SUBECTIVITY: (Marriage mistakes many Mormons Make)

Long and Complicated. Skip. I just couldn't get the fun vids to post, so wait for those. But if any of you are bored and read long rambling stuff on the internet, which I know I do, then this will serve as much as some of it, I guess.

So there is this guy in or SS Gospel D class who used to teach it, and he used to do the same thing every single time someone disagreed with him and he couldn't defend himself. For ex, he said something about the W of W that someone disagreed with and he couldn't defend it without getting flustered trying (which he WOULD try first) he said that he had had a personal witness of what he thought to be true. His beliefs on tithing, a personal witness. (Don't you love that 'at least you can pay tithing 100 percent perfectly?' Ugh, not true! but anyway, not on topic, unless you only want to save yourself from burnin')...

One time he was saying that the Dark Ages was the period from Malachi to the NT when God wasn't speaking to the world. I pointed out that it was possible that other peoples with their own Scriptures could exist and we just don't know about them yet, that in fact according to FARMS, books will come forth from the dust, and people will at first discount those books, much like what has happened with the possible Book of Judas. 'Not Cannon' say others about those books just like they do about the B of M as a reflex. But in any case, that is a long period for God to not talk to people, and was he sure that maybe ther wasn't something else going on in some other culture? To that question, you guessed it, he had had a personal witness.

Later in private I asked him how then the Book of Mormon could have been written in this specific window of time (around O BC-AD the suposed Dark Ages) His feathers were ruffled, save he knew he had had a witness. I am pretty sure he doesn't read this BTW as is the case with most of the people that don't agree with me so it is the perfect way to not talk about things in a contentious way because the people that get offended self select themselves out of the audience, perfect. It is just an exercise, not an attempt at starting a fight with these people. But to me and Slade these things are FASCINATING and are very instructive about a lot of issues that are dead center to various disagreements about gospel and other topics, so it is a perfect way to explore these beauties.

The thing is that I am pretty sure that this one guy didn't spend too much time on his knees asking God about the timeline of the Dark Ages. Which makes it curious how he was lucky enough to get a witness to something that I really don't think he was even INTERESTED in, even though a lot of people with Ph.Ds and spend their lives studying this subject feel that they actually just have to figure it out and make a decision based on evidence. How is it that this guy just gets told and sort of votes? It makes me start to have an idea about how this particular claim functions in M Doctrinal discussions. In fact I am pretty sure many times it is subterfuge to basically declare one's self right via testimony and render any actual disagreement with logic or evidence meaningless.

Whith this person in particular he is very much in the habit of reflexively responding this way to punctuate any possibility that he would ever end a disagreement with someone like me or Slade (the horror to not just DECISIVELY win an argument with US), so he just dismisses us out of hand in this way) in any other way than he's OBVIOUSLY RIGHT even in the cases where it doesn't make sense.

Totally harmless, really, in these cases. I do not think this guy is any kind of threat. He is a curiosity to me and I never really think about any of the particulars of any disagreement with him at all. In fact even though sometimes I accumulate the reputation of being opinionated but most of the time I just state my own opinions out of the blue and people disagree with ME. I sometimes defend myself, to which I get the response that I am opinionated. I would like some day to ask them what they think I should do after people disagree or say something critical of me, but I am not sure it bothers me. I think having opinions is a good thing so if people think I have them I won't really worry too much. But here is what happens with him:

1. I make a comment,
2. he disagrees (and he pretty much always bends over backwards to disagree with ME, I often collect disagreements from people like Mike Tyson collects people who want to fight him in prison. I must wear a sign saying take a shot. But that's fine. Keeps me on my toes.
3. I might if I find it to be worth it and fairly straightforward and demonstrable to illustrate my point without making the person hostile and defensive (often too late) I make a feeble attempt at defending my original position in #1,
4. He very emphatically starts disagreeing with me and perhaps becoming agitated (this will attract attention at this point and look very curious). Like he saves this for me. It is very weird.,
5. I shoot one of the various ducks in the in the barrel like say Um the Book of Mormon was written during the time you claim that no scripture was writte, etc., or what about the part in the word of wisdom about food that you are none too worried about?
6. He claims having a witness of this truth or whatnot and declares himself right.
7. I say, uh, OK THEN. Why did we bother if you had always known bc God told you, sheesh!

Even though he almost tempts using this response to speak for the church with some pretty controversial ways. As a SS teacher claiming P.Marriage is surely destined to be an important part of the next life for all men is a pretty strong statement here, in fact I hate to repeat that here because it is fodder for the Antis. So Slade was curious. He approached him (in private, b/c it is like shooting ducks in a barrel and we don't want to humiliate the guy in front of the ward or anything or ruffle the testimony of the ward members, even though in fairness I should be willing to say that my OWN testimony is shakable with some of this garbage, because I guess it isn't infallible).

So in response to the Plural Question, he NO JOKE started flipping through his SS manual, and then said, you guessed it, "personal witness." One thing that is curious to Slade and me, tho is that if I really thought that I personally had had all of these witnesses from God (perhaps as a teacher it makes sense but at this point he was just a Jo Mormon as they usualy are when they say this, why in the world would I first try to discuss it logically, or for goodness sake why would I flip through a manual written by no one even with their own byline? If I thought I had had a witness I can't imagine how anything else including discussing it in SS would matter. But for some reason this usualy is a LAST RESORT argument with these people, rather than a first resort one like I would have thought it would be if they were really that confident.

This is when it perhaps in my opinion gets to the point where it is less than just totally harmless. Because I think it is important to look at how this reflex response really operates in pseudo-logical exchanges. I don't really think these people are trying to convince other people as much as themselves.

To illustrate, try to think of the last time that you heard someone in say testimony meeting discuss the fact that they were making some random career move or something because they had had some witness from God. People do this all the time. So often is like we were one of those groups that handle snakes or use Ouigai boards or something the amount of times this comes up in Sacrament meeting, even though I have a feeling that most of us suspect that it doesn't actually happen to OTHER people quite that often.

Possibly it happens to us, maybe people say to themselves but if someone claims as they do regularly that they felt that God helped them know they should pull over to a car shop and get their water pump serviced that it really happened that way? Do YOU actually even CONSIDER that it was really the CASE that they had had a this red phone to God? Now I am not saying that you for sure had to vote on whether or not it was true. I assume that it could at least be possible. BUt probably most of us think that it just occurred to them that they should service their car and that is the T Meeting version. Usually most of us just think that it is at best an impression that person has. And in fact I personally think that if we are using that kind of information in a public discussion it becomes much less likely that we have actually had a witness.

Let me explain. We are encouraged to only feel that that level of 'PR' (revelation) is for our own use, and possibly for the family UNDER our stewardship, meaning that we should avoid feeling as though we are privy to information about others or we get guidance for other people not under our stewardship. Meaning that we don't get revelation on whether OTHER people should buy two cars or one or whatever, just our own personal guiance, for our own purposes. So probably we would never use the fact that a guy in our ward had a witness about what was included in the W of W as any sort of evidence we would ever consider using to develop our own opinions, right?

I certainly never say aything in public or even in personal conversations that someone that is not under my own stewardship or responsibility for anything that anyone else would be supposed to consider. So that means that I don't get any vibes of any kind for anyone else or any doctrinal light bulbs going off that I think anyone would benefit from. Except of course by just thinking that something makes sense, and in that case I think that anyone has any idea that could potentially benefit them. But many of these statements are by nature deliberately anti intellectual, meaning they are statements about the truth of various things 'just because someone has a feeling that they are one way or the other. That doesn't reflect an inability to be intellectual it resists the NEED to even use intellectual faculties.

An example, for instance, is something that I probably never would talk about except for this discussion but it happens to apply, so I will assume that no one need take it seriously. And it could be that perhaps I talked about it when I was a young kid and first had my patriarchal blessing because I hadn't developed the sense of appropriateness about sharing that kind of info yet at that time in my life. When I was a teen and young adult I shot off about this as that is when I got my P blessing my mouth but I have tried to stop.

From a combination of my P Blessing and Slade's ongoing P blessings to me which all have a theme to them, and basically from reading the scriptures and prayer and just using what seems to make sense from an overall combination of all of those things taken together that it makes a LOT of SENSE that educating myself and others is how I am supposed to spend a significant focus of my life. This doesn't just consist of some ephemeral thing like a vague urge, like I just have a feeling that it is that way and I don't know why. It actually makes a lot of sense using a general perception that it would be a good way for me to contribute something that I particularly have to offer the world, and it is my talent and desire to do so and it also makes use of these talents without having my weaknesses detract. I can basically stay behind my computer writing and have it benefit in the way I usually do, meaning the 'wow that is fascinating I never thought of that before' that I often get, and don't need to have the fact that I am not good at showing up somewhere at eight in the morning say for a regular job or whatever detract from what I have to offer.

But this is not just a vibe that I might as well just get by crossing my legs and burning insense from who knows what source and following who knows what principles. This makes sense to me and Slade in my mind and my heart. I am actually good at these things, and enjoy them, get good feedback on how I seem to be helping people understand things that they are interested in on a wide scale, wider than if I just went to some mommy and me group and then probaby never really contributed anything. There is need for them that I can fill. So anyway, I know no one cares about that. It is just an example of something that I have always known, and slade as my steward has also known and felt that he was responsible for cultivating.

THe specifics have been vague, meaning I haven't been sure whether I was to continue to get another degree or try to teach school or what, and now I am at least sure that I dont HAVE to do that, which is a relief. Even though it is stll certainly possible all my kids are in school and I wouldn't have to do anything when they are home of course so there is little or no conflict anymore. And iy vould certainly fill a need since there are very few active LDS women with Ph.D.s and it would be a very good way to serve the church and make a difference in the world. In any case the specific phraseology 'spend my life in education of myself and others' is something that I feel VERY STRONGLY about and so does Slade. And we both make our life decisions taking it into consideration.

But I certainly don't expect that personal knowledge that Slade and I have (Slade being in a position of stewardship over me and thus sharing that opinion and encouraging me to work to do the right thing and develop my talents) to influence anyone else in their assessment of me or what I do with my life, because I don't expect them to have any way to assess that because it is for ME PERSONALLY to know, and pretty much to keep to myself except for the purpose of this rhetorical discussion. I still don't expect any of you to believe it because it isn't FOR you.

And if I were constantly going aroud saying things about what my witnesses from God were it would actually make me doubt that these feelings that I have actually came from God for strictly the puspose of directing my own life. If I instead developed these feelings and impressions very much for the benefit of other people and telling them things about what I thought God had told me I might wonder whether these perceptions were to influence other people's perrception of me and how tuned in I was to God. Thereofre I would suspect that these feelings of mine had a secular purpose oriented toward my own personal pride and self image and not anthing that was real and of divine origin.

It would quite literally be me taking the name of God in Vain to constantly burden others publicly with information about what I felt was my own personal direction that no one would possibly think was meaningful or likely even believe. God really doesn't waste his time telling me things so I can justify myself to others I am quite sure so I just am not going to try. I seriously doubt. So if I use what he says that way I would immediately suspect it as having questionable motives.

So why is it that people are so frequently telling others that they have the cosmic stamp of approval on their actions and beliefs if it isn't to make the other people think that their thoughts and beliefs are more credible? If it never actually makes other people believe that they are right or are doing the right thing? Because just as I said there is no chance that any of you are convinced that God really are convinced that I need to be educating people, so if I were to make a big deal out of telling people, why would I want to?

I actually think that it is more of an exercise in the person who says it convincing themselves that the are cosmically justified than anything, and that is where in my opinion (other a SS teacher speaking for the church on shaky doctrine issues but is all related), becomes a bit less than harmless.

The stamp of subjectivity, once it gets dusted off and used frequently enough for people to feel comfortable using it for anythng and everything, becomes very easy to use whenever and whyever people want to use it even when it COULD be harmfull. For one thing it tends to start substituting for what could at least be very good sense. I have heard more people than I would care to think about talk in T Meeting about witnesses as to geographical moves, financial decisions and job changes. It is as if we can't just consult a real estate agent.

Funny, some people seem less than convinced about the witnesses they say they have ironically. Someone was saying in our S meeting recently that they were 'witnessed to' about the need to sell their house so they can move into a different neighborhood that was better for their kids (and there are always lots of these all over the place every T Meeting) but they couldn't sell their house for more than they bought it for so they understandably became frustrated at not being able to do God's will for the sake of their children living in a bad neighborhod (mine, incidentally, yikes sorry kids).

Funny... if God is going to the trouble of telling them to move, wouldn't he expect them to take a loss if necessary? Would he only tell them to move and have them do it if it was a good move financially too? Hmmm....

But the stamp is handy. And versatile. And it tends to be used when there isn't the possibility of just finding out evidence of what the right thing to do. Like if someone is deciding what school to go to it seems like in Mormon circles it really isn't a proper decision making process unless they sit cross legged and burn incense, just thinking in terms of what is the best program or where you get a better scholarship or whatever seems plain out.

That contrasts to certain financial decisions, which Mormons will be very responsible about. For example I know people that if they are going to buy a blender they will scrutinize two years of back issues of consumer reports. But when it comes to decisions involving love or children or where to live or whatnot and there is the possibility of doing something that makes actual sense it just seems more handy to pull out the stamp. We don't use guages like compatibility or social science research or even prudence.

I tend to be the opposite. I don't really care too much about whether I buy a good blender. If I end up wasting my money on a blender it won't be the worst thing in the world because it is only money and I don't care too much about money. I am not a materialistic person, even my own mother says this about me unprompted. I certainly don't want to waste time worrying about money. Time IS valuable to me, though. So I just go into the store and cover my eyes and point to something. But when it came to the decision of who to marry I took a good six years making that decision because I couldn't trade that in as easily if it broke. Luckily I got a model with the best possible features for my needs because I took so long.

I will also credit my mother with good advice on that. I went through a stage where I was very impulsive about the whole marriage issue and thank goodness I went through a period where things didn't work out for me exactly like I WANTED them to with someone I dated. When Slade was on his mission and I was lonely and feeling unable to exercise the discipline over my life's plan like I thought that I should my mom pointed out that I was about to chuck a very good situation just to do the 'I wanna' option. I lucked out seriously that things didn't work the way I wanted them to at that point. I was saved from myself, though, only because if I had had everything work the way I wanted to I would have indeed married someone else. Thank goodness this guy wasn't normal. Then I would just be married to someone normal and not someone exceptional like I am now. But most people have the option of doing the thing that they wanna, and they just do it. Even though in my case I was probably saved from a very unfortunate situation of having a less than superlative spouse. And I am sure that if I had married this guy I would be telling a different story now, because people always think they did the right thing. But, well, phew.

What about people that don't - am I saying that they didn't also get a good model marriage? Certainly not, if they are happy with their marriage than I say fanastic. But that is a bit backwards logic-wise. No one including me is certain what the opportunity cost is in any one decision, meaning it is impossible to compare it to what else we might have done. If we do something risky like run a red light and make it through, did it end up in hind sight being a good idea to run the red light? Nope. We just got lucky. And with most things they end up ok and we make the best of them.

I think it is interesting that Mormons know that they are obviously not when it comes to marriage getting out back issues of Consumer Reports. I am not sure why. It is clearly much more important than with a blender. But for some reason with marriage people seem to be suggesting that the time spent deciding is inversely proportional to how important the consequences. I think perhpas they would argue that with marriage they think that God tells them what to do though. But why is it that they can't just ask God which blender to buy or which car? Why do they do so much homework when it is only money that they are risking? I think that the reason is that in cases where there is an intense flood of emotion about what the person wants to do like in love marriage or children there is the possibility to just think that emotion dictates what they should do. That doesn't happen in a blender situation. Though I think that God would be as likely to tell us which to do either way.

And it isn't like I am telling people that they shouldn't marry who they want. Of course not. They should go for it, as far as I am concerned. Of course I think people should marry who they want, but if it is possible to do that AND do it with a responsible timeline that precludes they are just being impulsive and getting a model of spouse that might involve buyer's remorse, why do they still choose rapid fire relationships? Why does it seem like to them it is always Do I marry this person RIGHT AWAY THIS VERY SECOND or do I NOT MARRY THEM? In my opinion that is not a real choice and they seem to make it seem as though that is what the fuddy duddies that suggest caution are saying.

Most of us if we were to admit what we think about most of the people who we know that get married to people within weeks that they don't know I suspect that we all know other people than us personally are just being impulsive and doing what they want to do, they just don't WANT to exercise caution. Again they think the choices are false. No one is saying don't marry the person if you are destined to be together as you feel you are. But no one is telling them not marry, it is only to not marry that person while it is at least theoretically possible that it is just an impulsive decision. No one looking back would feel that if they waited six more months to make it respectable they would have seriously missed out on something significant having been married for six more months than they ended up being. But what I think these couples are going through is more than just rushing things like most fuddy duddies like me claim they are. I go further than the other fuddy duddies and say that I am convinved having watched all of these couples over the years get married with irresponsible speed it is more than these couples just don't wanna wait, rushing is actually part of the appeal at least for some of them

That is certaily true that they want to get married soon(hence the stamp) but it is more than that. They specifically wanna get married in lightening speed without just taking a normal amount of time even if they had it to burn. Marrying in a responsible weigh the options fashion like choosing a blender is actually less desirable to young people in their twenties who if we compare them to what other people their ages are doing are actualy not averse to risk and thrill seeking, even though these very people end up saying not very much later on that they would counsel their own children to take more time, usually. At least their sons. Women get indulged in making impulsive decisions even though sons get encouraged to be responsible. (Hmmm.... I think I am going to do a paper on that). Bad news tho their sons won't listen to them. It isn't just that it is too hard to wait. I know how hard it is because I actually waited (just like the people that know temptation when they don't succumb, I didn't succumb to the temptation to marry quickly even though certainly I wanted to get married at least as much as other people because I had already waited a long time. I have had people say that maybe I just didn't want to get married as bad as they did. Yeah right. It was excuisite. so I KNOW it is agony. But it isn't NEARLY as much fun to choose a husband practically like choosing a good blender, it isn't exciting and thrilling, we don't feel like something really spectacular is happening to us that we are swept up in beyond our control in the cosmos and we don't get as much attention or buzz around the home ward for doing something boring and responsible and carefully planned. Even if that attention is a bit scandalous.

And of course we can see this in everyone ELSE that does this. I have a feeling that no one really believes that God is speaking to all of the other 95 percent of the Mormon couples getting engaged today that claim GOd is sweeping them away in a firestorm of predestined romance and therefore mandating their getting engaged before they actually get to know each other and married so rapidly that they are registering at Target before they know what if anything they have in common.

With marriage there isn't consumer reports, but there is prudence. Everyone has that first fight about a year or so after they start dating seriously. Slade and I weren't married yet when whe had that fight, so we were able to see how we weathered it so that we could factor it into our decisions. Of course we were teen agers so we could see clearly the reason to be prudent and not to give into what we wanted.

Not that it prevents everyone our age. I have heard some people say and I am not kidding that "some people just have the challenge of meeting the right person early in life," so what could the poor kids do? They wouldn't have CHOSEN to stay home from their mission or not finish school, but it just turned out that they met their dear wife when they were sixteen. Yeah right. Many sixteen year olds including me felt that exact same way about wanting to run off and get married, but I also knew that it was possible to meet the right person for me that young and not just immediately turn insane. I didn't chuck all of the other things I planned in my life just because I met my husband. I didn't need to. Meeting the right person should enhance good decision making not sideline it. It was a good time to develop patience and emotional maturity, and I did that quickly and painfully, but I knew that it was the only option. I didn't expect him to stay home from his mission just to be with me any more than he expected me to not get a graduate degree. With a little sacrifice of emotional indulgence and time delay on getting all of the things we wanted we were able to do all the things we wanted to do and knew we should do.

And I am not saying I did everything perfectly. We were way too young to get married when we did. People keep maturing into their mid twenties, and in my opinion it is always good to know who you are going to be spending eternity with rather than just guess because they aren't that person yet. And it is going to be good to know who you are yourself so you will know who you want. I remember being a young teenage girl that thought I wanted a boy that was totally sappy about me and made me the center of his world. But luckily when I grew up a little more I knew that it would be really annoying to actually be married to a man like that. I needed to marry a man with strong opinions and convictions.

We didn't do everything right, I was too young. I was weak, and we had already waited six years. I would have waited another year. But Slade finally put his foot down. He wouldn't even wait until the end of the summer even though it would have been better in some ways, and looking back it wouldn't be even a noticeable sacrifice. So I understand where people are coming from. I don't hold myself as a model for ANYONE.

But while I am pretty sure no one else really thinks that every 21 year old RM that claims to be stopped dead in their tracks by the cosmic cowboys with the message that they've met THE ONE ACTUALLY really DOES get that message. There is a concept called parsimony, and it is useful in science and many other things: it means that the most likely explanation should be used. Rather than cosmic lightening bolts it is probably true that the RMS get hit with lightening but it is called falling in love, coupled with the excitement of the real possibility of being married soon. This is a very exciting experience. It can really bowl a person over.

And it is my calculation based on the number of people I saw doing exactly the same thing and labeling it in the same way. There is an extremely high percentage of people at BYU who get engaged to a certain person at a certain time in the process. An enormous number of BYU kids get engaged to the first marriageable person they meet after it becomes at least marginally practical for them to get married. THey meet in the fall family home evening group. So basically as soon as they are in a certain position in their lives wham the most obvious candidate possible they are engaged to. Of course there are exceptions. And if you did something very different, great.

For example, if people end up doing something that is counterintuitive and feel inspired that GOd is telling them to do it I would say that made a lot of sense. For instance my brother and his wife decided after he got home from his mission that she should maybe go on hers. I would say that that lightening bolt is not just getting hit with the weaky in the kneesies. That is really something. Because if anything I would believe that God is telling people to do things that are hard and involve sacrifice not something that sounds like the shortest line from A to Being married. But I would say eighty percent of girls at BYU that get engaged there do so their sophomore or junior year after moving out of the dorms and for men it happens in the year or two after they get home. At that time they realize that many of their roommates are getting married and nothing is stopping them either. That is when the lightening strikes. Slade and I of course did things abit differently by necessity. And in that six years if we had been way off about each other we probably could have gotten the message even if we were unwilling to deliberately consider it openly. Slade though hates most women so much that

It is very possible that during this tumultuous and exciting time these new and exciting emotions of falling head over heels combined with intense desire and impatience to become a married person very quickly when we didn't just predict it on a calender like everything else in our lives tempt people to use that "cosmic stamp?" I would like to think that it is always harmless for people to think so. I would guess that it is for most people. About the same percentage as the people that make it through red lights. Most peole make it through ok.

But we all see that stamp used when there is no chance it should be. We see sixteen year old girls run off with questionable characters. We see members of the ward who have families run off with people who aren't their spouse, and they claim that they are certain it is the right thing, because, voila, they feel good about it. They claim this for years later. Certainly, people claim, that they wouldn't know what to do without say the children that are products of these relationships. What would I do without little Timmy? Even though his father left the picture long ago? Certainly it was for the best?

But the thing is, and this is where psychology comes in handy. People always think that the way things happened to them is the way that it should have happened. Obviously people are bonded to the people in their lives, but they also get attached to their own pasts. They see certain consequences that are positive and combined with the devil we know vs. devil we don't comfort level, we guess that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. "All is well in Zion."

I have no doubt that people that are happy with their lives are certainly on the winning side of life's lottery. I have no issue with anyone, much less people that are happy. I wish everyone the best. I am certainly not taking potshots at people's lives. That is the last thing I would want to do. It breaks my heart when people have hard times, and it is when these things are avoidable that they are the most heart breaking. As are most of the people who run red lights, most people that tend to come out ok look to their past as the way they should have traveled. Even i they wouldn't suggest it for their child or someone else. And just as people often look to very trivial upsides to marrying before they know their intended (we wouldn't have goten a grant for that year, etc) perhaps people that run red lights and speed can add up the time they save doing it and decide that they are better off, since nothing bad happened.

Possibly. But what about the people who didn't do so well? And that is about half of us. LDS are just below the national average in divorce statistics. Meaning the worse half. That stat is arrived at at a survey of people that self identify as Mormons, placing us only above born again Christians in terms of other religions but worse than Jews and Atheists. And by state Utah fares pretty badly. Utah is 27th worst on a list of 51 states plus DC.

Many people squawk about this and claim somehow it isn't true: All is well in Zion. People quote some sort of phantom statistic about temple marriage being better than the other Mormons. Pretty much all of them quote some phantom statistic by some BYU person that who knows how he arrived at it. It is possible that is true, and I have heard it recently in my ward - I hear it about once a year from someone in response to something. I really wish it were true, and I am not totally ruling it out. But the problem with that is that there is no one that tracks that statistic other than The Church. And you can't calculate that info if you don't have access to it, it will be a problem of extreme sample bias. And for whatever reason they may have, the church doesn't release that statistic. At all. Why they don't is anyone's guess, but mine is that it isn't too likely if they aren't releasing it that it is much to crow about.

Why do I think that would be? Is it because of any possibility in my mind that the gospel isn't true? Of COURSE NOT! I certainly want to claim many possible benefits to living the gospel, and many particularly for temple marriage. But it doesn't make my belief in the church or the benefits to living the gospel more credible when I claim allegiance to benefits that I can't demonstrate. And I don't have any obligation to say I believe that the state of Utah is true or even that Mormons are true. The only thing that I am going to have a problem with someone saying is bad is the actual gospel meaning the scriptures and a subset of the actual beliefs in circulation among members.

So in my way of thinking, because I really do want to be able to say there are GOOD things about members of the church (particularly about the gospel and T.Marriages), to explain a marriage statistic with a statistic of just worse than average I am going to need to be willing to acknowledge that there might be some bad things about them, too. I have to. I can't claim that a good thing averaged with another good thing can result in a bad number.

Not, mind you, that I need to acknowledge bad things about the gospel. Well I am still hoping not. Again, people have thought I was being mean and picking on Utah for no good reason. I would love it if I had had great experiences personally with Utah, but I haven't. But that I really don't need to explain because it is subjecting. And not that Utah fans can combat negative subjectivity with positive subjectivity because all subjective experience is just that and none of it is more valid or suggestive than any other. Actually that isn't true because even someone that doesn't believe in the church isn't going to have a problem with my theory that there are one or two decent people in the state. It would be pretty ludicrous to suggest that there aren't. My burden as a believing member is always greater to explain the things that DON'T work about the church than it is for other people to explain that some things do. Because I as a believing member am the one that claims that the church is a value added system. A buch of experiences positive and negative end up with everyone just seeing what they want to see.

But the thing is, stats don't lie. Not good ones. A lot of things can get that subjective treatment. THE STAMP. We can give many different things a mental makeover to make them seem like "All is well in Zion." But then we would be left with a statistic of being below average to account for. An important one. Like the most. If we can't even claim a slightly better marriage record than the natural average, um that is a problem.

There are other statistics in Utah that are below average that I don't care for. I don't care for the proliferation of pyramid schemes in Utah County. And that is hard fact. It isn't just my own subjective experience that everything is all nice and fine. Someone can write off my subjective experience that things in my world are nice and fine, but I have a hard time writing away hard statistics. I even have a hard time writing off other people's subjective experiences, but the statistics are harder. One can say that you can prove anything with stats. And certainly that will preclude their using any statistics of their own, or really ever having the perception that they know anything at all or at least that they can communicate to others beyond the very base minimum subjective experience. Subjective experiences can always be combated with equal and opposite subjectivity so for the purposes of seeing anything other than we want to see they are very poor.

So how do I account for these things and not feel that my religion and culture is under attack? Well, first of all, I feel that religion and culture are two different things. I don't have to explain the state of affairs of a particular county in the United States if the problems there could be a regional culture issue and not an issue with IN GENERAL what happens when people that all live my religion get together to live in one place.

Of course, I would prefer that when people of my religion get together in large numbers that the outcome were DEMONSTRABLY positive to objective parties, and not just good because I think or say that they are good, actually good. But since I can't claim that it is, again, with anything other than "Well I like Utah," at best, I can always say that there are possibly problems with the regional culture there that don't necessarily carry over to my religion in general. Of course most of us think it is possible that the Church may have to relocate to MO, so it may be that already within our own predictions of our future as a people there is the idea that the cultural seat has a few problems that we are hoping to get rid of before things get "officially Zion," so to speak.

But even beyond that I think that if it were possible to point out a cultural trait that perhaps one day we will get rid of as a people that were responsible for all of these things (and more) that that would of course be the most ideal of all possible scenareos. That way we can blame something that we don't particularly need or like and that getting rid of it will significantly help some of the things that happen to our detrement as a people at this time.

In my opinion, the stamp of subjectivity, its frequency of use, and the caution and reason that it prevents us from exercising in important decisions is a candidate for something that getting rid of could significantly assist us as a culture in eliminating these red flag characteristics and try to start moving past these dire statistics.

If we get rid of the desire to every time we happen to think something that doesn't match the evidence we have the impulse to think that we just know we are right anyway, every time it seems that something that we prefer something like living a certain place, doing certain work or anything else that is just a PLAIN PREFERENCE n we say to ourselves and others that we 'just feel right about it,' and when we desperately want something very exciting like to get married right away to someone we just met we say that in the face of all reason of our own or others' we know that it is the right thing.

I am not saying that we give up having preferences. We can all want to do things and do them. We can all still like who we like and marry who we want. But the ease at which we all feel that we can stamp the cosmos' approval on actions that are at best personal desires and at worst baser impulses of the natural man is a dangerous thing. They are how we eliminate reason and accountability from the equation in important decisions in our lives. They are the way we do what we want to do and at the same time get to feel like all we have to do is what comes naturally or by preference and we get to tell others in sacrament meeting that we are so in tuned with the cosmos that it orders our every action to the letter.

And certainly there are things where these things are harmless. When people talk in S Meeting about how God told them when to change their water pump, that's certainly nice. But most of us are pretty sure that when it happens to someone else we don't have any actual sense that it is anything more than their own impression. Probably harmless.

But a lot of things enter into this practice that aren't harmless. Of course when we see people switch spouses in the ward and it is easy for them to say that they are just listening to what God wants them to do we know that there might be a problem. I am pretty sure that when I got sealed in the temple it was with the understanding that if I listened to anything telling me to be with someone else that it wouldn't be God. Or he would have tried pretty hard to tell me to perhaps wait and not be so rash in marrying, I have faith.

And also one thing that enters into it is judging others. Perhaps I like to read a lot and someone else likes to sew. That is what's called a preference. But so often I hear it called "What I like is righteous and what someone else likes isn't." I see other preferences such as whether I like someone become easy to want to try to justify through the cosmos. Perhaps someone doesn't like me. That is what's called a preference. But when someone thinks that they dont just want to admit that they randomly don't like me, that there must be some cosmic justification for someone's not liking me, it is an easy step for that person to take to the subjectivity stamp: I don't like someone for a reason. Probably because they're inferior.

I would in general like to, not encourage anyone to live differently than they want to live. I have my preferences, the things I think that I should do with my life, and the things I think make sense. And I encourage everyone else to have theirs.

But there is that little phrase that the scriptures often use about knowing something in our hearts AND in our minds. Perhaps the scriptures are encouraging checks and balances. Perhaps it should also be a warning if it seems as a people we seem to always be making decisions with one or the other. Particularly with our emotions, because there will be no limit to the kinds of things we do that will have the stamp of the right thing if we have no aspiration to anything other than whether it feels good.