I Have Seen Your Sacrifices in Obedience

[ZealouslyStriving]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

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).

So you agree that arranged marriages run the gambit and are not just automatically oppressive- just like western free-for-all dating.

That was my main point.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you agree that arranged marriages run the gambit and are not just automatically oppressive- just like western free-for-all dating.

That was my main point.

Depends on what you mean by oppressive. They certainly remove choices, limit agency in some ways. 
 

People who are oppressed often learn to adapt and make the best of a limiting situation. 

Edited November 18, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on what you mean by oppressive. They certainly remove choices, limit agency in some ways. 
 

People who are oppressed often learn to adapt and make the best of a limiting situation. 

I think it would largely depend on whether or not the person wanted the arranged marriage.  If they did (I've heard that some people actually ask their parents to do it), then that doesn't limit choice as much as the consequences of their choice naturally narrows the available other options.

But if they are forced into it or pressured then I can't see how it wouldn't be oppressive.

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it would largely depend on whether or not the person wanted the arranged marriage.  If they did (I've heard that some people actually ask their parents to do it), then that doesn't limit choice as much as the consequences of their choice naturally narrows the available other options.

But if they are forced into it or pressured then I can't see how it wouldn't be oppressive.

Also, sometimes people “want”  things because … pressure.  
 

(that fits for both arranged and chosen marriages) 
 

There’s a lot of things that I want that if the circumstances are different, I suspect I would not want them.  
 

there are so many factors that go into whether or not a marriage is successful that cannot be measured in terms of the divorce rate.

Edited November 18, 2025 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Also, sometimes people “want”  things because … pressure.  
 

(that fits for both arranged and chosen marriages) 
 

There’s a lot of things that I want that if the circumstances are different, I suspect I would not want them.  
 

there are so many factors that go into whether or not a marriage is successful that cannot be measured in terms of the divorce rate.

So true.  

[Chum]

19 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 factor common to all of this is limiting women's autonomy.  And it will always be women's choices that are curtailed, even if men's are too sometimes.

If we are saying we can't fix marriage without kneecapping women, we should say that out loud and at the front of the discussion.
If we are saying we can fix marriage without disproportionately targeting women's options, then let's get those suggestions out there.

[telnetd]

On 11/15/2025 at 2:50 PM, Pyreaux said:

The scriptures do not explicitly name all polygamous relationships justified by God but leaves open the possibility that this principle was known or practiced by early righteous figures, unjudged figures and also those later judged wicked but not because they were polygamists. The scriptural and historical record suggest that these figures practiced sanctioned plural marriage:

<...>

Thank you for the very detailed info.

[Stargazer]

On 11/16/2025 at 11:38 PM, Senator said:

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

Narrative? What narrative? 

[Stargazer]

On 11/16/2025 at 11:57 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

That turns out to be not the case. 

There was an expectation among certain members of the church that the second coming would be very soon. Paul knew otherwise, that there would be an apostasy. He wrote about this, specifically to disabuse those members about their incorrect expectation.

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; (2 Thess 2:1-3)

The author of Acts wrote about Peter healing a lame man on the steps of the temple, and in Peter's subsequent sermon to those who witnessed the miracle he said this, among others:

19 ¶ Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:19-21)

Both Peter and Paul knew that there would be a falling away that would require a restoration. In that 2nd letter to the Thessalonians Paul also wrote that the apostasy was already beginning. In John's revelation it was revealed to him that there were apostates and heretics already at work in the churches in Asia Minor. Do you seriously think that the members of the Twelve, who were under "live" instruction from the Lord for 40 days before Pentecost (see Acts chapter 1) were not told about all this already?

Paul wrote all about the falling away that would come:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Tim 4:1-3 emphasis added)

Paul's admonition to the unmarried and widows in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 was not a general advisement to not marry. How could it be when he wrote in 1st Timothy that forbidding to marry was a sign of apostasy? It was advice for them to be like himself, who was either unmarried (either a widower or never married) or separated from his wife due to his mission, but keeping the law of chastity -- and of course if they couldn't hold themselves back in their desires, it was better to marry than burn. We don't actually know if Paul was ever married. In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul indicated that he had the right to have a wife with him on his mission, as did Peter, and the other brethren. 

You might find it of interest that non-LDS authorities differ as to Paul's marital condition: 

• Did Paul ever have a wife or children? (this guy says probably not -- couldn't find an attribution)
• Was the Apostle Paul Married? Yes, He Was. Here’s How We Know. (Author is Denny Burk, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College in Louisville, Kentucky)

There is nothing in Paul's writings to suggest that people should not have children or change their jobs. Unless your research has turned up something I'm not aware of? And this would fall afoul of the original first commandment, which was to multiply and replenish the earth. Has God ever indicated that this commandment was to go into abeyance?

On 11/16/2025 at 11:57 PM, The Nehor said:

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

What? Soy no entiendo.

On 11/16/2025 at 11:57 PM, The Nehor said:

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

If it's good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for Stargazer. 

And what favor does it do God or ourselves if I don't use that metaphor? The favor of avoiding triggering oversensitive people?