousness and eternal life.

 

Totally!  Ugh, those unbelievers!  They actually kind of smell too…

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree.

Though doesn't incognitus provide valid ways to translate it to our time?  As in Paul meant giving our will to God, which is also taught in Mosiah 3:19.

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Lose the scriptures that use slavery as a metaphor and go with the child-parent version of Mosiah, imo.  Why try to force a fit into an awkward, ill shaped garment and try to pretend it looks great with just some adjustment when God has provided beautiful ones for us now?

 I think there is a massive difference in the emotional baggage of the two.  We are drawn towards God in love imo when we think of him as a father (those of us with good relationships with our parents, at least, and those who didn’t often are still able to see possibilities) while we have to make an effort to put aside or ignore the negative connotations and the things we see as immoral in slavery to make it an acceptable metaphor.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It’s always interesting to observe how unbelievers will put the worst possible spin on any scriptural concept, principle or narrative in order to justify their unbelief. God forbid that it should ever be considered for a moment that there might be a positive and spiritually edifying way to understand what the Apostle Paul was referring to when he spoke of being slaves to Christ. Why give Paul the benefit of the doubt long enough to to conduct some research to determine if being a slave to Christ might have some positive connotations when hastily jumping to the worst possible conclusions will serve to validate the predetermined conclusions of the unbelievers that Paul, a man highly favored of God, was morally deficient, knuckle-dragging ignoramus?

I believe Paul was perfectly fine with slavery as an institution because he seemed to be perfectly fine with slavery as an institution.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

After reading a few of the latest posts on this thread, I immediately went to Goggle and AI provided the following perspectives on what it actually means to be a slave to Christ. And heaven forbid, there’s actually a positive way to understand what Paul meant when he spoke of being slaves to Christ as being the only way to be truly and fully liberated from sin and the grim servitude of spiritual death.

Oursourcing understanding scripture to AI?

Hail the coming of the MACHINE GOD!!!!! Praise the OMNISSIAH!!!!!

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

To be a "slave of Christ" means to completely belong to Jesus, surrendering one's will and life to Him because He has redeemed them from sin. This is not a call to grim servitude, but a voluntary, loving submission to a "good Master" who is faithful and provides for His followers. It involves living with singular devotion, total dependence on Christ, and being personally accountable to Him. 

 

Characteristics of being a slave of Christ

• Complete submission: 

  It means one's life is not ruled by their own will, but by the will of Christ, whom they follow and obey. 

   

• Singular devotion: 

  A slave of Christ is completely devoted to Him, as no one can serve two masters. 

   

• Total dependence: 

  This includes depending entirely on Christ for provision, not on oneself. 

   

• Personal accountability: 

  Christians are accountable to Christ for their actions and will give an account to Him. 

   

• Freedom from sin: 

  The term also signifies a release from the slavery of sin and death, resulting in freedom to serve God. 

   

• Motivated by love: 

  The servitude is motivated by love, not fear, and is a willing surrender to follow His commands. 
   

   

• Exclusive ownership: 

  Christians are not their own, but belong to Christ, who paid the price to redeem them from slavery to sin. 

   

Key implications

• A reversal of the master-slave relationship: 

  While modern interpretations of slavery are negative, this term is used to emphasize the unique relationship with Christ, who is a loving and benevolent master. 

   

• A higher calling: 

  It is not a lesser status but a higher privilege, as Paul considered it the highest honor to be a slave of Christ. 

   

• A life of purpose: 

  It means surrendering one's will to God's glory, resulting in a life of righteousness and eternal life.

 

There is no such thing as a loving and benevolent slave owner. Slavery is violence. Also it is motivated by love and not fear? That is not slavery. I liked God better when He was out freeing the captive instead of claiming they are His.

This is standard apologetic drivel to try to make it not sound bad that the Bible compares God to a slave owner. Which the AI slurped up and vomited out. How very uninteresting.

Edited November 17, 2025 by The Nehor

[Chum]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

We are so far removed from what life was like for women this long ago that we have to be careful not to judge their choices and lives based on the amount of agency we have today.

You're right and it led me to something. Temples were restored just prior to a period of women gaining broad, historical rights.
Revelation and keys to celestial marriage were restored when western culture was on a trajectory away from arranged marriages and other less consensual relationships.  

During the 20th century progress is more clear. We see historical barriers for women falling away while the Restoration increasingly thrives.  

Edited November 17, 2025 by Chum

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 hours ago, Chum said:

You're right and it led me to something. Temples were restored just prior to a period of women gaining broad, historical rights.
Revelation and keys to celestial marriage were restored when western culture was on a trajectory away from arranged marriages and other less consensual relationships.  

During the 20th century progress is more clear. We see historical barriers for women falling away while the Restoration increasingly thrives.  

Not all arranged marriage system are inherently oppressive to women. In arranged marriages in Hinduism, for example, it is just as much arranged for the groom as for the bride. Also, arranged marriages show lower incidences of separation and divorce- showing the Western concept of a dating free-for-all doesn't guarantee a better outcome.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Not all arranged marriage system are inherently oppressive to women. In arranged marriages in Hinduism, for example, it is just as much arranged for the groom as for the bride. Also, arranged marriages show lower incidences of separation and divorce- showing the Western concept of a dating free-for-all doesn't guarantee a better outcome.

The number of divorces doesn’t account for the social pressure to remain in a bad marriage.  
 

In other words, staying together does not indicate marital success IMO . 

[ZealouslyStriving]

25 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The number of divorces doesn’t account for the social pressure to remain in a bad marriage.  
 

In other words, staying together does not indicate marital success IMO . 

Just as having your marriage arranged does not equal oppression.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Lose the scriptures that use slavery as a metaphor and go with the child-parent version of Mosiah, imo.  Why try to force a fit into an awkward, ill shaped garment and try to pretend it looks great with just some adjustment when God has provided beautiful ones for us now?

 I think there is a massive difference in the emotional baggage of the two.  We are drawn towards God in love imo when we think of him as a father (those of us with good relationships with our parents, at least, and those who didn’t often are still able to see possibilities) while we have to make an effort to put aside or ignore the negative connotations and the things we see as immoral in slavery to make it an acceptable metaphor.

It doesn't seem like an awkward fit to me, it just seems like what the verse is actually saying.  Trying to read being a literal slave to Christ feels more like the awkward fit to me.  I'm not getting the idea of massive baggage for most people in this connotation, since most of us are so far removed from actual slavery.  Britney Spears song "slave for you" was a huge hit (as stupid as the song was) in part because most people don't connect that kind of sentiment to actual slavery.  

But I understand your point and if someone wasn't comfortable considering that verse as scripture, or if it did actually have baggage for them, then I don't think they need to consider it as scripture.  Just like we ignore the stuff that Paul taught about women being silent in churches.  There is room for adaptation in how we view sacred texts, and nothing wrong with admitting that metaphors from previous centuries don't always age well.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In arranged marriages in Hinduism, for example, it is just as much arranged for the groom as for the bride. Also, arranged marriages show lower incidences of separation and divorce- showing the Western concept of a dating free-for-all doesn't guarantee a better outcome.

Depends on what outcome you are looking for.

Just because the man in the relationships is possibly equally oppressed by the system, doesn’t mean women aren’t oppressed any more.

And association is not causation.  It more likely is the culture that smilies on arranged marriages frowning on divorce and official separation that leads to lower divorce….that and lower expectations of happiness and love in the relationship.

I have known half dozen or so Hindi professors, all of whom had arranged marriages.  All of them considered themselves still married, but hadn’t lived in the same city or even country in many cases as their wives and hadn’t for years.  It was not seen as a temporary arrangement, but SOP for allowing the husband to take whatever job he wanted while his family had a stable upbringing or at times his wife pursued a different career path, some wives were also professors teaching at different universities.  And all of them seemed quite comfortable with the arrangement.  Most nonarranged marriage professors I knew who had spouses as professors or coaches, etc tried to at least teach close together so they could still see each other on weekends (we have one such couple in our ward right now).

Edited November 17, 2025 by Calm