redtide

I think that the view counselors should not tell people what to do is correct, and in harmony with the Gospel.

Dr. David Schnarch would completely agree. The counselor's role is not to tell you what to do. It's to help you in making YOUR decision.

I googled the quote and found the book. You had recommended it to me, and we have it at home on loan. Clearly not LDS, that much I agree. But that doesn't mean the author isn't right. I'll tell you this much, I had not found this gem as I had not yet taken the book seriously. But this is a huge revelation to me.

That is one of the most enlightening things I've ever read regarding relationships. All I can say is, "Wow" and "Thanks!" That goes a loooooong way towards explaining some of our difficulties. One of the things that has bothered my wife immensely is that in the run up to the emotional affair, she had felt SO close to me and felt our marriage was becoming perfect, with a life-changing moment for her in her feelings towards me. But I did not feel that way. Things WERE better. We didn't fight as much. But I was not where she was. Now, she's mad at me because I did not feel as she did. She wonders how her feelings could have been so wrong. Well, they weren't wrong. She WAS right. Her feelings WERE correct. But HER feelings were not MY feelings, and the fact that I felt different doesn't mean that her feelings were incorrect or false. Wow. What a wonderful revelation. I look forward to sharing it with my wife tonight. I hope that she "gets it" as I just did.

It's part of the mission to perfect the saints. I completely agree that priesthood leaders are woefully undertrained to deal with many of these issues. The bishops that I talk to readily recognize this. But the Church doesn't WANT them to replace the marriage experts. Nonetheless, it would be better if they HAD more knowledge.

Thanks for sharing.

I think that she's just saying that the first responsibility when dealing with a situation in which there is a victim IS the victim. That's to counter the perception that many felt that the confessor was attended to more than the victims. It was a very real and unfortunate perception, sometimes perpetuated by the actions of well-meaning leaders. >How is that all applicable to this thread? May be my fault. I've been all over the place on this thread. My bad.

>I still say whited sepulchers, though, because I believe that there is a lot of lying to ones self that happens deep within before these giganitic falls from grace. Yes. I agree. And often we will never know. With my friend, maybe he was in the depths of sin. It didn't FEEL or LOOK like it. And we certainly can't judge. How did the First Presidency miss the deceit of the apostle for so long??? But they did. Is it any wonder that a bishop or SP lets an unworthy person get a temple recommend, or that an unworthy person is called as bishop or what have you? (Note: We still have to follow their advice, but that doesn't change the inner flaw of the called person. God will make things right in the end, even if we DO follow flawed advice.) Completely with you on just continuing to pray, study and stay close to God. If we do that, we should be okay. >I don't evaluate a person's righteousness anymore based upon what they do only. There are many mormons who know how to keep up appearances -- myself included. I think I was trained, indirectly of course, from the time I was very small. Bingo. Gets it. Totally agree.

By the way, in our own stake we are upping the awareness of what can happen because of this LDS seminary principal. In fact, we are instructing bishops tonight. No adult is off limits. No adult is "safe." We have to protect the youth first, and help the adults avoid situations that lead to this stuff. Another subject, but in my craw right now.

>No these issues of communication and honesty/disclosure are not cut and dried. Some things are just said on a "need to know" basis. They are not a "one size fits all" sort of thing. And in my experience with marriage, it seems to be an on going learning process where we have to sometimes learn and apply updated ideas and tools to make our marriages better and to meet the needs of the present as we mature and develop into, hopefully, wiser and more capable beings. Completely with you on that. And thanks. I'm learning that, and learning to be patient. >My communication style at the beginning of my marriage certainly wouldn't work today. And I don't need to know all the details of my husband to feel close and supportive and a deep commitment. I trust him to tell me if something is important for me to know -- even if it is painful. And I trust myself to ask when I need to know something and that I will receive the information in compassion and with wisdom with regards to what to do next. I also trust that if there is a question or some issue is weighing heavily then we always have prayer to help us select the proper course. That's a lot of trust. And that takes time. Thanks for sharing. On the other issue you raised, about the feelings vs. the Spirit, I'm certain that you are close to the truth. Part of the problem is that we relate to the Spirit via feelings, and that is one of the criticisms of the LDS Church. Other churches say that we have to follow the Bible (at least the interpretation of a given church) and reference to the "Spirit" to reveal the truth is flawed. Of course, we disagree. And, I think that the LDS Church is right (obviously). But, trust me, this guy was solid. He didn't have pornography issues. He magnified his callings. He certainly SEEMED to love his wife. It was a happy family. The wife was dumbfounded. She died a few years later (though she did remarry) and I'm convinced it was of a broken heart. Here's another example (beyond the former 25-year apostle and my friend). I have solid information (I can't tell you how, so just bear with me) of a former LDS seminary principal who had inappropriate contact with a 16-yo girl. He violated the law, that seems clear. The sheriff has texts FROM the principal of inappropriate sexual comments made to the girl, and descriptions of genitals and what to do with them and these texts DO violate the law (even if the principal is truthful in denying sexual contact, something that I believe he DID engage in). This guy was SOLID. Great family, and described as a spiritual GIANT by those who knew him. But he screwed up. I'm not sure whether he thought the Spirit was saying it was okay. But he did. Great people and righteous people mess up. They do. And, often, they justify their acts at the time being led astray, I believe, by promptings that THEY believe are from the Spirit. Obviously, they aren't. Maybe it IS the Spirit, but they are misreading what the Spirit said (as you infer might happen). Deseret News | LDS seminary principal is arrested in sexual abuse

Ryan. I'm addressing people who honestly believe that God has told them that engaging in sinful behavior is not a sin. They truly believe that the Spirit is guiding them. That can, and does, include adultery. After all, God sanctioned murder with Nephi, right? Take that and run with it and it's amazing what the Spirit can authorize. Consider the case of Elder Richard Lyman. He was an apostle for 25 years. >In 1943, the First Presidency discovered that Lyman had long been cohabitating with a woman other than his legal wife. In 1925 Lyman had begun a relationship which he defined as a polygamous marriage. Unable to trust anyone else to officiate due to the church's ban on the practice, Lyman and the woman exchanged vows secretly. By 1943, both were in their seventies. Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943 at age 73. Richard R. Lyman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You can bet your bottom dollar that Elder Lyman believed that he was doing the right thing, and not engaging in sin. I also surmise that he "justified" his conduct by engaging in "secret vows." He didn't commit adultery because he "married" the woman. All of that is poppycock, of course. But certainly Elder Lyman knew what the Spirit was and know what it felt like. Similarly, certainly others felt the Spirit through the efforts of Elder Lyman. But he was wrong in that one thing, that's for sure.

I'm certainly not trying to disparage the Spirit, only man's failed efforts to work with the Spirit. An example: I know of a man who was solid - RM, great guy, great family, temple marriage. He began teaching the Gospel to a lady friend. They really were "just friends" at the time. She became converted to the Gospel and was baptized. Somewhere along the way, they developed strong feelings for one another. He prayed and searched his soul. He believe the Lord told him that SHE was his partner. They ended up having sex and he was excommunicated. I'm not sure what happened to the convert partner. The marriage ended in divorce. He remained convinced throughout the Church discipline that the Spirit had advised him. He was sure that he was following the Spirit. This friend of mine knew what the Spirit felt like. He was solid. And I'm pretty sure that the Spirit did not tell him to commit adultery and leave his wife/kids behind. But he did. That's what I'm getting to.

I am thinking more of generalities, now. In my situation, my wife has seen everything. It's a non-issue. I'm thinking on a more "grand" scale - a more eternal scale. And I am thinking more on HER need for privacy, not mine. I have pretty much taken the view that she should/can know everything about me (and I'm not just talking about my Internet affair of the past). I'm talking about childhood memories, discussions with a bishop, discussions with close friends . . . anything. But I feel pause, because I'm not sure that I SHOULD know everything about her. Perhaps she needs privacy in communicating with a professional counselor. My wife has issues that she believes needs pyschological counseling, entirely unrelated to anything that I have done. These are issues that have been with her for a very, very long time, and for which she has taken medication over the years to "deal" with. She is trying to "escape" the medication, and I'm not sure that's the right desire/answer. But in the end, I doubt that someone here can give me the "answer" to the detailed question. I think it requires an individual response. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Maybe I could individualize it well enough that someone here COULD give the right answer. I'm also hesitant to rely solely on the Spirit for guidance. I have witnessed many people being led astray by SOLELY reliance on the Spirit, likely because they didn't ask the right question or interpreted an answer different than the Spirit intended. The Church itself has fallen short in this regard, at one time demanding that there be full disclosure of all details of an affair to the spouse, but now taking a more tempered stand that is more in line with the advice of professionals (it MAY be necessary for full repentance but it MAY be more harmful than good and thus NOT helpful at all and NOT required for repentance). The Church has reversed itself on prying into the sexually intimacy in the marriage as well. So none of us are perfect. These might be policy issues, more than direct revelation was wrong issues, but we aren't perfect. In essence, I'm thinking that the line is drawn where the two parties are comfortable. And that if information cannot be shared without hurting the other spouse, than the information should not be shared. Caution should be used to not confuse fear of "hurting" the other spouse with a desire to "hide" bad acts. I do believe that there is some danger in individual counsel regarding the marriage, without the other spouse present. And perhaps the line is drawn there, in that if the counselor or the discussion ever turns to a termination of the marriage, or an attack on the non-present spouse, that the non-present spouse be informed. I don't have an answer. But I'm just wondering as I build a closer relationship to my spouse than I have had with any other human being. Before, I didn't really have this desire, and felt that we were close enough. Now, I'm afraid that I might smother her, because of overwhelming feelings to be "one". Learning.

I completely agree.

>but the definition of intimacy is not losing all of ones privacy and boundaries. That may be. I seem to like that, but part of me believes that we are not truly "one" in such a case. Frankly, I'm not sure that I'm READY to be ONE. I'm just wondering.

From the book "Not Just Friends": >[P]ressing to hear about graphic sexual details or to see love letters is a mistake because the vivid images can become intrusive and interfere with intimacy. p. 206 I'm inclined to agree with that. My spouse has told me something that is extremely hurtful, and I doubt that I will ever forget. It's an impediment to intimacy, unless I force it from my mind. Now I have something to deal with, when I wish that I had never known.

>What makes you think marriage can be a happy institution when it is laid on a foundation of lies? I certainly don't think that, and have not formed my own conclusions regarding this issue as a whole. But I am sure that there are some things that you should not tell your spouse, e.g., that dress makes your butt look huge! Do you think that the spouse should be aware of all the conversations the other spouse has with a professional counselor?

I'm torn on something. I generally believe that everything should be open between the spouses, and there are some obvious examples, e.g., bank accounts, career, decisions affecting the children, income taxes, etc. But there are some issues that might raise questions, e.g., sins, negative feelings towards the other spouse, discussions with "experts". Should there be a line? Is there a reason to guard secrecy between the spouses? As an example, if a spouse has extremely hurtful feelings towards the other spouse (only married you for your money), would it be wise to share that feeling with the other spouse? It certainly does not help the marriage. What if the spouse shares, in confidence with a counselor, feelings that if shared with the spouse would be horrific, and potentially damage the relationship permanently? Should those be shared? Experts, and the Church, suggest that it may be best to NOT disclose certain details of marriage infidelity, where such details would permanently harm the relationship, i.e., share the fact that there are intimate "love letters" but do not give the letters for the other spouse to study. Is it fair to the spouse to NOT share those feelings? While the marriage might fail, the spouse left in the dark would be able to make decisions based on ALL the facts (as opposed to just the known facts due to secrecy by the other spouse). Part of me believes that the couple should be one in everything - everything. No secrets. No hidden sins. Thoughts?

Okay. Last post. I've decided that I am going to court my wife for the next year. I'm going to win her back. If after one year of courtship she does not change her attitude of man-woman taking precedence over the children, then we'll go from there. But I'm assuming that within one year she will have a change of heart. For the meantime, I have zero desire to engage in any intimate behavior with a woman who does not place me first (and, yes, I understand why she would not). So we will have to see how that goes, but I am guessing that when we have that discussion (and we will), that she will understand. I'm not holding her hostage, or course. But if you think of it, it makes sense. I didn't have sexual relations with her when courting, so why would I in the attempt to win her heart back? At least makes sense to me and my little mind. Thanks for all the suggestions, feedback.

I suppose we are all spousal abusers, then.

I'm thinking that this is my last update. I don't think that there is much anyone could offer up at this point. Yesterday, the bishop stated that it's pretty much out of his hands. He can offer mediation service, but not much more. It's between me and my spouse. If he was needed to keep things "calm," then that too. But that's no longer an issue. So I agree. Last night my wife and I had a long talk. In short, there are some things that she has said that she agrees are true. The biggest stumbling block is that she is not physically attracted to me, but the attraction that she has always had was spiritual, coupled with a firm knowledge that God told her to marry me. I'm not comfortable with that. Sounds like a pilgrimage to me. I married my wife because I was both physically attracted to her AND I wanted to treasure her the rest of my life. She wants me to forget what she said, offering that it was a dark thought deep in her heart that should never have come out. But the problem is that it's a true thought, and I now know it. I had never conceived of the possibility before. She also told me that the only reason she is still with me is because of the kids, and claims the bishop told her that if she did not have kids he would counsel her to leave me. That's though. I can understand it. But I don't see staying in a marriage just because of the kids. That's not the marriage that I wanted. Granted, I put this on myself, but . . . In short, I am going to decide to stay together for the kids. I don't want to harm them. The hopes that I had in having my bride back, and treasuring her as my love are shattered, though. I now believe that everything was a lie. I look back on fond memories of our courting and so many special moments through the years, and I find it hard to accept that the other person was doing this only because God told her to, and because she thought I was spiritually in tune and therefore worthy of her affection. I have a pretty solid foundation for myself. I dated a ton of people before marriage, so I'm not completely sulking thinking that I'm hideous and that (other than what I did). But it's really hard to want to remain married to a woman who doesn't see you as you see her. And the fact that it has always been this way, but she just never expressed it, is hard to get past. So. I don't see counseling as doing much to fix that, because even IF somehow a counselor convinced her that I'm attractive (not that such would be the role), then why would I want to be with a person who had to be convinced? So, for the kids.

>Angry people may appear strong, willful, or certain, but be assured that beneath the veneer are fear and loneliness and insecurity and pain. That seems to key in on my wife. She's threatened that I would leave. That's hard for me to wrap my brain around, since seems that I would be the one worried that SHE would leave. But her words to me today certainly seemed to bear that up. In a way, that's really disturbing. No man should be able to have that kind of power over his wife. I'm not sure that I would feel that way had she cheated on me (emotionally or physically).

This directly contradicts the advice of both the bishop and the SP. While neither prohibited her from discussing this with a confidant, both strongly advised AGAINST taking this to many people. They strongly recommended that my wife and I seek to work this out among ourselves, with counselors as necessary. I also am not sure that I agree with your definition of emotional adultery as spousal abuse. It's a betrayal, to be sure, of the most awful kind. From the 1999 LDS magazine article on abuse: I never sought to control my wife. I didn't seek to coerce her, or make her do something she would not normally do. I have never threatened my wife. I do not call her names. (Okay, I have raised my voice at her, but it's certainly mutual, not that this makes it right.) I do not try to intimidate her. In fact, you could argue that she is abusive to me, but I am not making that argument. I betrayed her trust. I hurt her. But despite what you suggest, I do not believe that I have ever abused her.

I'm not trying to drum up support for me. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's right to stay in a marriage where the other person does not truly love you (or even attracted to you). I just got finished with a constructive chat with my wife on the phone. She started by calling me an adulterer, infidel, and such. I countered with her that if she was going to continue to discuss using pejorative names for me, that I would respond likewise with her (abuser). That caused some initial kickback, and she demanded that I not make any demands of her but ask. Okay, I'm stubborn. So I suggested that we this be a prerequisite to our discussion tonight: No one uses any pejorative term to refer to the other spouse. It was clear from our discussion that she wanted to continue the marriage. And she explained why she continued to challenge me on my conduct absent any indication of misconduct on my part, e.g., demanding to know whether I had contact with this other girl, after repeatedly telling her that I had stopped contact and would never have contact in the future. Seems that she had received an e-mail in which my best friend relayed a request to my wife from this other girl to relay a message to me, and that same day (or next) I shut off contact to my e-mail accounts and cell phone. Turns out this was a coincidence, but the timing was terrible. So with that explained, my wife explained why she is insecure: * How could a person who is emotionally attached to another just shut it off in a few days and not want to go back? * If I could turn my love off so quickly with this other girl, then what's to stop me from instantly severing my emotional attachment to my wife and my family in the future? I responded that it is like fool's gold. Until you see it and hold it, it looks great. Everything seems wonderful. But faced with the reality, I turned back. It wasn't immediate and complete, but I refused the final entreaty and ended up choosing my wife. The love for this other woman was fake - a lie. The love for my wife was real and complete. It's easy to never want to go back to fool's gold. Regarding turning off love for my wife and family, I pointed out to her that I never entertained severing our relationship once I was sure my wife loved me. My desire was then to figure out how to have both (impossible). I also never considered leaving my family. So turning my love off for my wife and family never occurred, and was never seriously considered. With that said, she became more comfortable, and she said that she began to understand the whys and to trust in my love. Things made sense, based on what she had known. She also agreed to never look back, and that if I reopened access to my accounts that she would not seek out anything before the last week. (That was the strong recommendation of everyone she has talked to, including the bishop and SP, and she admits that she was wrong to try to "find out" the nitty gritty.) Maybe her statement about never being attracted to me was only in anger. Maybe she means that I am unattractive because of the betrayal (I could certainly see that!). But we'll know tonight. And I think that I can trust her response. For part of me, it's hard to conceive marrying someone "just because God told you to."

Had lunch with the Bishop. He doesn't think that he can offer anything at this point, unless we need a third party to be there to keep each other calm/reasonable. But that's not an issue in my opinion. So my wife and I will be discussing where to go from here. Bishop's advice: * can't tell you from the Church that either of you should separate, * understand of either of you feel the need * figure out what the two of you want, and then how to get there. In the end, I want my bride. But I don't want her to stay with me out of duty or sacrifice to the Lord's instruction. Part of me wishes that she'd find a 6'4" 250 lb guy with a six-figure salary to go off with and then she could be happy. I would not mind if she found happiness that way. But what I don't want is her to feel like she is sacrificing to stay with me, forgo her happiness out of some religious duty.