Marriage to the Lord


Guest Mores
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores

Me and the Mrs. have been reading an interesting book on marriage.  We've only gotten a few chapters in.  But I found a startling parallel between marriage to spouse and marriage to the Lord.  I'm referring to the metaphor of Christ being the bridegroom and the Church being the bride.

I've considered people who have left the Church for various reasons, conditions, and attitudes.  Some seem very distraught.  Some are angry.  Some are hurt.  Others are just plain baffled.  So, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to categorize people into one underlying cause.

Similarly, I've considered those who are irrationally negative toward the Church.  Similar things could be said of them.  Now, I say "irrationally" because some people only know negative things and are therefore very rational in their attitudes towards the "phantom image" that anti-Mormons spew.  But are there some who really know us, know the Church, and still choose to be negative?  Yes.  And there doesn't seem to be one underlying cause.

When reading this book about marriage, he says that there are four causes (even though his book has seven principles -- remember, we're only a few chapters in) that drive people to divorce.  One might actually say that there are four habits that push one into behaviors that will result in divorce.  He calls them the Four Horsemen.  Consider how they parallel how we feel about "The Church" or even the Lord.

  • Criticism of the person rather than a behavior that may be modified or addressed.  This includes things like "you always/never..."
  • Contempt for the individual -- Even when the other side is right, the negative feelings are so strong, you try to find a reason criticize anyway.  Ad hominem attacks.
  • Defensiveness -- The mirror image of Contempt.  It's using ad hominem to defend oneself.
  • Stonewalling. --  Shutting down communication.  This essentially means that a person has given up. There is a decision to just stop trying.  This may be a defense against other worse behavior, or this may be a form of emotional attack.

He makes various statements about which is the biggest factor.  But I've pondered this for a while.  My impression is that if even ONE of them is strong enough, then divorce is inevitable.  But USUALLY, it is a combination of more than one (possibly all four) of these horsemen.  If you see these warning signs, it is time to start thinking about how to turn those horsemen around and send them packing.

While this is obviously about marriage, my thread is about how the parallels work to describe those who leave the Church.

1) I've known individuals who have been hurt by certain people in the Church.  And because of this, they leave the Church.  Now, I'd ask: Is that one person "The Church"?  No.  To leave the Church because of the behaviors of one or several individuals, isn't fair to the Lord who set up the Church.  We can still have faith in the Lord, the system of beliefs, the organization He set up, and the worship services and practices of the gospel while still recognizing that no earthly organization will be without flaw.  Just as no marriage is perfect, no spouse is perfect, even the earthly organization that the Lord set up will also be imperfect because it is entrusted in the hands of imperfect people.  Continue to love the Lord and His Church even when certain people are being very human... and in some cases, evil.

2) If you have the attitude that something is wrong, then it is going to be wrong no matter what.  But if we're going to give a spouse a chance to make up for things or explain things, or even express their concerns to us, then we need to trust first, then verify second.  Instead, it is too often that distrust and suspicion begins the thought.  Thus the end of that thought will never be good.

3) Defensiveness in a gospel sense is what we might term rationalization.  Well, I should be able to love anyone I want.  So, what's wrong with being gay?  The Prophet is on the wrong side of history.  We should be allowed to marry in the temple.  And the Lord simply disapproves of the current Church policy.  Yeah, I think that's a good example.

4) Have you ever tried to visit an inactive member of the Church?  Shunning?  Yeah,  They sure do shun home/visiting teachers and ministering brothers/sisters.

The author of the book makes a note of saying that infidelity is considered one of the top (if not the top) cause of divorce.  He disagrees.  The underlying causes are much deeper and of longer duration than a single act.  The infidelity was merely the trigger.  With some reservations and exceptions, I believe in 95% of the cases, he's probably right.

Whenever someone leaves the Church, there are always warning signs.  There may be a myriad of "triggers".  And if we look at the triggers, we might all be tempted to say,"Well, I don't blame them."  But the truth is that the seeds of discontent were already sown long before the triggers.  Now, this is not to say that those who leave are always to blame.  I'm beginning to realize that those who stay often share some blame as well.  But too often, it is all one sided on the part of the one who leaves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea. I think I would have made different parallels for the 4 horsemen in a relationship between a person and the Church*. (note that it has been a few years since I read 7 Principles so I may forget exactly what he said in that book, but I have tried to keep up on his principles by following his blog and referencing the book, so I don't think I am completely ignorant of what he teaches.) Maybe?

1) Criticism: The person is always finding fault with Church doctrines, policies, procedures, and behaviors. I note that Gottman makes a distinction between complaints and criticisms, so a person should still be able to have and express doubts, disagreements, etc. with the Church. On the blog, he notes that the antidote to criticism is the softened startup. Basically, it is not about having differences and conflicts with the Church, but how you manage those differences. Being able to bring up questions, concerns, and disagreements with the Church in a way that avoids the other horsemen (and it sometimes seems to me that the Church can be quick to exhibit defensiveness when someone expresses a question, concern, or disagreement). I might also mention here that part of this might include being able to identify the perpetual problems (those issues where the person and the Church are not going to find a mutually agreeable resolution) and figure out how to manage those perpetual problems in a way that allows the relationship between the person and the Church to continue.

2) Contempt: The person reaches the point that the Church can do nothing right. The Church is dangerous and on the wrong side of everything. It seems that there are many who leave the Church who have developed this level of contempt. Again, it seems that the Church's response is often defensiveness or even stonewalling ("even if they are my neighbor I won't talk to them anymore even about neighborly things"). The antidote is building a culture of appreciation and respect. Basically, the person must learn to see and appreciate the good the Church does and believes and build on that. Even if their disagreements are perpetual, finding other things in the Church to be positive about is important to keeping the relationship open.

3) Defensiveness: The Church has a tendency to tell people when they are sinning or where they need to do better (that should be part of the Church's purpose). If the person becomes defensive, they refuse to acknowledge their sin. Naturally, Gottman's antidote for defensiveness is take responsibility. When the Church accuses you of sin, acknowledge your guilt or where you could do better. Some of the problem here might be in discerning when something is sin. If the Church claims something is sin and I don't think it is sin, then we are back to trying to manage this difference of opinion. Defensiveness is often a reaction to criticism or contempt. Is the Church making complaints or criticisms? Could the Church use softer startups or express gratitude for the person as part of the call to repentance?

4) Stonewalling: When the person refuses to interact with the Church. "Everytime I go to Church, they tell me I'm a sinner, so I'm not going anymore." As you note, many don't want to even answer the phone/door when the bishop/home teachers/others come to call. The antidote is to learn physiological self-soothing -- learning how to have difficult conversations without descending into contention. Learning when you need a break to calm down and come back to the discussion later (I seem to remember Gottman talking about the importance of coming back later and not using "flooding" as an excuse to avoid the difficult conversations). Again, stonewalling is often a response to criticism and contempt, so what is the Church doing that helps contribute to a person stonewalling. Could it do something different?

I think there is a place for discussion here. I'm not sure I am convinced that it is mostly one sided on the part of the one who leaves. Because the Church* is kind of a nebulous concept, where the person who leaves is fairly clear cut as an individual, it is easier to put responsibility on the shoulders of the one and more difficult to talk about or control how responsibility falls across the many different shoulders that make up the Church. In that respect, the person is bearing more responsibility just because they should have more control over themselves and their choices as an individual, but the Church cannot be responsible for every individual that might fall under its umbrella as far as this discussion is concerned.

* -- I'm having trouble defining who or what "the Church" is in this, because it clearly is not easily represented as a single individual. I kind of have in mind some kind of conglomeration of the institution with its organization and policies and procedures and doctrines and manuals, the leadership -- both local and general, and the loyal, believing, orthodox members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are applying Gottman's principles to our relationship with the Church, I came across this one today where the author talks about applying Gottman's "magic" 5 positive:1negative interaction ratio to our relationship to the Church: http://www.ldsliving.com/Insights-from-a-Renowned-Psychologists-That-Could-Transform-Your-Relationship-with-the-Church/s/90794?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR1qXamR0kxrEv4MIZdgRxLqmTNl9KcCN4kpPmiFETaSoNiVZzR5bGEUWqs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two elements to this...

a) leaving the Church

b) leaving the Gospel of Jesus Christ

My Mother was inactive for 5 years while I was a teenager, she needed a break from the social aspect of Church. She still held FHE in our home and daily prayer/ scripture reading, she sent me and my older brother off to missions while she was inactive. She temporarily left Church, not the Gospel. This was back in the early 90's, the Church has evolved since and implemented "Less Church, More Gospel", dropping the third hour down to two hour Sunday service and implementing the Come follow me home study program. My mother was ahead of her time.

I recently was told by my bishop in a TR interview in regards to my sporadic Church attendance due to my Sunday work schedule..."you only need to take the sacrament to be in good standing with a TR". I attend church two-to-three times a month and leave right after sacrament meeting due to my work schedule, I get a lot of my spiritual feeding on lds.org and other church resources online. It is not impossible to think that one day Church will only be the one hour sacrament meeting...and eventually transition into a virtual thing where we log into a video conference and bless bread and water in front of the computer. Would this idea of not stepping foot into a chapel technically qualify us all as "leaving the Church?" 

Categorizing people (whether in school, work or church) is a human thing that we need to do in order to figure out who we are. Less Church and more Gospel is a step away from categorization and closer to Godliness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 10:19 AM, Mores said:

Contempt

The great, ugly, filthy curse of our time. Most openly and obviously displayed by the social and political left, but don't let that fool you. It's ubiquitous. I have tried to root it out of my own soul, with mixed results. I believe our society cannot survive in any healthy way with the level of contempt so often displayed. And I think this relates directly to the topic under discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed...  Church is a prime place to be practicing living the Gospel (which is something we all need)

If you are referring to the "Home-Centered Church" that President Nelson talks about then yes I agree too.

"As Latter-day Saints we have become accustomed to thinking of 'church' as something that happens in our meetinghouses, supported by what happens at home. We need an adjustment to this pattern.....It is time for a home-centered church, supported by what takes place inside our branch, ward and stake buildings."

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900035371/president-nelson-expected-to-speak-as-latter-day-saints-gather-for-general-conference.html

 

I stand corrected, "Less Church, More Gospel" is wrong now that "Home-Centered Church" is a thing. 

 

 

 

Edited by priesthoodpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I realize it has been a couple of weeks, but a blog post from Gottman's blog came across my computer recently with, I think, some additional ideas that seem pertinent to the relationship between "persons who are leaving/struggling" and "the Church*". The blog entry was about "solvable vs. perpetual problems" (https://www.gottman.com/blog/managing-conflict-solvable-vs-perpetual-problems/?fbclid=IwAR2LI6vNAVcWAqU80xqokjKFPpkzSLYRMs_DtIgWizmkfUqqOqIc6LIKhvM Solvable problems are those that, perhaps obviously, find solutions and then are done. Perpetual problems are the issues that don't truly resolve, but keep coming up over and over. In Gottman's view, these things usually reflect fundamental differences between the parties to the relationship. He also notes that what might be a solvable problem for some will be a perpetual problem for others, so it isn't always possible to generalize which issues are perpetual problems and which are solvable.

One statement that stood out to me in the linked essay was "The goal should be to establish a dialogue about the perpetual problem that communicates acceptance of your partner..." In much of what I have read from those who have dealt with these perpetual problems with the Church, one common thing they say is that they did not feel like they could talk about their doubts, questions, concerns with anyone at church. If they said anything in Sunday School, they got shot down, they did not want to meet one on one with the bishop or the bishop did not have acceptable answers, they wanted to sin and no one at Church would endorse their sin -- a lot of different ways, I think, this could play out. For those who want to stay in relationship with the Church, and for the Church that wants to stay in relationship with these people, what are we doing and what more can we do to foster this dialogue?

Some perpetual problems become "gridlocked", where the issue becomes uncomfortable and difficult -- usually involving the 4 horsemen we talked about earlier. A link in the above points to another essay with a list of characteristics common to gridlocked problems. Here's the list (think not only of how people who are leaving the Church exhibit this characteristics, but also about how you see the Church exhibiting these characteristics):

  • The conflict leaves you feeling rejected by your partner.
  • No matter how much you talk about it, you feel thwarted. Despite your best attempts, you are making absolutely no headway in the problem area.
  • You become so impossibly entrenched in your positions that neither you nor your partner plan to budge.
  • Anytime the subject comes up, you invariably feel frustrated and hurt.
  • Your conversations about the problem are unpleasant as can be, entirely devoid of humor, amusement, or expressions of affection.
  • Your inability to budge increases with the passage of time, leading the two of you to vilify each other when this conflict arises.
  • In an infuriating catch-22, the reverse also manages to occur: as you vilify each other, your inability to budge and polarization in your views increases, and your chances of reaching a compromise plummet.
  • Upon traversing this delightful territory, the two of you end up in the land of total emotional disengagement.

As a description of some of what I see happening, it seems like a good description. I don't know what proposals to draw out of the descriptions. I thought, though, that it might be useful to someone to think about.

* -- Again, I still don't have a good, concrete idea of who/what "the Church" is for this discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share