Staying LDS is Like Marriage Counseling (?)

Great post from WF. I would invite anyone to find a talk where a GA has mentioned the Church and the member is a partnership like in a marriage. In fact, it would be interesting to calculate the ratio of narcissistic to “marriage partnership” talks from GA’s over the last 10 years. I think we would find the ratio swayed VERY HEAVILY to the narcissistic side.

If you want to explore this marriage analogy further, check out http://www.marriagebuilders.com.

The man’s philosophy is that love and healthy relationships happen when each partner meets the emotional needs of the other person, while simulataneously avoiding “love busters” — which are things like angry outbursts, dishonesty, independent behavior (making big decisions that affect you without talkign to you first), annoying habits, or disprespectful judgments. The needs vary, but he’s identifed family commitment, financial support, help running the house, companionship in recreation, admiration, attractiveness, conversation and affection.

While not all these needs fit a member-Church analogy, I would argue that in some cases, the Church is organized to fail on their end of the bargain.

In my experience, they demand finanancial support, yet are slow to give such financial or emotional support even on non-welfare issues. Nor do they recognize the regressiveness of the tithing system and its impact on family’s need for self-financial support. Their financial needs come first, without regard to personal circumstances.

They except you to run their household on their own terms, saying “never ask to be released” “never say no to a calling” yet are often slow and even unresponsivie when you need a repreive to run your own personal household. I put this partly down to the unpaid ecclesiastical workforce which I believe is less effective than a paid one.

There is little inventorying or sensing of the needs of the members. And when members threaten to leave the relationship because needs are not met, the Church responds by placing blame soley on the back of the disaffected member. They are not spiritual enough, they have not nourished the tree, they are not willing to obey commandments, they are not righteous. They may even discipline the person, or threaten to take away blessings unless the person eats crow and confesses with humility utter obedience to the Church hierarchy again. I have seen this first hand in disciplinary councils.

Independent behavior happens regularly, like when I find my family’s name on a list for cleaning the chapel when I didn’t volunteer. Or I find my name on a splits with missionaries list when I never agreed to it, and am just expected to go.

Disprespectul judgments abound in the leadership when you stop serving in the way they want you to.

A healthy partnership happens when each party meets the needs of the other party, and avoids the love busters. Unfortunately, I find the Church is about meeting its own needs, and assumes, without really asking or sensing, that it knows what the needs of the members are.

The Church’s prescription for happiness is to pray, read scriptures, come to Church and obey the commandments. That is what I preached on my mission the whole time. I now realize there is no “one size fits all” for happiness. If the Church’s plan was all-encompassing, then there would be no need for counselors — both emotional, and financial. There would be no technical knowledge required to help others be happy beyond what is found in our own publications.

No, the partnership does not have all the answers to happiness. I believe that it can help people avoid the dregs of misery, such as that which comes from crime, adultery, drugs, alcohol, dishonesty, or family neglect — at least, at a conceptual level. But it fails miserably at helping people with the technical side of happiness — unless one gets access to the over-worked and often unavailable counselors on their payroll. And even then, it doesn’t often work, as in the case of my wife when we were first married.

That sums it up for me, as well. Like Pres. Packer said in the CHI training last year, the Church was created to serve the members, not the members created to staff / serve the Church.

Amen. For all the things BKP wrote (like the unwritten order of things), I like this one.

I have one situation now. I was approached by a member of the HP quorum to sign up for splits with the missionaries. I have done this a buzillion times in my life in the Church, and even initiated the program they are reinstating a couple years ago when a HPGL — where you agree to regular night each month, like clockwork.

I signed up for it as I felt pressure, and few know about my recent dissafection. I don’t want to go. I can’t bear testimony now, or go on about how great it is to be a member of the Church given my recent experiences….in fact, I wouldn’t wish the Church experience on anyone right now given my current, and probably faulty lens. But those are my true feelings.

I would rather be at home with my son who needs attention, with my hobbies in self-renewal, working on my PhD, or even just spending time with my family — not out on missionary visits, which I no longer view as “service”.

So, should I just refuse? My inner clock would say so…Should I deny the Church (and the local HP leaders who are probably al ittle frustrated by lack of support, as I was as a HPGL) this “emotional need” it has for me to go out on splits as part of our “marriage contract” since I still attend and my kids get the benefits from it? Or should I be half-hearted and simply drive the missionaries around and read my Kindle in the car while they go into their appointments as a compromise, citing some kind of valid reason for doing such? This way I contribute to the partnership while not surrendering my own feelings? Or should I just cancel?

I’m favoring the driving around and reading alternative, as it represents compromise. However, within the framework of a marriage parternship analysis, what do you think?

If you look at this as a marriage, then what are the implications for this little decision given how very let-down I feel about the Church-member marriage as it currently stands?

So, should I just refuse? My inner clock would say so…

First of all, if you can’t do it without being resentful, then don’t do it. That just makes things worse.

Secondly, we all have to make choices. If you have pressing matters with your personal life, your family, schooling, etc, then you have to weigh that against the desire to be helpful and cooperative, and whatever other benefits might come from supporting the missionaries. We get into trouble when we let guilt and/or superstition trump our well-considered decisions.

…if this is a marriage, then I am married to a narcissist…someone who thinks they’re always right, and if I don’t do exactly what they say, they will withdraw their love from me. I’m not sure our marriage is on an equal footing…since my partner is not open to learning from me at all, and when I raise concerns, his narcissistic tendencies go into outrage and he threatens to divorce me (excommunicate me) when I speak up, I end up disengaging completely…

Exactly; I understand that putting up with some things you don’t like is typically just part of marriage and life in general but the Church has gone to such extremes with their heavy demands and expectations that I really don’t think it would hurt for more members to show some resistance and say enough is enough even if that simply means paying less/no tithing and/or turning down callings. I realize that I can’t control what the Church does and I try not to get my hopes up too much that they will change significantly anytime soon but it still makes me feel better to criticize and complain about what I think they are doing wrong.

In most marriages there is close proximity and frequent two-way communication so sometimes it will be hard to ignore when your spouse is not satisfied with the situation but with the Church it seems like there is a major disconnect between the leaders and rank-and-file members that don’t have any way to express concerns in a way that it is likely to ever come to the attention of the Church Presidency and apostles no matter how many other Church members feel the same way. Also, maybe some people sense that something is seriously wrong but can’t really identify or explain what exactly it is that is bothering them. That’s where a good marriage counselor would theoretically help diagnose the problem and suggest possible solutions and hopefully do the dirty work of convincing my wife that she’s not perfect either and could make a few reasonable compromises for the sake of the relationship. Who will ever convince Church leaders that the Church is not perfect and needs to compromise to improve its relationship with members?

Who will ever convince Church leaders that the Church is not perfect and needs to compromise to improve its relationship with members?

Fwiw, I think that is understood – and I think the proof is in the many little changes that have occurred. It’s the specifics of the compromises that are hard for members to accept – ironically, from both ends (those who want more change and those who want less or none).

Overall, “The Church” compromises regularly – but it doesn’t compromise on what it considers to be core principles and eternal truths, unless there is clear revelation and/or consensus. That need for revelation and/or consenseus makes change and compromise slower than many (including I) want lots of times – but it also keeps sudden, capricious, totally unsettling change from happening, as well.

As with lots of other things, it’s a mixed bag – and how bad or good it is depends almost entirely on exactly which things are compromised and how important those things are to you individually.

Seriously, I haven’t heard the idea that the Church is perfect expressed during General Conference in many, many years. Way too many members still say it way too often, but it’s not taught over the GC pulpit – especially not by the Q12 and the FP. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that Pres. Uchtdorf, especially, has preached pretty plainly against that idea more than once since he was sustained as an apostle – and Elder Wirthlin certainly didn’t believe it.

What is so hard about coming out and saying that the “church is NOT perfect” in GC, rather than just beating around the bush? Maybe if they would actually say what they believe, things could change. Poelman did jsut that, and got censored for it….

I think you’ve converted me. The 14Fs have to be specifically, publicly and completely repudiated.

Let’s say there is a concrete, clear logical case:

1. If you follow the prophet you will never be led astray.

2. Prophets in the past have taught things that are not true.

3. Therefore, either you have to define the word ‘astray’ outside of normal meaning, or statement 1 is FALSE.

I do not think this is a matter of debate, nor interpretation. The 14Fs are false, and need to be repudiated publicly and completely.

cwald, fwiw, I “call it like (I see that) it is” in church all the time – and I’ve mentioned that the Church isn’t perfect many times, in one way or another, in more than one ward and stake, in classes and over the pulpit, for at least 20 years.

This is one of those things that I honestly think just about every member in the Church would agree with (I know a few excpetions, hence the disclaimer ) IF I had the chance to say it to them directly, one-on-one, in a classroom or over the pulpit. It’s just that so many members don’t care about thinking through this sort of stuff and just go with the sound-bite stuff they’ve heard so many times.