Young Lds Men? Delaying Marriage

[LeSellers]

I think it just has to do with readiness, maturity, and mindset. I'm sure there are 16 year old couples (because I know some, now in their 50's and 60's, who did marry that early and were successful) who are ready for marriage now though I believe that number to be small.

The root cause of this is the manufactured concept of "adolescence".

There were no adolescents until relatively recently. People routinely married at age 16 (or earlier in many cases) until the XX. People were considered adults at the age of puberty (or earlier in many cases). They established and reared successful families at that age. They owned and managed property, including working on their own farms, raising their own livestock, commanding warships, leading troops into battle, and generally acting as adults in all the aspects of life.

It was only when the insipid notion of adolescence came about that adulthood was delayed, arbitrarily, until after one found work (ten or fifteen, even twenty, years later than their grandparents), got "educated", and accumulated "enough" wealth to be "independent" that marriage became a luxury, or, worse, undesirable.

Childhood was a period of training via observation and mimicking. Typically the observed were parents, the mimicked Dad or Mom, but frequently a neighbor or family friend. Gypsy children learned to play the violin with no formal training at all: they’d be handed a small violin, and then they copied Dad or Grandpa. Often, through apprenticeships, young men (and informally, women, too) became lawyers, doctors, blacksmiths, ships' captains, or bankers. When the apprentice was ready, he moved on, became “his own master”*, and was an adult. His chronological age was wholly immaterial. English Common Law recognized "emancipated" "minors" who, on their own, were adults irrespective of what the calendar showed. They shouldered adult responsibilities and were adults in every societal sense.

* Often there was "journeyman" phase, too. But the point is valid.

I read an article three or four months back saying that the age of adulthood for many subsets of USmerican society is now into the mid-thirties. "Higher" schooling (not education) takes as long as fifteen years. Wasted years, we might safely add, and then one is saddled with hundreds of thousands of dollars of indebtedness. So much, btw, that many can never repay those loans, loans which cannot be discharged through bankruptcy (which I am not advocating in nay case).

We are becoming a nation, nay, a world-wide culture of narcissistic adolescents. Even when we get married, we don't have children. When we do have them, we send them off to day care, paying someone else to raise them. When we do "stay home", we long for school so "Mommy" can go do something "important" in the world.

Brigham Young was right: "Any man who's not married by age eighteen is a menace to society." He didn't make a similar statement about women, but it would have been no less true. The problem highlighted in the Op is a result of Saints following the way of the world. A way, we note, that is destructive of the foundational structure of God's paln and univrse: the Family.

Lehi

[Duncan]

I think it just has to do with readiness, maturity, and mindset. I'm sure there are 16 year old couples (because I know some, now in their 50's and 60's, who did marry that early and were successful) who are ready for marriage now though I believe that number to be small.

The main problem imho, is not young people postponing marriage. It's the fact that many are, in Jerry Seinfeld's vernacular, "undatable". And of course we Mormons can't use alcohol to bring them together in the Seinfeldian way. Intended to be humorous, but there are many shreds of truth to this methinks. Sometimes the seasoning of age makes us more datable, sometimes less.

I agree, and I have been down to the DMV lately! incidentally I'm seeing Seinfeld next week!!! so stoked! But back to matters at hand, for me, after divorce, you need to take some time off from humanity and get your stuff together to become dateable again

[mbh26]

It's the fact that many are [undateable], in Jerry Seinfeld's vernacular

I don't think the mission really helps make the young men any more attractive. It's like you're already behind two years in your career from before the start. It seems to me that it would be better if the sisters went on the mission. Most sisters around that age like idea of an adventure. They're not really going to be expected to be the primary breadwinners anyway so the loss of educational training wouldn't hurt as much. And the sisters would probably be better missionaries as well.

Edited September 1, 2011 by mbh26

[TAO]

I am at a loss as to why some people are married, still married, and others are not. I don't get what a life long, very active RM single girl at 29 isn't doing to get married that a 19 yr old convert just out of high school, dating her first BF, is doing. If we say that marriage is a blessing for being righteous and you are more blessed the earlier you get married then I don't get it. Yes, I have with my own ears those things over the pulpit from leaders. I think Elder Ballard tempting YSAs to be Bishops, Stake Presidents and whatnot isn't the right approach. I love Elder Ballard and all but getting married to get a calling, to me, is almost as bad as getting married "because you can't be happy unless you're married" a phrase I too have heard over the pulpit

http://www.sltrib.co...e-salt.html.csp

Hmmm... I think that isn't what they are trying to say though, kinda... they are trying to say... do what you can to try to get married... 'it's the most important decision you will make in your entire life' (Spencer W Kimball?) sorta. It's not really that someone is doing something right, the other not... it's that getting married is important, exceptions to those who can't because of certain reasons. They are trying to make it a priority to those for whom it is not already a priority... sorta =).

I'm not sure though that Elder Ballard was trying to get at that with his talk though... I think he was being honest... he does want to see them in those positions... the thing about positions... is that they teach people well, if they are open to it. I am sure you here people say something along the lines of 'holding this calling was a great blessing to me, as well to others'... that is the sorta feel I have. I could be wrong about that... but I don't think he was trying to intice them into mairrage with the callings... I think he was saying... 'you need to be married to hold these callings, and the callings teach you a great many things, and give you a great many blessings', or something like that. But again, not sure... that's just what it seemed to me. I think the Lord has a plan for us all... and well.. Elder Ballard is doing his best to try and get us to listen =D. Even though some of us are already listening, there are some, which still do need to be told. And I suppose, we all can, to an extent, take things a bit more seriously... even the most serious of a person can =). But eh, enough about my opinions XD.

Edited September 1, 2011 by TAO

[Hamba Tuhan]

Brigham Young was right: "Any man who's not married by age eighteen is a menace to society."

For the sake of accuracy, it wasn't Brigham Young; it was George Q Cannon. And it wasn't eighteen; it was 24. And it wasn't 'any man' but 'a large number' of men:

While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. (George F. Gibbs, “Discourse by Elder Geo. Q. Cannon…April 7, 1878,” Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 7)

Ironically, as one of my Institute teachers pointed out, Elder Cannon had good reason to be concerned when he made this statement. Plural marriage meant that roughly 1/3 of the adult male population of the Church never married, and, as China is about to discover, 'a large number of unmarried men' who have little hope of marriage in future can indeed become a rather antisocial force in a community.

[katherine the great]

as China is about to discover, 'a large number of unmarried men' who have little hope of marriage in future can indeed become a rather antisocial force in a community.

Or, they will discover the concept of "the mail order bride."

[LeSellers]

as China is about to discover, 'a large number of unmarried men' who have little hope of marriage in future can indeed become a rather antisocial force in a community.

Or, they will discover the concept of "the mail order bride."

Or they will determine that a very good use of so many unmarriable men is war. Were I on Taiwan or in Russia, I'd be afraid, very afraid.

Lehi

[toon]

It's a tough situation.

I have some close friends and family members who are single men in the 30's now, and each has had some really excellent relationships through the years that certainly looked like excellent prospects, but in the end they just couldn't seal the deal.

I'm glad it's not my job to try and figure out how to get the YSAs married.

My daughter's just starting college, and one of my biggest fears is that she'll get in a serious relationship, let alone marriage, before she graduates.

[LeSellers]

My daughter's just starting college, and one of my biggest fears is that she'll get in a serious relationship, let alone marriage, before she graduates.

Why?

Lehi

[toon]

Why?

Lehi

Because I do not believe she is ready for it. And because I belive it could close the door on many opportunities she currently has.

While my opinion is largely specific to her, I also tend to feel this way generally.

[Duncan]

Why?

Lehi

death, divorce or disease-as much as I don't wish those things upon anyone but sadly it happens and women need to be educated in case it happens

[LeSellers]

My daughter's just starting college, and one of my biggest fears is that she'll get in a serious relationship, let alone marriage, before she graduates.

Why?

Because I do not believe she is ready for it. And because I belive it could close the door on many opportunities she currently has.

While my opinion is largely specific to her, I also tend to feel this way generally.

death, divorce or disease-as much as I don't wish those things upon anyone but sadly it happens and women need to be educated in case it happens

I do not denigrate "education". I have a Master’s degree myself.

I wonder, however, if a “college education” is worth it.

I know I have learned far more outside the classroom than in, and it was not nearly as expensive, in either time or money.

By the time she (or anyone) graduates (assuming he does—'t'snot a given), the likelihood is he'll have accrued tens of thousands of dollars in debt, debt that will have to be paid, whether anything else gets paid or not (current bankruptcy laws do not permit writing off education loans).

In the end, there are a myriad of other possibilities that do not require getting into debt. The are several causes for this.

One is that anyone going directyl into the job market has 9at least) a four-year head start on a college grad. It tkaes a huge difference in starting salary to make up for those lost years. Second, the debt itself. Third, four years of experience is better than four years of schooling in terms of pay scale and employability. Further

"school" is an out-of-touch environment; people who don't go to school are in the "real world", and tend to have a better feeling for how things actually get done "out there". Last (in my abbreviated list) is the fact that what gets taught in school usually has very little relevance to what is happening "out there" anyway; the real world is two to five ears ahead of college in terms of the technology and the practice.

Granted, there are some professions that require "school" (although why is never disclosed). If your daughter or someone else is going to be an attorney or an engineer, then "school" is the only way to get in the door. But for most professions, there are alternative ways to make the cut.

Education is an path that occurs throughout life. Most (nearly all) true education happens elsewhere, rather than in school. Education is (or should be) training in how to think. Schooling is training in what to think (or when to think for the professions).

Brigham Young famously said that if he had the choice between educating his sons or his daughters, he'd teach the girls because they would be the ones educating his grandchildren. At its root, he was saying that true education can adapt to the need. But schooling only trains you to do a certain thing, and even how to do that thing in only one way: the "school solution".

We have seven children. Three of them have degrees, four (obviously) do not. Of the seven all are equally successful; those who "suffer" from dropoutism no less so than the others. Our engineer (with a masters) son-in-law has had to work in Afghanistan to use his degree. Our never-been-to-college son has his own business where he earns nearly twice what the engineer did (although he didn't have to pay taxes on the OUTUS income).

College does not guarantee anything, except spending time and money, lots of money.

As to whether she (or anyone else) is “ready”, I’d be reluctant to admit that. From my vantage point, it looks like a lack of instilling “life skills”. Brother Brigham also said that when ever a man complains about how poorly his wife treats their resources, he is admitting to being a poor teacher. The lesson here goes much more broadly than husband-to-wife.

I wish her well, her and all her cohort.

Lehi

[oats]

Most of the young single people at church have the idea of getting married. They say they want to. It's a desire. But for most, at this stage in their lives, it's just lip service to the idea. If they really want to be married you'll see by their actions that it's a priority, and they will usually find someone. Obviously there are exceptions.

For the most part young people are programmed with money as priority #1, with possible marriage and family as a side product in the future. In the church, especially with guys, that impediment is topped with a lot of pressure to provide (with a constant barrage of media exclaiming the bleak future) for a future family, with the expectation that the guy be confident and take initiative to ask the woman, and with feelings of shame and unworthiness because they might watch porn.

I'm not sure so much what the women's excuses are. Some that I've noticed are in regards to the quality of the guys. A lot of that comes from ambitious ladies, of whom there are many. I don't disagree but they mostly fail to consider that guys have essentially spent the 3 years after high school working towards completing a mission that, often, requires a long readjustment period after completion.

Who knows if that begins to uncover the root of the problem. I'm inclined to think it's some yet unseen result of the impacts of technologies we've adopted in the last 20 years. But maybe I'm just a single 20-something guy looking for more reasons to justify being single.

Edited September 3, 2011 by oats

[mbh26]

I wonder, however, if a “college education” is worth it.

For me it wasn't a question of whether I learned more or not. I had to get the degree to get the job. Without the degree, I couldn't be a part of the club. Granted, that's the medical field, but it's similar in a lot of fields. The huge investment in education is a cost that our society has imposed upon ourselves ever since we decided that the AMA was better equipped than the buyer to chose his surgeon. That's why healthcare is expensive.

Unless you're majoring in computer science or maybe chemical engineering, if you don't think you can make it through graduate school, you're financially better off not even completing the undergrad degree. An undergrad degree isn't worth much more than a high school degree was 30 years ago.

One is that anyone going directyl into the job market has 9at least) a four-year head start on a college grad. It tkaes a huge difference in starting salary to make up for those lost years.

$8/hr at Walmart with no prospect of adavancement vs. $110k/year my first year out of professional school was what I was looking at. Even if I have more debt now, my quality of life is still better at that salary.

Third, four years of experience is better than four years of schooling in terms of pay scale and employability.

If you know one of the head honchos who is willing to afford you that experience. I never had that option. $8/hr with no oppurtunity for advancement was all this BYU Biochemistry grad could find before I went to graduate school. I thought I would work for a year after undergrad and at least have some money to buy some necessities I was lacking. The undergrad was worthless. It gave me nothing except the oppurtunity to go to grad school!

"school" is an out-of-touch environment; people who don't go to school are in the "real world", and tend to have a better feeling for how things actually get done "out there".

Agreed, but you and I both know that productivity does not always equate to income. Sometimes you have to play the game.

But for most professions, there are alternative ways to make the cut.

Like what, I sure didn't have that oppurtunity. Granted my parents lived in the country and I simply couldn't compete with Latinos willing to live 10 to an apartment in the city working construction. I simply couldn't find a job that would even pay the rent.

Our never-been-to-college son has his own business where he earns nearly twice what the engineer did (although he didn't have to pay taxes on the OUTUS income).

I'd have done that as well if I had the oppurtunity. Being a construction contractor sure beats being a doctor in terms of pay. Nobody expects to have their house built for free for them, but they expect good healthcare as a God given right. And I don't believe in making a business go by using illegal immigrant labor that I in turn would make society pay for with medicaid. That's how most contractors I've met make their businesses work. It's imperative to have cheap labor to take advantage of.

College does not guarantee anything, except spending time and money, lots of money.

You got that right. But opening a business is a gamble as well.

[Calm]

I'm inclined to think it's some yet it's all some unseen result of the impacts of technologies we've adopted in the last 20 years. But maybe I'm just a single 20-something guy looking for more reasons to justify being single.

I have commented in the past (not on the board but to people I am with) as to how the view has changed as one walks around the BYU campus. Granted I don't do it that much so perhaps it was simply a matter of timing, but when I attended there were many that walked with others, having conversations, etc. These days the majority of people I see are on cell phones. This ability to stay in close touch with the people one knows may lead to deeper relationships with them, but might limit the number of relationships one has.

[Judd]

I don't think the mission really helps make the young men any more attractive. It's like you're already behind two years in your career from before the start. It seems to me that it would be better if the sisters went on the mission. Most sisters around that age like idea of an adventure. They're not really going to be expected to be the primary breadwinners anyway so the loss of educational training wouldn't hurt as much. And the sisters would probably be better missionaries as well.

Behind in what career? I have, on numerous occasion, heard the criticism that the church is sending kids out in their prime when they could be getting ahead in school/education/work/etc. I just have a very hard time relating to this. Even if taken at face value, does two years -- especially considering the grand scheme of an entire career -- really amount to much of anything? I graduated high school with an impressive 2.4 GPA. I followed that up with 13 credits at the local strip mall extension of the community college, earning a 2.7 GPA. After returning from a mission I was able to finish a four-year degree within two years, take a year off to work, and still matriculate into medical school at the age of 24 -- the same age as the class average for a large group of students in a school that was not in Utah. A mission putting people behind is a myth. Sure, there are RMs out there who are in their late twenties and still floundering away without aim or direction and/or are on the slow-track to their career, but there are also people out there that aren't RMs who are in their late twenties floundering without direction. The "delay" of a two-year mission is not the independent variable, though I would argue in the opposite sense (i.e. the life lessons it can teach you) it most certainly can be. But then again this is only from a temporal stand-point. Viewed in the much larger picture it appears to be a pretty clear-cut issue.

[Judd]

Double post.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Judd

[mbh26]

After returning from a mission I was able to finish a four-year degree within two years, take a year off to work, and still matriculate into medical school at the age of 24 -- the same age as the class average for a large group of students in a school that was not in Utah.

Had you not served the mission, why couldn't you have matriculated medical school at age 22 instead of 24?

No, in the scheme of an entire career, two years is not long. But we're talking about how soon young men can become the primary breadwinner in a home. Even if you matriculated med school at age 24, how old are you by the time you completed your residency? If I were to become an optometrist in the 1950s I could have finished in under 6 years. Now they want 9 years. The training demands imposed by society are increasing. The attitudes of women now are different than they were in the 1950s. The world we live in is not the same as the world the GAs lived in. The only dating experiences they know about now are probably what their grandaughters tell them, or when they think back to when they were dating.

[katherine the great]

Behind in what career? I have, on numerous occasion, heard the criticism that the church is sending kids out in their prime when they could be getting ahead in school/education/work/etc. I just have a very hard time relating to this. Even if taken at face value, does two years -- especially considering the grand scheme of an entire career -- really amount to much of anything? I graduated high school with an impressive 2.4 GPA. I followed that up with 13 credits at the local strip mall extension of the community college, earning a 2.7 GPA. After returning from a mission I was able to finish a four-year degree within two years, take a year off to work, and still matriculate into medical school at the age of 24 -- the same age as the class average for a large group of students in a school that was not in Utah. A mission putting people behind is a myth. Sure, there are RMs out there who are in their late twenties and still floundering away without aim or direction and/or are on the slow-track to their career, but there are also people out there that aren't RMs who are in their late twenties floundering without direction. The "delay" of a two-year mission is not the independent variable, though I would argue in the opposite sense (i.e. the life lessons it can teach you) it most certainly can be. But then again this is only from a temporal stand-point. Viewed in the much larger picture it appears to be a pretty clear-cut issue.

You also will admit I presume that (once you "grew up") you were exceptional in your ambition and self discipline? I personally view a mission as an overall advantage because, while it may cause a delay in education, it makes up for it by providing a direction and focus that may have otherwise not been there.

[Joseph Antley]

This is a fun thread.

[Judd]

Had you not served the mission, why couldn't you have matriculated medical school at age 22 instead of 24?

Because following the previous track record I would have never made it.

No, in the scheme of an entire career, two years is not long. But we're talking about how soon young men can become the primary breadwinner in a home.

And I still think a mission can prepare people for becoming a breadwinner much better than those two years where majors get switched 2-3 times and credits that don't fulfill generals or any other degree requirements begin to accrue themselves. Also worth noting that women aren't just looking for a breadwinner, but also someone who can lead a family spiritually.

Even if you matriculated med school at age 24, how old are you by the time you completed your residency?

31, but what difference would it make if it were 29 or even 33?

If I were to become an optometrist in the 1950s I could have finished in under 6 years. Now they want 9 years. The training demands imposed by society are increasing. The attitudes of women now are different than they were in the 1950s. The world we live in is not the same as the world the GAs lived in. The only dating experiences they know about now are probably what their grandaughters tell them, or when they think back to when they were dating.

What it sounds like you're suggesting is to adjust the standard of a mission to accommodate shifting dating values. I'd also like to add that my experience women dating, though initially may be turned on or off by what stage or where a man is in his career, it ends up not being neither a deal maker not breaker.

You also will admit I presume that (once you "grew up") you were exceptional in your ambition and self discipline?

I'm not sure I'm understanding completely what you're asking.

I personally view a mission as an overall advantage because, while it may cause a delay in education, it makes up for it by providing a direction and focus that may have otherwise not been there.

Precisely. That added direction, I believe, makes up for any of the mythical "lost time".

[Calm]

Behind in what career? I have, on numerous occasion, heard the criticism that the church is sending kids out in their prime when they could be getting ahead in school/education/work/etc. I just have a very hard time relating to this. Even if taken at face value, does two years -- especially considering the grand scheme of an entire career -- really amount to much of anything? I graduated high school with an impressive 2.4 GPA. I followed that up with 13 credits at the local strip mall extension of the community college, earning a 2.7 GPA. After returning from a mission I was able to finish a four-year degree within two years, take a year off to work, and still matriculate into medical school at the age of 24 -- the same age as the class average for a large group of students in a school that was not in Utah. A mission putting people behind is a myth. Sure, there are RMs out there who are in their late twenties and still floundering away without aim or direction and/or are on the slow-track to their career, but there are also people out there that aren't RMs who are in their late twenties floundering without direction. The "delay" of a two-year mission is not the independent variable, though I would argue in the opposite sense (i.e. the life lessons it can teach you) it most certainly can be. But then again this is only from a temporal stand-point. Viewed in the much larger picture it appears to be a pretty clear-cut issue.

Not only that but the advantage of language and leadership skills many pick up put them ahead of other applicants for many situations from what I've heard. Being two years ahead in one's career doesn't mean much if you spend those two years in unemployment or at a lower level position where you have to work your way up to the position you would have gotten with those extra skills picked up on a mission.

[Maidservant]

For myself (I am an older single lady in the "dating" scene again [what there is of one]), I can assure any gentleman that my main assessment is not so much where a man is at that makes a difference to me, but where he is going and how he is going about it. Also he must adore me . Ha ha.

For my daughter, who is 18 and I'm about ready to pack her off to a church university--first of all, my daughter is not very malleable to my opinions, having very strong ideas of her own, and I can tell she is chomping at the bit to be married and have some babies . . . which, having started my family at 19 and finding that to be a lack of judgment on my part, freaks me out for her (even though on the other hand I'm chomping at the bit for grandbabies, ha ha!)! In any case, I want her to have the experience of being a young adult for a couple of years (and for me, I do mean only two years or so) and having some freedom and fun even more than the academics per se, although I hope she completes her education by some means whether married or no. Since most of her life WILL be about babies and marriage and housekeeping (that's just who she is) . . . I feel most comfortable as her mother that she have another kind of experience before that takes place. All in good time.

I am not a person who is attached to the traditional idea of marriage nor even to the traditional LDS ideas of marriage. But I do hope that she finds and loves a young man who will honor her and she will honor him and they will work together with one mind to create the family they both believe in, full of love and light (the gospel of Jesus Christ).

[Joseph Antley]

I wonder what the young men on the board think about all this.

[mbh26]

Precisely. That added direction, I believe, makes up for any of the mythical "lost time".

Does everyone who does not serve a mission lack this added direction? What about young men who are focused and doing well in their career paths before their mission? Does the mission still give something back temporally that makes up for the mythical "lost time," in every case? And if it doesn't, does that automatically mean the only possible reason it didn't is because the young man didn't serve well enough?

Edited September 4, 2011 by mbh26