Love in Marriage -- met needs or simply natural expression?

[Guest mormonmusic]

I've read a few posts about love in marriage. Some argue that love is a result of chemistry between couples, and that its spontaneous and giving. That love is there because couples just love their spouse unconditionally and spontaneously. They just get along, so it happens.

Others argue that love happens when one spouse proactively goes about meeting the needs of the other person, even when it's not part of their established behavior patterns to do so.

Others believe that a truly sacrificing and Christlike spouse will go on loving their spouse for years and decades, even in the face of their own needs not being met in the marriage.

Where do you come out on this issue? Are we primarily selfish in our marriages, feeling happy and willing to reach out and love our spouse so long as our needs are met? Is it realistic and desireable to continually give to your spouse, and not receive much in return for the sake of stability, staying married, and keeping the relationship together, or the hope that one day, the relationship will be fulfilling?

What do you think?

[Gwen]

i'm glad you started a thread on this. i was thinking on it. lol

i've read books and/or articles on all the above theories. some say give selflessly and things will work out in the end even if your own needs are neglected and you are unhappy. others say it should be natural and if not then run. most say you have to work at it and know your partner and find that balance for the two of you.

i think it's somewhere in the middle of them all. i think love goes through phases. when you meet and fall in love things are happening more naturally. but then you have kids and work and life get in the way and what is "natural" changes. then you have to start working on it. sometimes for a short time someone is sick or some other uncontrollable event and one spouse must give all to the other with nothing in return. not because the spouse doesn't want to but can't. real love understands that and will survive it.

the one i don't understand is the give everything even if you get nothing in return for an entire marriage (not the short term like for an illness i already mentioned). though it seems to be the one most taught in the church. if your marriage is having trouble and you aren't happy then give everything. forget yourself and serve your spouse. for how long? at what point does the spouse wake up? cause life just got a lot easier for them, why should they do anything better? or how will they even know they are doing anything wrong? this is one thing about the church's teachings i really don't understand.

also something i'm not sure about on the "work at it" argument. where is the line in "if you love me you will meet my needs"? yes i've read the book "his needs her needs". what if there is a conflict in the needs. some conflicting things i see that came from the book, sorry if it's hard to follow not having read it.

let's say a man has a need for a clean house. understandable. even if the wife doesn't really need the house to be "that" organized she will care that it's important to her husband and try to do that for him. the same way she would try to cook his favorite meal on occasion or something. i love you, i want you to be happy, let me do this for you. what if the man's need is unrealistic. if he wants a spotless house but they have several toddlers and mom is pregnant. obviously she can't keep things spotless. there are a lot of degrees of "organized" or "clean". if she does the best she can, gives all she has to the point of fatigue and still isn't keeping things to his "satisfaction" what do they do? is he expected to not have his need met? does that mean she doesn't love him? where is the balance in that?

or let's say a woman has a huge need for communication. to be able to talk to and connect with ppl, on a personal level. but the husband can only take so much especially after a long day at work. so the wife says, "ok, i can understand that. talk to me some and i'll find someone else to meet the rest of my need. or i'll call and get the initial emotions i'm having regarding this issue addressed and then we can talk when my thoughts are better composed." but then the husband also has the need to feel "trust", to know personal things aren't being discussed outside of the marriage. so he doesn't want her to talk to anyone else. so he can't meet her need but he has a need that prevents her's from being met.... you have "needs" that are in direct conflict. who should have to "give up" some of their "need" for the sake of a spouse?

[Hemidakota]

Elder Marvin J. Ashton stated this in a past talk, “…we serve that which we love.” I may add another word at the end of his statement; “…we serve that which we love, unconditionally.”

Unconditional love is always a two-way street between partners in marriage. Even if, one does not provide specific needs of the other, we still serve each other until it is engrained within and unconditional.

If not, I cannot fathom an eternal relationship where both do not have a capacity of unconditional love for each other.

Over a month ago, when I walked into my master bedroom closet, I happened to look over her side of the closet and what I noticed in the middle of closet, was a pile of clothes, shoes, and other odds and ends. My first thought how I can help her in cleaning up the mess and organized her stuff; knowing her life is devoted to the family and grand children. She averagely spends about 150-200 miles everyday from dropping off and picking up every member in the family, running errands and so forth.

One morning, she was left for a high school track meet, I decided to pull out a box top shelves that I was going to use down in the front door closet for shoes, and cleanup her closet space. I organized her clothes and arranged her shelves for her.

She come home late that day and was quite surprised, was able to walk into the closet. Ever since then, she kept her space organized.

Even this morning, I picked up her clothes and shoes, from the side of the bed, took down the wash.

Anything I can do, being a blessing to her life is my concern and goal.

Here is a question that simply an act of love for the other, how many of us males, still open car doors for our spouse, house door, or pull out a seat for her at a local restaurant? I still do. Even if she will wait until I walk around the car and then open her door to make me laugh. How many come home from work and give our first hug and ‘pinch on the rear’ to our lovely spouses? When we are at church, where is our arm? Is it holding her hand or over her shoulder? There are so many other ways to show our love for each other daily. :) It is relentless pursuit of showing love for each other.

As I stated before, I cannot fathom any of our Heavenly Parents children who would seek an eternal relationship where there is no unconditional love.

[Bini]

Marriage takes tending in order to enrich it, regardless, if it comes naturally or has to be consciously worked at. If you stop tending to the relationship, it'll eventually dwindle and die. My husband is a natural giver and is more than happy to meet my needs before his own, whether or not, I agree with that. He tells me that he's happy, when I'm happy. It takes very little effort on his part to show appreciation and love because it's just in his nature and who he is. I, on the other hand, have to consciously "work" on being more sensitive etc etc to others and their needs. It just doesn't come as naturally to me.

[Elgama]

Marriage is a two way street, I personally find forgiveness, friendship, are part of that love, My husband doesn't meet all my needs, sure I don't meet all of his, but we get along and strive to improve

[Faded]

I think that the times spent asking, "What's in it for me?" lead to feeling miserable, creating unrealistic expectations and setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think that time spent thinking, "What can I do for my spouse today?" lead to a lot of happiness, contentment and general good-will.

I don't think there are many answers that work for every couple. Case in point, there's about 50% of people out there who do better getting over a fight by sleeping on it. For the other 50%, that makes it worse. I'm one of the first category, and my wife is one of the second category, so for the sake of her sanity, we have to do it her way. Sleeping on it would be disastrous. But some counselors and General Authorities say, "never go to bed angry." If both marriage partners are like me, and are better off just sleeping on it, then that blanket advice is not a good fit for them. Similarly, each marriage is a bit different and everyone works out their own system.

The one constant for me: When I'm staying close to God and doing what I'm supposed to be doing, I feel much greater love for my wife. When I'm slacking off on my spirituality, then I tend to start noticing and being overly annoyed with her flaws and even perceived flaws that aren't truly there.

As to defining love: The chemical reaction thing is lust. Lust is not a bad thing in a marriage. It's actually a very good thing. But love is more important. But it's easy to confuse love and lust.

A good definition of love:

Moroni 7:45-47

45 And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—

47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

Love is not about, "What's in it for me?" Love has nothing to do with, "Is my spouse fulfilling my needs?" Love is something is looking for ways serve them, please them and make them happy. Real love is something you can spend a lifetime trying to do right and still never succeed. But the harder you both try, the happier your marriage will be.

[dizzysmiles]

Read The Five Love Languages book. It's great. Love is something that you do for someone else because you can't imagine your life without them, even if that requires doing something completely for them. THe more we give to our loved one, the more they are going to give to us, but the true joy will be coming from making them happy. May not always be easy but it's worth it.

[Hemidakota]

I am now undertaking to add a breakfast in the morning. Even if, it will caused me to wake an 30-minute prior.

Anything to be a blessing in her life.

[Guest]

When I can be ME and he can be Him and it's still okay... that's love.

[its_Chet]

I used to be a member of the “love as hard as you can even if you get nothing back” camp. I used to believe that marriage should never end unless there is a risk of serious physical injury to one or both of the spouses incident to it. I also used to believe that if I decided my marriage would never end, it simply would not. I used to think it was all up to me, because unless we both decided it was over, it never could be. I also used to believe that no amount of unhappiness and misery justified divorce. It took over 13 years of being married to a very selfish person with as yet undiagnosed and very serious behavioral disorders before I began to see things differently.

Let’s consider this whole thing logically. I don’t know about anyone else, but for me, when I ponder the Gospel logically, I occasionally have a breakthrough and begin to understand something I never did before, or even receive a personal revelation. That’s because the Gospel is logical. It’s natural. It’s not a mystical fairy tale. It is simply reality, though it is often obscured by our mortal perception and spiritual weaknesses.

Logically, let’s imagine what might happen if we lived a celestial law, appeared before the Savior at our judgment, and were found worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, although we did not have a spouse. We already know that Heavenly Father is a loving and merciful Father, as opposed to a petty, albeit omnipotent taskmaster. He has commanded us to marry and have families of our own, promising us that if we are sealed together by the authority of the Priesthood, it will be an eternal family. We are commanded to do so because it is the purpose of life, to emulate Heavenly Father in every way possible, until we eventually become just like Him. All of creation follows a pattern, a “circle of life”. Even Heavenly Father does. So we’re supposed to marry, but what if we never do, and live an otherwise celestial life? We know Heavenly Father will allow those who did not have an opportunity to hear the Gospel in mortality a chance to hear it on the other side of the veil. We know that the same mercy applies to those who reach their judgment unmarried.

Now, suppose, in this scenario, you reach your judgment unmarried and Heavenly Father tells you that you will now finally have your chance to be married, to fulfill this ordinance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How do you reckon this will be done? Will He choose someone for you? Will He make recommendations, but leave the decision to you? Will He turn you loose to go find someone all by yourself? If He does recommend someone, will it be a stranger, or will it perhaps be someone you might have known in life, with whom you are familiar? I suppose a lot of this might depend on individual circumstances, but when I ponder this scenario, and when I remember all that is involved in courtship and getting married in this life, I am solidly convinced that Heavenly Father expects us to look around and search for someone who sparks our interest and attracts us, rather than just receive a spouse from a distribution center or something like that. I am convinced that arranged or passionless marriages are not the way Heavenly Father prefers we do things.

We need every bond possible in our families. We need to interact together with spouse and children in such a way that we continually grow together, and our relationships become stronger, never coasting, never resting on our laurels. Certainly never regressing and deteriorating. If this kind of celestial family is not impossible in a marriage devoid of passion and mutual attraction, it certainly is harder. Personally, I’ve come to view anything that makes growing closer to Heavenly Father more difficult as being, in at least some sense, sinful.

This is the logic that drives me to believe that in finding a spouse, we are not only justified, but obligated to find one that appeals to us on every level possible. Is it shallow to want a spouse we find physically attractive? I think not. Provided, we should strive to not be so shallow that we are only attracted to the kind of people whose appearances are so glamorous and comely that it gives them a superiority complex and cripples their ability to relate to people in a normal way, on even ground. I believe this is why so many celebrity marriages fail, by the way; the “I can do better than you” mentality.

So after we have searched and found someone whose company we enjoy, to whom we are attracted, and who makes us happy enough to convince us that we will be happy with that person for eternity, next, let’s consider what happens if that person fails to continue to treat us the same way they did when they won our favor.

What if that person turns into a real jerk? What if they start calling us names? Ridicule us? Show open contempt for us in front of the children, undermining our authority as parents? What if instead of basking in the warmth of their love, we find ourselves detecting only coldness and apathy from them? What if the adoring smiles are replaced with screeching and shouting? The question is, do we bolt? Do we endure? If so, for how long?

I believe that everyone has a breaking point, even President Monson (although I guarantee you his is miles above and beyond mine). If you force yourself to live with someone who constantly antagonizes you, like a child poking an animal in a cage with a stick, you have to understand that eventually that animal is going to bite. It’s only a matter of time. Everyone’s patience runs out eventually. And what if we fail to extract ourselves from such a situation before the pressure overwhelms us? We may lose control, but are we not obligated to avoid prolonged exposure to the influences that would cause us to do so? Wouldn’t it be like smoking a cigarette and hoping to not become addicted? When we find ourselves tempted beyond our ability to withstand, I believe it’s because we entered into or stayed too long in a situation where we should not have been. I believe that some domestic violence is the result of an abused spouse finally cracking and retaliating. And when it goes that far, it often goes so far it cannot be taken back again. I’m talking about mistakes with permanent consequences that can never be undone, even if a full repentance is made.

That is obviously an extreme scenario. Consider what happens if things never go that far, but move down that path. Consider emotional abuse, neglect, hostility, etc. Consider parents whose marriage is so unhappy the children cannot help but notice. How does this make the Gospel look to the children? How does this teach them how to treat their own spouses when they get older? How likely are these children to have spiritually healthy families of their own? How can we please Heavenly Father when our families are in such a state?

I used to believe the only appropriate option was to hold on and suffer through it. Teach the children devotion by suffering the mistreatment you receive from your spouse. Never mind if they’re suffering too, just teach them to be patient and forgiving. Perhaps this is appropriate to a point, but beyond that, I have learned that it does more harm than good. When your spouse is yelling at your children in public, openly calling them “G.D. retards” for doing something that would have only annoyed a normal person, you know that you are not the only one suffering. Patience is no longer a virtue, nor is forgiveness. That person needs help, and if he or she refuses or fails to get it, you owe it to those children to get them out of there.

Okay, what if there are no children? What if it’s just the two of you? At what point do you bail, if ever? Do you wait until there are children? If you do and you get divorced then, I can assure you that unimaginable pain will be distributed among you and your children. Everyone will pay a price.

But we don’t just cut and run when things get hard do we? We don’t leave someone just for not being interesting to us anymore, right? Of course we don’t. Marriage of convenience is not celestial marriage. Anyone who gets married just for what they can get out of the deal is sadly misled. Marriage is more about giving than receiving. And when this is our attitude, and our spouse is a good person with a healthy mind, the receiving takes care of itself.

As I see it, there is a fine line between being patient with a jerky spouse and removing yourself from an unhealthy and abusive situation that will drag you down to hell in time. I know for a fact that an abusive family member can condition other family members to be abusive also, and that this is Satan’s work, the core of his ambition. I know for a fact that goodness and evil are both contagious, free will notwithstanding. Our free will is best utilized in escaping and avoiding situations where we are tempted beyond our ability to resist.

When I was first baptized, and for a couple of years after, I felt a warmth I could not describe. People treated me like the sun shined out of my nose. After a while of being married to an emotionally abusive spouse, I felt myself becoming like her. I felt the desire to retaliate growing day by day. I became more and more the worst version of myself. I felt myself slipping into hell. I did not understand what was happening or why, and I believed that the end of my marriage was not an option. I held on for over 10 years in that condition. We had three children. They have all exhibited signs of behavioral disorder, some of it obviously learned.

And I have been antagonized beyond my ability to control myself, on multiple occasions. I have reacted, retaliated, in inappropriate ways. My chance for getting custody of the children in the divorce is in jeopardy because of my mistakes, though those mistakes are not mine alone. I stayed in a marriage that caused more harm than good. A marriage that accomplished Satan’s will more than it accomplished Heavenly Father’s. It made a mockery of Father’s will. It became an unholy thing, a plague to us all, and upon all our relatives. It will end soon, and in my opinion, that’s a good thing. It’s the end of a marriage that should never have happened. God willing, I will find a normal woman, who treats people the way they treat her, or better yet, a true daughter of God who lives a celestial law, rather than a telestial, or even terrestrial one. Hopefully I can find a woman who will let the Gospel or at least common sanity govern her actions and words, rather than “spin the wheel and see what you get”. And if I am blessed so, my children will have a second chance at a normal childhood, and a normal life to follow.

I failed my children by subjecting them to an abusive mother. I have a chance to make things right, and find happiness for myself in the bargain. I am the survivor of a marriage that should not have been. Sometimes you should leave. When, you ask? I’m afraid there are no simple answers. It’s a decision we must all make, succinctly stated by The Clash: should I stay or should I go? God only knows.

[Gwen]

Logically, let’s imagine what might happen if we lived a celestial law, appeared before the Savior at our judgment, and were found worthy of the Celestial Kingdom, although we did not have a spouse. We already know that Heavenly Father is a loving and merciful Father, as opposed to a petty, albeit omnipotent taskmaster. He has commanded us to marry and have families of our own, promising us that if we are sealed together by the authority of the Priesthood, it will be an eternal family. We are commanded to do so because it is the purpose of life, to emulate Heavenly Father in every way possible, until we eventually become just like Him. All of creation follows a pattern, a “circle of life”. Even Heavenly Father does. So we’re supposed to marry, but what if we never do, and live an otherwise celestial life? We know Heavenly Father will allow those who did not have an opportunity to hear the Gospel in mortality a chance to hear it on the other side of the veil. We know that the same mercy applies to those who reach their judgment unmarried.

Now, suppose, in this scenario, you reach your judgment unmarried and Heavenly Father tells you that you will now finally have your chance to be married, to fulfill this ordinance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How do you reckon this will be done? Will He choose someone for you? Will He make recommendations, but leave the decision to you? Will He turn you loose to go find someone all by yourself? If He does recommend someone, will it be a stranger, or will it perhaps be someone you might have known in life, with whom you are familiar? I suppose a lot of this might depend on individual circumstances, but when I ponder this scenario, and when I remember all that is involved in courtship and getting married in this life, I am solidly convinced that Heavenly Father expects us to look around and search for someone who sparks our interest and attracts us, rather than just receive a spouse from a distribution center or something like that. I am convinced that arranged or passionless marriages are not the way Heavenly Father prefers we do things.

i agree that i don't think heavenly father wants passionless marriages but what about all the arranged marriages in the scriptures. isaac and rebecca; the sons of lehi and the daughters of ishmael; i don't claim to understand this story well...but what of hosea?

[Hemidakota]

As with Dr. Sperry who embraced the allgory viewpoint, I agree with his assessment of Hosea marriage was more of an allegory than literal.

Dr. Sperry, respected Latter-day Saint scholar in whose honor this symposium is held, embraced the allegorical view of Hosea's marriage. His views reflect those of Keil and Delitzsch:

"I cannot believe the marriage to be a literal one, for, as those who have taken it as an allegory or parable have always pointed out, to do so would be imputing to God a command inconsistent with His holy character. Furthermore, for Hosea to marry a woman with a questionable past would make it impossible for him to preach to his people and expose their sexual immoralities. They could point the finger of scorn at him and say, 'You are as guilty as we are; don't preach to us." Sperry, Voice of Israel's Prophets, p. 281.

[Guest]

i agree that i don't think heavenly father wants passionless marriages but what about all the arranged marriages in the scriptures. isaac and rebecca; the sons of lehi and the daughters of ishmael; i don't claim to understand this story well...but what of hosea?

The fallacy to Chet's excellent post is the assumption that arranged marriages are passionless. Also, I know he doesn't mean to say this but others may misinterpret his passionate post to mean that abusive marriages come out of arranged marriages. This is not the case.

I understand that one should stay out of abusive relationships.

But, on the same token, I also impress that one should know the other person inside and out with eyes wide open before deciding to marry.

This is something that an arranged marriage can have an advantage over. Arranged marriages are usually made without emotional-blinders on.

[Guest mormonmusic]

As someone who had a difficult marriage in the first decade, with a whole host of issues such as the relative maturity of me and my wife (I was 10 years older), medical problems, conflicting values in our extended families which clashed dramatically in our marriage, problems with dealing with anger, differing ideals on cleanliness and the role of education, pets, you name it.

There came a point at the 10 year mark when I'd had it. I'd prayed for a solution to the problems we'd faced regularly, and the problems stayed.

After 10 years, I had "real intent" when I knelt down and politely told the Lord that if things beyond my control didn't change, I was leaving for greener pastures while I still had time on my side, and was still physically attractive etcetera.

I'd had it spiritually. I visualized with some fondness, the idea of having my own place within a week, kept the way I wanted it, with the freedom to meet people with the eventual intent (after divorce) to establish a new and better relationship. I visualized freedom from all the things that were making me miserable etcetera. And I started to want them.

And then, over the next two weeks the pivotal situation which made my marriage miserable started unlocking before my eyes. Without any intervention from myself, a nagging problem that I couldn't control melted away gradually.

This was a turning point in my marriage, and things got better and better. And I'm still married and much happier.

I think the Lord knows people will get to the point they can't take it anymore. And he releases them from the bondage at that point. In my case it was by intervening to take away a problem. In other cases, I think HE understands when people have simply had enough in situations that simply won't ever work.

Am I glad I stuck it out? I have mixed feelings. The first 10 years were absolute torment for me; my Dad and one close Church friend both said to get out of the relationship and start over. But I have a decent marriage now where more of my needs are met and I'm not suffering; would that ever have been achieved if I'd abandoned this relationship? I don't know.

Marriage is a risk when you enter into it. You have no idea what the future holds.

Edited May 11, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Gwen]

i was looking over the church sunday school lesson on hosea. if it says in there the church believes that to not be only allegorical it's not clear.

what of this quote from the lesson (bold mine):

Elder Henry B. Eyring explained: “This was a love story. This was a story of a marriage covenant bound by love, by steadfast love. … The Lord, with whom I am blessed to have made covenants, loves me, and you, … with a steadfastness about which I continually marvel and which I want with all my heart to emulate” (Covenants and Sacrifice [address delivered at the Church Educational System Symposium, 15 Aug. 1995], 2).

is this really to be a love story, of true love? hosea was in what i would think was an abusive relationship, and the lord told him to be in it. is this what marriage should be, if the one person is not worthy one should be as hosea? or is this story only for purposes of illustrating god's love and not intended to have "marriage" implications?

[Hemidakota]

Scholars and the brethren are split on what could be a literal or allegory standoff. I should add this to the former post.

Gwen, Hosea marriage, if it was literal, looking from this perspective, I would note the condition of marrying by commandment of God, to a promiscuous, immoral woman. Is it harsh to state this to about a prophet? Perhaps! This lone interpretation takes the account literally as recorded.

It is possibly the woman was not immoral when Hosea married but through her failure of the gospel did so later. In this case, the Prophet Hosea [see 1:2], mistakenly records that she was originally "a wife of whoredoms." Or, possibly it anticipates her later behavior knowing the Northern Israelites are already living this lifestyle. Was the northern portion of Israel immoral and promiscuous nation that is more of a relationship with Jehovah? We have no historical record to make any distinct clear answer.

Here is some background Gwen to this prophet circumstance, the ministries of the prophet believe to be in the tumultuous third quarter of the eighth century B.C. Two centuries earlier, the great Israelite empire of David and Solomon had divided into two rival nations, Israel in the north and Judah in the south.

Prophet Hosea's stewardship was the Northern portion of the kingdom of Israel. His ministry began during the era of Jeroboam II, when both kingdoms were prosperous and wealthy. The two great empires of that day, namely, Egypt and Assyria, were less involved in Syria-Palestine than at other times in that era. As a result, the smaller kingdoms, which during other periods had fallen into their respective spheres of influence, now were able to concentrate on internal and external affairs to their own benefit.

King Jeroboam's reign was characterized by growth and consolidation. Yet the wealth of the two kingdoms in Palestine was not that of nations blessed with the riches of righteousness; their prosperity was not that of those who serve the Lord. Indeed, the prophets denounced both nations for their wickedness. Amos, a contemporary of Hosea, decried Israel's oppression of the poor and the excesses of the rich. Hosea announced God's severance of his covenant relationship with Israel. Both kingdom of Israel were foretold the bitter consequence of that action. [see Kent Jackson statement concerning Hosea the Prophet]