Worst:

1. The MTC: For the first few weeks I didn’t want to be there, and for the last few weeks didn’t want to leave. Something about that doesn’t sit right with me. I also loved singing in groups in the dorms, but the men in charge routinely banned singing in the halls, which I never understood. People also got into arguments over vending machine use on Sundays (really). A few Elders also nearly got into fights playing basketball (really).
2. Getting into an argument with an inactive member. I still feel bad about this one.
3. Developing a near phobia of women. We generally were not supposed to proselyte to women, so I got used to avoiding them. It took me 5 months after I got home to feel comfortable enough to go on a date. I loved the elderly ladies in Japan though. Especially those that would deflect the conversation by offering us something to eat.
4. Arguing with my second companion about why my first companion and I got along better.
5. Seeing people get baptized and then disappear the following week, and then refuse to answer their door.
6. Not being able to baptize an investigator because he was “homeless.” (He had been coming to church for years.)

Best:

1. The MTC: singing in the choir, learning a new language, being around so many like-minded people, and the ice-cream sandwiches. I also really enjoyed most of my teachers. They really seemed to care, and they understood the challenge we were facing learning the language, but they pushed us anyway.
2. Living 24/7 with 15 plus other guys who for the most part were all working every day to be humble, patient, and hard-working. I really learned a lot about living with people, and came out of it a lot slower to be annoyed or upset. Many of my companions taught me valuable lessons just by their example. Even the companions I didn’t always get along with were great missionaries. Not a bad seed among them. I was blessed in that department.
3. Finding a testimony of Christ – It took wearing His name on my shirt, reading Jesus The Christ two times (I love that book, even though Craig hates it, haha!), and nearly two years of teaching, but it finally happened.
4. My mission presidents. They were very different from each other, but great men that I still admire today. I also learned valuable lessons about church leaders, such as: they often differ in opinions.
5. Learning a new language and getting to know a new culture.
6. Seeing people change their lives for the better. Seeing them still doing well two years later when I went back.
7. Making one of the best investments of my life. The personal growth and experiences of my mission were greater than any years of college and graduate school I have had (7 so far, although my marriage and having my kids has been better!).

What are the best and worst experiences of your mission?

Emotions are not “irrational.” I think (and feel, haha!) they work hand-in-hand with reason, for better or for worse.

When someone accuses you of making a decision based on your feelings, go ahead and say, “Of course dummy! My decision also involved cognition, but emotion is what ultimately helped me make the decision.”

This is also part of the reason why I think some people can have very similar experiences in the church and end up staying OR leaving it, continuing to believe, or not. We can all think and study and debate endlessly about this or that point, but that will only take us so far. Emotion must be used to actually make our decisions.

This makes me think of the process some experience with the Spirit. They study something out “in their minds” and then ask God if their decision is correct. Then, God willing, they may receive a confirmation of their decision, and they make their choice. Whether you believe spiritual experiences are communication from Deity or just the effects of a frenzied mind (or somewhere on the spectrum), you have to agree, these experiences do come in the form of “feelings” for many people.

Ultimately, it’s emotion that causes something to “sink in” or resonate with us. Ultimately, we must rely on emotion to make a decision, whether it’s a “I don’t believe because it doesn’t add up” or “the gospel impresses me, and my own use of reason suggests that it may or may not be true, and it also is the source of (positive/useful experience, etc.) so I choose to exercise faith in it.”

Let’s put “feelings” on the pedestal they belong, right next to “thought” or “logic.” May we be more aware of our tendencies to favor one over the other, and be open to the fact that we make no decision without both. No decision is based entirely on logic or reason. Let us not succumb to the tyranny of rationality, nor let our decisions be swept up in waves of emotion.

Definitely Related Post: Andrew S on “Argument from Experience and Emotion.“

I’m not sure what category, if any, I fit in. Sometimes I think categories are only useful or good for those who are doing the categorizing.

I suppose this post should be titled, “Tell me what kind of Mormon you think I am.” I can never get enough of the Johari Window.

1. I believe in God – some sort of being that is bigger, stronger, and wiser than the rest of us. I believe our relation to God is a lot like a parent-child relationship. While I don’t claim any scientific knowledge of God, the existence of God makes sense to me. This belief is probably the strongest of all my spiritual beliefs. Whenever I do any real searching, praying, or pondering, I always come back to belief. I can’t shake it.
2. I believe in Christ. A Savior who will make up for all the ills of the world, especially fear and shame. I don’t believe in Christ to the extent that I believe in God, but something happened during the course of my mission experience that instilled this belief in me.
3. I don’t smoke. I don’t drink caffeine. I don’t drink alcohol. I don’t even drink soda very often. I don’t use profanity. I occasionally watch “R-rated” movies. I don’t have any earrings or tattoos. Sometimes I buy ice-cream on Sundays. I don’t flaunt any of these things. I do brag about my refusal to do dishes on Sundays, however.
4. I attend church almost every week. If I had more time I would attend other churches as well, but I barely have time as it is. I don’t like to fast on Fast Sundays. I LOVE to fast on other days, however. It is so much easier on other days to make it meaningful. I have a calling, which I enjoy.
5. I served a mission. I loved it, and really didn’t want to come home.
6. I am sealed to my wife. Sometimes I choose to neglect church service to spend more time with my family. My marriage will always come first.
7. I enjoy the temple. I am really glad the ordinances have changed over the years. I love the symbolism involved with the actual wearing of the temple garments, and believe that individual members know what is best for how to wear them.
8. I believe everyone has a responsibility to make the most out of what they have been given in life, whether that is in or out of the church.
9. I believe the “gospel” is bigger than the “church.” I believe the CoJCoLDS is just one of the many influences that God works through to elevate his children, to help them grow. I do see the church as special, but only in different ways from other sources that also have unique things to offer.
10. I don’t believe God demands “belief” as a prerequisite to charity.
11. I believe prophets can make mistakes, even on a church-wide level, just as bishops can make mistakes, as can parents. Most of us are generally doing our best. I try hard not to “canonize” (RT Elder Maxwell) our leaders, and never let anything from their mouths into my heart without my intellect and the spirit doing some filtering, as needed.
12. I believe Joseph was a prophet, but not necessarily more enlightened than say, the Buddha. Again, we are all doing our best. I believe in the Book of Mormon. Whether or not it is “historically” real, I don’t know, but I believe in it.
13. I believe in birth control, evolution, and that God is still progressing.
14. I have been guided at times by an unseen force or influence that I believe is from God… or else the still small voice in my head is just a super-good life-navigator. My relationship with my God, my attempts to grow and face my fears, and to serve my family and others are the most important parts of my spirituality. Everything else pales in comparison, including whether or not this is the “Only True” church. I would rather be happy than “right.”

What kind of Mormon am I? Does it matter? I have sometimes felt cautious about sharing some of my views with other members, but when I have things have turned out fine. People don’t always agree, but I’ve found that when I have a good relationship with the other person, they are not threatened. My point in this post is not necessarily to debate the merits of any of my particular views, but to explore what beliefs make one a Mormon, and if categorizing oneself is even a helpful exercise. I’m not sure it is.

What kind of Mormon are you? What beliefs or values do you hold that make you “Mormon”? At what point (e.g. what views) would you say someone is no longer “Mormon”? Why do you feel the need to draw the line? What are you afraid of?

I think there may be some truth to that.

But only a little.

Based on my own experience in church, as well as counseling outcome research (i.e. what factors contribute to success in mental health counseling–that’s where the percentages are coming from), I would like to propose the following mini-theory of the four main factors that contribute to the vibrance/dullness/spirituality of our meetings. The percentages aren’t that important as the actual factors though…

Factor #1: The Individual Members (40%)

This includes each individual member (including leaders) and what they bring to the table: their backgrounds, viewpoints, attitudes, individual preparation, chance events in their lives, etc. In a sense, if you don’t have a good experience at a church meeting, you (or just your life or circumstances) may be at least 40% responsible for that outcome. Seems reasonable to me. How prepared are you for the meetings? How prepared are you to receive spiritual promptings or experiences? How prepared are the speakers and teachers? A lot of us can improve on this.

Factor #2: Relationships (30%)

This includes the relationships between the leaders and regular members, and individual friendships in the ward. I know I tend to listen a lot more earnestly (and have better experiences) when a close friend is speaking or giving the lesson. Not that we all need to have close friendships with everyone in the ward, but I believe the better our relationships are, the better our meetings will be. We listen and participate more when we care more. Do we truly have empathy and respect for other people in the ward? Relationships also include a general agreement on the tasks and goals of our meetings.

Factor #3: Techniques (15%)

This is the area that I think gets debated the most, perhaps because it stands out the most: Simplified Gospel Principles manual? Do we have to stick to that? What hymns are we singing? How many? How many talks? What kinds of instruments are allowed? White or blue shirts? Snacks or no snacks in primary? PowerPoint in gospel doctrine? The point here is not that any one of these decisions is necessarily better than other, but to suggest that ultimately whether we decide to allow guitars or harmonicas, ban blue shirts from the sacrament table or ban visual aids from the pulpit, it will not have much influence on the overall outcome. Most techniques or teaching methods that are intended to be edifying will be, equally so.

Factor #4: Faith & Hope (15%)

How much do we really expect out of our meetings? Do we expect to receive spiritual guidance? Do we find hope there?

We get caught up in debates about who is to blame for our meetings. I personally believe that God has granted us the agency to have bad meetings, just as we can exercise our agency to make them great. Let’s be mindful of the various factors that may contribute to the outcomes of our meetings, and what our individual and collective roles are. Let’s make sure WE are prepared when we speak, give lessons, or participate in the music. Let’s work harder at building relationships in our wards, beyond the home-teaching assignment or the sometimes shallow greetings of the ward activity. Let’s put debates about specific techniques in their place–important, but not as much as other factors.

Using this mini-theory, it makes perfect sense why some people, non-members, ex-mormons, and even some active members alike would find the meetings to be boring: They may not be prepared themselves or be a type of person who would enjoy the meetings anyway, they may not have decent relationships with ward members (or may even have poor relationships there), and they may have little hope or expectation in the church. OF COURSE that is going to lead to a generally dull or even negative experience.

• What do you think contributes to a successful and/or spiritual church meeting?
• How much of it is on the individual and how much is on the speaker or teacher, or the institution of the church?
• What do you think of the idea that we are all contributors to our collective experience?
• Do we neglect the powerful influence that interpersonal relationships have on our meetings?

“You need to do things that scare you.”

Somehow I managed to volunteer to speak in sacrament meeting the following week. All in nihongo, of course.

That advice stayed with me throughout my mission and into the next phase of my life:

• During undergrad I took some acting classes, precisely because I am normally shy and introverted, and the thought of acting both excited and TERRIFIED me. After a rocky start, I loved it.
• Coming home from my mission I was at a book store and saw the book “The Places that Scare You” by Pema Chödrön. Of course, I bought it immediately.
• I agreed to sing in a quartet in sacrament meeting a few years ago. I had never done this before (not in a small group, anyway).
• I have two kids. The first time around was really scary. I love it now.
• I turned down an offer to move back near family for the next round of grad school, for a slightly better (but who knows?) offer to move further away.
• I started working with foster kids precisely because I had no desire to work with adolescents, and generally found them to be intimidating. Now I work with juvenile offenders who punch people and deal drugs and throw rocks at houses. It’s still a little scary, but I’m learning.

In my life, I generally follow this principle – If something I know would be good for me also happens to scare me, I seek it out, I try to experience it. I owe much of my growth to that Zone Leader, on that morning in Japan, from a simple sentence, spoken with authority and love: “Do things that scare you.”

What was the best advice you ever received? What things scare you that you think you should probably do?

“…do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?” –Alma 60:21

I have run into two groups (although there are more) of couples in the church. One group has tried marriage counseling and found it to be mediocre, a waste of money, and even damaging. Unfortunately, this happens. Another group of couples has not really considered it. They may feel like their relationship is pretty good, or don’t see how therapy would help. For this group I often quote the verse above – Marriage counseling is a means that God has provided for us. We cannot afford to “sit upon our thrones” (i.e. our pride) and not use therapy as an available means of improving THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF OUR ETERNAL LIVES.

So what’s the problem?

First, some marriage counseling really IS a waste of time and money. Some of it may even make your relationship worse. This is not something you can just walk into. For those who have tried counseling and had bad experiences, consider yourself validated.

Second, as mentioned above, there are many couples who do not believe their relationship warrants marriage counseling. Many of them may indeed have relatively happy marriages, and could live out their lives without any extra help. They don’t see how counseling could make their relationship even better. Some couples may actually be quite distressed, but still don’t see how counseling would help. These are all valid concerns.

In a study on why people don’t go to counseling, the top two reasons were money and lack of belief that counseling will be effective. That old standby, social stigma, is actually not much of an issue anymore (I think it came in at #18). We are more open, for the better, about psychotherapy.

We can’t afford it

I don’t know what to tell you about the financial aspect. If you really can’t afford it, or you have no insurance that will cover it, my heart goes out to you. Family Services is an option, however, and fast offerings will cover at least part of your fees. If you DO have the money, and still think it’s expensive, I urge to you check your priorities. Do you spend money on golf lessons? Are they more important than your marriage? It IS an investment. You do need to make sure you’re getting your money’s worth though.

Will it actually help?

For the second concern – whether it will actually help or not – you need to do your homework. If you have been caught in one of the cycles I mentioned in my post last week, it is a necessity that you find a therapist that can address these cycles. You will be wasting your time talking to a counseling who tries to teach you “communication skills.” Who can do communication skills when they’re standing on the edge of a cliff? You need someone better.

Not all therapists (even at Family Services) are equally effective. Talk to people you trust who have been to a marriage counselor, and ask about their experience. Talk to any friends who are therapists – they often have some good ideas and/or referrals.

While many therapists do not follow a particular model of treatment, marriage counseling requires a carefully planned set of techniques and goals, with a structure that the therapist can follow as he or she begins working with you and your spouse. Find out what kind of training and experience the therapist has had specifically in working with couples. What is their approach? If you hear things like “skills” you may want to be a little skeptical. Marriage counseling that focuses on learning skills may work in the short-term, but has a woeful relapse rate.

Some therapists will adhere more closely to a particular model of treatment. This may or may not mean they are more effective. It all depends on how good they are at the model. Currently, the only two models of marriage counseling that are heavily supported by research are Behavioral Marital Therapy (also referred to as “Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy,” “Cognitive Behavioral Couple Therapy,” or “Traditional Behavioral Couple Therapy”) and Emotionally Focused Therapy (also referred to as “EFT” or “Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy”).

For particular models, I admit my bias. In my work with couples I mainly use EFT. According to about 20 years of research, 7 out of 10 couples experience “recovery” from distress. 9 out of 10 experience some amount of improvement. These numbers are huge. Most marriage counseling is about 50% effective, with high relapse rates. EFT has very low relapse rates, and many couples continue to experience gains in their relationships years later.

While EFT is effective for couples in general, certain couples seem to experience the most gains. If you fall into one or more the following categories, you may experience the most improvement:

• couples who are over 35 years of age
• men who would be viewed by their spouses as “emotionally inexpressive”
• women who, despite the distressed relationship, still have faith that their husbands care for them.

What is EFT like?
EFT is largely based on attachment theory, which suggests that we all have needs for safety and connection from infancy to the day we die. The ways we go about getting these needs met can sometimes cause problems in our relationships. I highly recommend the books “Hold Me Tight” by Sue Johnson and “Becoming Attached” by Robert Karen if you are interested in learning more about your relationship and attachment. Those books can be especially helpful for couples who are not distressed, but would just like to improve things.

An EFT therapist will help you understand the pattern that you get caught it, and help both of you experience the emotions underlying the pattern (these are discussed in the post last week). After a while, you and your spouse will be able to see the pattern as a common enemy you fight together, and it will still happen but won’t be as intense. You will be able to interrupt it. This is the first big change, but is not enough to last. The therapist will then work almost solely with the more withdrawn partner to help them feel safe and explore their unmet or hidden needs and emotions that drive the pattern. This partner will eventually “re-engage” in the relationship. Next, both the newly re-engaged withdrawer, along with the therapist, will help the pursuing/blaming partner to explore their underlying needs and emotions, which eventually results in a blamer/pursuer softening. I believe that these two events—the withdrawer re-engaging and the pursuer softening—are next to impossible without something like EFT. After this process has been completed, THEN you may work on specific issues, if they are still a problem. Parenting difficulties, in-laws, money, sex, use of time – all these issues become easier to solve when your cycle or pattern is no longer a problem. Naturally, there are bumps along the way. EFT can take anywhere from 12 to 40 sessions (or more) depending on how distressed you are, and if there is any trauma in either you or your spouse’s history.

This is a very brief and simplified explanation of the EFT process. Naturally, it has also been rather cognitive. This is stuff you cannot do in your head, which is why the therapist must guide you through it. There are EFT therapists in many different countries, and in many states in the U.S. If you are interested, go here to find one. Next to each of their names it will show their experience, from just receiving the basic training if EFT, to being a certified EFT therapist or supervisor. Most certified EFT therapists are probably skilled enough to help most couples.

Whether you choose EFT or some other type of therapy or therapist, choose wisely. It is a big decision. At the same time, don’t put it off! Couples wait way too long before they go to therapy. For all those husbands who don’t think they need marriage counseling, all I can say is repent and listen to your wives! Let go of your pride. Going to therapy doesn’t mean you have failed, it means you care.

May we all be proactive in improving our relationships, in whatever way we may choose to do so. May we let go of our pride and fear and anxiety and make use of the means the Lord has provided for us.

For couples who are caught in a severe pattern (i.e. they don’t know how to stop it, or it leaves one or both partners feeling angry or upset or alone), therapy may be helpful. These couples may need a therapist who can address these patterns in one way or another (in a future post I will address the issue of finding a therapist that suits you and your spouse). Even spouses that have relatively happy marriages may find therapy helpful for their relationship if they see these patterns in their relationships. These patterns can get in the way of solving problems and discussing difficult issues.

Two weeks ago I wrote about agency, including a type called “collective” agency. This fits with the concept of patterns in marriage. Each spouse can be immensely affected by the pattern in the relationship. To be sure, each spouse contributes some of their own agency to these patterns, but they are also the victims to it. Here are some of the most common patterns… If you can’t see your own relationship in one of these, chances are you either have a more complex pattern that is more difficult to spot, or you have a great “collective” relationship, full of positive patterns of emotional accessibility and responsiveness! In case of the latter, pat your relationship on the back!

Pursue/Withdraw:

This is a very common pattern. Some other names for it are demand/distance, criticize/stonewall, or complain/placate. Each partner usually takes one position or the other. The position one takes may also change with different relationships.

The pursuing partner is often more emotionally expressive, demanding, critical, and blaming. They often pursue their spouse out of protest of a loss of connection in the relationship. They sometimes feel that it is all up to them to work on the relationship, and when they sense something is wrong they want to fix it. They may also feel like they are never listened to. They may go after their partner with questions, criticism, and attempts at making their partner respond. Even an angry response is better than silence for them. Underneath their anger, anxiety, demands, and blame they often feel hurt, abandoned, alone, not wanted, or disconnected. Those underlying feelings often become fuel to the fire of their pursuit.

The withdrawing partner is often less emotionally expressive, and tend to need space to think things out on their own before they can talk. They distance themselves from conflict, and while they may look unemotional, during conflict they are often filled with overwhelming emotion that they do not always know how to show in a safe way. They often “stonewall” and become less responsive and try to retreat. Sometimes they shut down in order to protect the relationship. They may feel helpless and trapped, or that they won’t be able to satisfy their partner. Some of the underlying emotions beneath their apparent stonewall stance are rejection, fear, feeling frozen or numb, judged, or criticized. Shame can also be a big issue… for both sides.

You can probably guess how this pattern plays out. The pursuer goes after the withdrawer because they withdraw, and the withdrawer withdraws because they are being pursued, and around and around they go. Sound familiar? In the majority of cases, roughly 60-80% of pursuers are women. However, there are plenty of men who are pursuers as well. Notably, in female pursue/male withdraw patterns, the male may still often be the partner who pursues for sex. It is often the only arena the male partner feels emotionally safe enough about. These same patterns occur in gay and lesbian relationships as well.

Withdraw/Withdraw:

This pattern is more of an emotionally disconnected style, and may be the result of a pursue/withdraw pattern that has burned out. The pursuer may decide to finally give up and withdraw as well, thus creating this pattern. A friend of mine (in a great marriage) described this one as the “cold war.” In their former pursue/withdraw pattern, she would pepper him with questions and concerns during conflict, to which he would often retreat out of fear of getting angry, so she decided to stop pursuing and wait it out. For some couples this doesn’t take long to get out of—a few minutes or a few hours. Some couples spend a day, a week, or even longer in this cold war, which can leave both feeling very lonely. Some couples find themselves stuck in a withdraw/withdraw pattern around specific issues, such as sex. They may be fine in every other area, but chronic avoiders of certain topics in order to keep the peace.

Attack/Attack:

This is also often an offshoot of the pursue/withdraw pattern. In many cases, the usual withdrawer will become frustrated enough that they will come out swinging back, sometimes in a vicious way in order to protect themselves and stop the pursuer. Once this happens, the withdrawer will withdraw again until the next argument. The results of this can be devastating for both. At the same time, some of these couples balance out this high-intensity style with enough positive interaction and romance to overcome these encounters. John Gottman says that partners need at LEAST five positive interactions for ever one negative for a healthy relationship. Unfortunately, many cannot keep this balance, and this cycle does its damage. These cycles by nature can’t last very long without one or both partners eventually being flattened or just giving up and walking away.

Most couples, even happy couples, get caught in these or similar patterns from time to time. Some people find it helpful to recognize these patterns, and when they are stuck. If they are unable to get out, many find therapy to be helpful. Next time for this series I will talk more about why it is that we almost automatically take certain positions in relationships.

• Have you seen any part of yourself or your relationship in these patterns?

• For those who are fortunate to not be caught in these patterns, can you recognize the positive patterns of interaction in your relationship—times when you each are able to be open, accessible, and responsive to each other?

Reference: Johnson, S.M., Bradley, B., Furrow, J., Lee, A., Palmer, G., Tilley, D., & Woolley, S. (2005). Becoming an emotionally focused couple therapist: The workbook. New York: Routledge.

In January of this year I attended a conference where one of the speakers was Barry McCarthy, a professor at American University. He talked about couple sexuality, and described four common sexual “styles” that individuals and couples choose (or fall into). It sounds a little facebook quiz-ish, but it is helpful to recognize your style, partner’s, and the style you have together. Here are the four styles:

Complementary
This is the most common. McCarthy calls it a “mine and ours” style. Each person has their own sexual voice and preferences, and is responsible for their own experience. They combine this with also being responsible for the “intimate team.” Each partner can initiate sex or say no. They can switch off choosing different activities in bed. A big strength of this style is the role flexibility.

Traditional
This is “predictable and stable.”  These couples do not like too much excitement, and prefer traditional roles – the man is usually in charge of initiating sex, while the woman is in charge emotional closeness. Sex may not be seen as important, and strong displays of emotion and eroticism may be discouraged. A strength of this style is having clear roles, which can help prevent sex from becoming a problem.

Soul-Mate
These couples are “best-friends” but may not necessarily have the best sex life. They are open with their positive feelings, do everything together, and often think that the more close they are, the better the sex will be. This is not always the case though, as McCarthy says these partners often “de-eroticize each other.” When this style works well these couples feel a sense of acceptance and do not fear rejection. When it doesn’t work these couples lose erotic feelings for their partner, and worry about hurting feelings by talking about sexual concerns. These couples also have the most difficult time recovering from affairs.

Emotionally Expressive
These couples enjoy a little conflict and drama. They share positive and negative feelings. This is the most erotic, unpredictable, and exciting style. They are open to sexual expression and exploration. Interestingly, McCarthy says that these are usually the only couples that can effectively use things like pornography, fantasies, toys, and etc, but that these must be used as a “bridge” to arousal, rather than as a way of “walling off’ one’s partner, which often happens.

In his book, McCarthy offers an assessment to help you determine your order of preference. While it helps to know your style and your partner’s, as well as construct a style together, a reviewer notes that the most helpful aspect of the book may be the focus on mutual enjoyment rather than on arousal and orgasm (Beuhler, 2010).

Some other comments from McCarthy’s speech

• 80-85% of partners have sensitive or secret material they have never shared with their spouse (e.g. STIs, being sexually humiliated, shame about masturbation). In addition, about 10% of males (note-this *may* refer to 10% of males who already have a sexual problem, but I will check up on it to be sure) have a sexual secret that interferes with sex, which McCarthy called a “variant arousal pattern” (e.g. a fetish – which is NOT a preference, but is hard-wired into the brain with high degrees of secrecy, shame, and eroticism. These are usually on the Internet. These people may spend $500 to $2000 a month on fetish and other related sites.
• When sex completely stops in a relationship, 90-95% of the time it is the male’s decision to stop.
• Partners who report having a good sexual relationship have the ability to veto sex. They do not say “if you loved me you would…”
• Viagra doesn’t work because no one tells the couple how to integrate it into their sexual style.
• Many sexual experiences are asynchronus. As long as these experiences are not coerced, there is not a problem. Many couples get trapped in the “tyranny of mutuality,” which means partners feel they always have to be on the same page sexually, or that sex always has to be equal for both partners. Sometimes sex IS more for one or the other. Sometimes it’s to release tension for one or the other. With the mutuality problem, some couples often fall into “let’s just cuddle.” They think that if it’s not working for one, it shouldn’t work for either.
• The worst time to talk about sex is when you’re nude in bed after a bad sexual experience.

Questions for MM readers:

1. McCarthy says that 70% of couples experience a drop in sexual satisfaction when kids arrive. “What are we doing to be in the 30%?” John Gottman recommends a weekly date (at least 2 hours) and 4 “weekend getaways” (without the kids) a year. What daily, weekly, or yearly activities with your spouse have been good for your marriage?
2. Among happily married sexually active couples – 5-15% of their encounters are dissatisfying. These couples don’t apologize for it, and are able to laugh about it. For those who have relatively happy sexual relationships, how have you dealt with dissatisfying moments?

References:

Buehler, S. (2010). A review of “Discovering your couple sexual style.” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36.

McCarthy, B.W. & McCarthy, E.M. (2009). Discovering your couple sexual style: Sharing desire, pleasure, and satisfaction.

Bandura explains how these external forces influence us and our agency: “Personal agency operates within a network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems.” He adds that while some psychologists in the past have viewed behavior as being automatically controlled by the environment, a more accurate view combines environmental influence, and “agentic action” in one’s environment. This seems more in line with the gospel.

Our environments (and the choices of people around us) make certain values, abilities, or even personal choices more or less likely. For example, I am currently training in a method of family therapy with adolescent and adult offenders (usually at least one family member is on probation) and their families. One of our first major goals with a family is to reduce blame by creating a “family focus” on the problem, rather than assigning blame to individual members (which they’re all SO good at). The relational patterns of interaction in the family make certain behaviors (e.g. punching the principal, or trafficking cocaine) more likely to occur. (As an aside–the therapy works. About half of these adolescents have a huge drop in recidivism. Those who do re-offend usually commit less crimes, which are less severe.)

I have talked many people who seem to use the concept of agency as a way to write other people off. “Well, that kid may have had a hard life, but he is responsible for his actions.” Well, kind of. Yes, we are responsible for our actions, but when we evaluate ourselves and (hopefully not too much) others, we need to be mindful of myriad other factors that are involved.

The “True to the Faith” booklet says: “You are responsible for the decisions you make. You should not blame your circumstances, your family, or your friends if you choose to disobey God’s commandments. You have the ability to choose righteousness and happiness, regardless of your circumstances.” I completely agree – blaming others is not useful. At the same time, I have seen people use this doctrine of not blaming others as a way to blame others. For example, one spouse said about the other (I’m paraphrasing here), “she CHOOSES to be upset and angry and to be afraid and to withdraw from me, so there’s nothing I can do about it.” Of course, she chooses, but he did not realize the powerful influence he was having on her that would make it more likely that she would feel these negative emotions. In other words, when we dismiss others due to their poor choices, we often are blaming them.

Let us not blame others for our actions, and let us not blame others 100% for their actions either. We don’t know what forces have influenced their lives. Many of us also need to stop blaming ourselves for what happens in our lives. In therapy, this is often just as big of a problem as always blaming others.

So, to what extent are we accountable?

“That every many may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” – D&C 101

I think our “own sins” refers to our individual agency. We will NOT be accountable for the choices our neighbors, friends, parents, family, or community make. Those choices still affect our agency a great deal though. Bandura refers to the choices of others that have control over our lives as “proxy” agency. Some things that come to mind here are the choices of Adam and Eve, baptism for the dead (by proxy), and choices of our parents, spouses, or even church leaders in some cases. We rely on many people to make things happen for us. We are also responsible to make things happen for others. The Atonement is the best example of proxy agency. We cannot overcome the effects of sin and death. We are not agents in this sense. We have to rely on the agency of a Savior.

The other form is “collective” agency. We rely on the community at large to make certain things happen. For example, I do not have the agency to make my graduation happen all by myself. I am only responsible (read: agentic) for what I have control over. I have to try to get others (e.g. advisors, administrators, etc.) to use their agency in my behalf. The church (or even a ward) as a whole is another example of how collective agency is used. What we achieve as a church is “the product not only of the shared intentions, knowledge, and skills” of the members, “but also of the interactive, coordinated, and synergistic dynamics” of our interactions.

Another observation I had on this topic was that I think many of us give up our agency by shunning responsibility. I have seen some people put everything on God in terms of big choices in their lives, while not using their own intellect in the process. In a sense, by ascribing things 100% to God, one is in a sense blaming (read: attributing responsibility) God for what happens, whether good or bad. I think following leaders blindly without thought and prayer is another way we give up our agency. We have a mind and a heart, and God wants us to use both of them. Don’t confuse trusting God with putting the responsibility on him. Perhaps we do this because it is easier or more comfortable to surrender our responsibility.

In sum, we don’t have the ability to choose anything, in every situation. Often we must rely on others to exercise their agency in our behalf. That is why the choices we make that affect others are SO important. If one should get married, and when. Deciding if and when to have children. How we parent our children. If and how we help the poor and the needy. Whether or not we indulge in whatever our favorite sin may be.

May we have the courage to be accurate in taking responsibility for our choices, and understanding of others who may not have been dealt the same cards in life that we have.

Reference: Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Here’s the situation:

Matt and Sarah are a young couple living in Las Vegas. They are very physically active, and put a high priority on health and exercise. They love the warm weather and their big neighborhood pool. They originally met in Germany (Sarah is German, and speaks fluent English) while Matt was on his mission. Matt went back to Germany later on to study abroad, and after a brief courtship he proposed. They eventually ended up in Las Vegas where Matt is getting an MBA and Sarah is a personal trainer. They get along pretty well overall, but have had an ongoing debate about modesty. Sarah thinks Matt is too lax about wearing his garments. She doesn’t like Matt wearing his running shorts to the grocery store, or leaving his shirt off to wash the car. Matt doesn’t like Sarah wearing a bikini at the neighborhood pool, or on family vacations, or on facebook. Vegas summers are just sooooooo hot, right?

Let’s listen in on a recent debate…

Sarah: “I get that you don’t like to change at the gym, but why do you wait sooooo long to change after you come home? There’s always one more smoothie to grab, a car to wash, and errand to run. You end up never putting your garments back on until the end of the day. That doesn’t jive with what I learned at the temple, and I don’t see how you can have a recommend, Elder.”

Matt: [Laughing] “Oh no! I better give up my recommend! Chillax. Really though, after I workout I don’t like changing again until I’ve taken a shower, and I need to stop sweating first. It’s not exactly cool here. If God’s okay with me taking off my garments to workout, I’m sure he won’t mind if I wash the car.”

Sarah: “Heh, fine. I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this, because I’m right and you’re stubborn. Why did I marry you again?” [playfully smirking]

Matt: “You’re hot!” [Sarah roles her eyes] “KIDDING!”

Sarah: [Scoffs] You’re digging yourself into a hole here buddy…”

Later on that day…

Matt: “I just don’t know how I feel about our photos on the beach in Maui ending up on your facebook–which you spend WAY too much time doing, by the way. Anyway, do you really want the Elder’s Quorum President or some other ward member to see you in a bikini when they check facebook? I don’t even want to know what they’re thinking.”

Sarah: “Okay, wow, so it’s my responsibility to control their thoughts? I have already had to adjust to the culture here… and what’s with the facebook dig, Mr. World of WarCraft? Anyway, that’s not the issue here. Americans are kind of ashamed of their bodies. They could use a little liberation. Gosh that sounds weird considering we live in Vegas.”

Matt: “Exactly! Are we living the Lord’s standards or the world’s? Women shouldn’t wear immodest swimsuits. What kind of message are you sending to the Young Women?”

Sarah: “So, YOU’RE the one who decides what is or is not modest? This is SUCH a cultural issue. In some places an ankle is immodest. And why is my belly button less modest than yours?”

Matt: “Standards for what we wear is NOT a cultural issue.”

Sarah: “We shouldn’t try to cram Utah Mormon Culture down the throats of all the other cultures of the world. People can still be faithful and have different cultures. Stop trying to force me to live according to your sexist standards… PLEASE tell me why my navel is more offensive than yours! You don’t have an argument, really.  YOU are also often breaking something that is very much indeed universal with not wearing your garments a lot of the time. Who cares about what other people are thinking about what we wear. What matters is what we think and what God thinks, and you’re in the wrong here.”

Make the call! Who wins this argument?

[poll id="181"]

Granted, no one really wins, so how can a couple like this come to an understanding, or acceptance?

Here’s the situation:

David and Sue Johansen have been married for 20 years. They have four children: 19 (girl), 15 (girl), 12 (girl), and 8 (boy). The oldest just finished up her sophomore year in college, about a two-hour drive away. She is doing very well in school, majoring in biology and pre-med with a 3.8 GPA, and her boyfriend of nearly two years is an education major, planning to teach high school English in an inner-city school. Needless to say more, they are both very competent and successful in their educational pursuits. While away at school, she eventually became disinterested in attending the local branch, and eventually moved in with her boyfriend. While this concerns both David and Sue, they disagree about what should be allowed when their daughter and her boyfriend come to visit. Sue feels that their daughter is an adult and should be allowed to share a room with her boyfriend. David vehemently disagrees.

David: “If we allow them to sleep in the same room in OUR home, we will be condoning her choices. How can we allow this in our home, which is SUPPOSED to be sacred?!? You should be supporting me on this. Well, not just me, but the Lord.”

Sue: [Rolls eyes] “Of course we don’t agree with her choices, but she is an adult! Besides, your preaching about our “home” and what you think the Lord wants is divisive. Of course I care about our home, but your attitude is belligerent and controlling.”

David: [Raises voice] “Well, that’s the consequence of sin! Jesus himself said so. Just because she’s our daughter doesn’t mean we have to accept her sinful behaviors.”

Sue: “I really think you should back off on this. Actually, the other kids feel the same way as well. She is doing so well in school, you need to give her some space as an adult.”

David: [Looking hurt, softens voice] “So you’re all ganging up against me on this?” [Raises voice, becomes adamant] “Then you’re going against the Lord. Regardless, what kind of example will that set for the rest of our kids? That this is okay? It seems to already be happening… And I agree, she is doing well in school, but she is only successful by the world’s standards. How many children will we lose to the world? I don’t want to lose anymore” [Begins to tear up a little]

Sue: “I get it, she is not living the church’s standards right now. We don’t agree with her choices, but she is on birth control, and she is 19 years old! You are going to drive her away with your insistence on parenting our adult child. What does it matter if she shares a room with her boyfriend if it means she isn’t pushed out of the family? You NEED to let this one go.”

David: “What about when Elder Oaks said that we can’t ignore adult children who are cohabitating? He is an apostle and he said it is wrong for us to ignore it. How can we ignore the Lord? Also, Elder Nelson said that we should confront children in these situations, not just go along with it. We can’t support sin!”

Sue: “It’s clear to me that you care more about quoting church leaders than you care about our family. We all     disagree with you. It is her choice, and if we don’t accept their relationship, we will drive them away. Is that what we want?”

David: [Getting louder] “Of course not! But we can’t condone this! I’m beginning to think you don’t really care about what I think or what the leaders of the church think, or even what the Lord thinks.”

Sue: [Getting quiet] “Here you go again…”

You make the call! Who wins this argument? David or Sue? Why? Sound off in the comments, and offer some advice about how this couple could work out this disagreement in a more productive way than just declaring a winner….

[poll id="178"]

I first heard the words “Janice Krapp Perry” in the MTC.

Perry is the source of quite possibly the best and the worst of what the primary songbook has to offer. Having spent the majority of my post-mission years on the primary piano bench (and/or herding packs of sunbeams), I’m quite familiar with the songs. Here are some keepers… and some kick-to-the-curb-ers!

Best:

A Child’s Prayer
Manifestation of the Holy Ghost or not, this song makes me feel good. I really like the music, and the first line: “Heavenly Father, are you really there?” It seems to embrace wonder and validate doubt. What a great thing!

I Hope They Call Me on a Mission
I thought this was pretty cheesy growing up. Especially weird singing it as a 6’ eleven year-old (“when I have grown a foot or two” … which would make me 7 or 8 feet tall). However, at a zone conference in Japan during a rough patch in my mission, a zone leader played just the first few lines of this song and I totally got fired up to go ring another 500 Japanese kekko boxes. I LOVE playing this song as well.

We’ll Bring the World His Truth
Another song I loved on the mission. Really got me psyched up during long bike rides.

Popcorn Popping
Somehow I also missed the “it wasn’t really so” part and thought for a long time that popcorn really did come from apricot trees. Also, any primary song that ends up on Letterman has to be great (some guy in the audience sang it).

Follow the Prophet
I LOVE the minor key… and the march-like feel. Playing this one is really fun. It sounds great in Japanese too. That should be on everyone’s bucket list.

Worst:

Follow the Prophet
Thought I’d let this one off easy? This is quite possibly the creepiest song of the book. Can you say cult-ish? Something about the minor key and the words “Don’t go astray-ay!” that seem a little too horror-movie-ish. It’s one of the few things in the faith that when I’m called a cultist I actually think of this song and go, “well… kinda sometimes.”

I Am a Child of God
This song would not be on the worst list, if it wasn’t sung EVERY FLIPPIN’ WEEK. It got so bad in one ward, I actually complained to the primary president (we were tight like that, so don’t get too excited). Apparently, most of the kids were picking it for their “favorite song” for their spotlights because it was the only song they knew. Even my three year-old now randomly declares to inanimate objects around the house, “I am a child of God!” No, he doesn’t have Tourette’s. It just really sticks with you after 3x a week x 500+ weeks.

Book of Mormon Stories
I don’t know where to start with this one. Native-American/Lamanite connection issues aside, the “pretending to be Indians” hand action is at best ignorant. How can we continue to mock sacred symbols of other cultures? The Native American Powwow is a religious ceremony. The eagle feather is sacred. We should show more respect for these beliefs, just as we want our own sacred symbols to be respected.

If Jesus Were Watching
This is a song out of Friend a while back that we are singing this year for the program. I totally reject the premise of the song: If Jesus were watching me, would I still do ________ behaviors? How is this not false doctrine? Jesus IS watching, duh. Come on Sister Perry. You have done better.

What are your favorite/least favorite primary songs? Keep it balanced! I don’t want any posters with all negative or all positive opinions!

New Convert:
“I watched them all back to back this year on DVD. And I’m very glad I did. And I’d do it again.”

Dogmatic:
“If you didn’t like the Lost finale, you’re an idiot! Literally, you probably just didn’t understand it. You have my sympathy.”

DAMU:
“After so many years spent on this show, I feel cheated.”

ExMormon:
“The people who actually watched all 6 seasons and LIKED it suffer from a form of TV induced Stockholm Syndrome (a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the negative experience of the victims). Sorry for those that liked it. The first step is admitting there is a problem. ”

Middle-Way:
“Probably not the answers we’d all hoped for… but anything that can make me feel something besides contempt and disappointment is just fine with me.”

While there are some interesting similarities in content between the show and the gospel—such as the fallen evil dude (the brother of Jesus!) wanting a body—I am more interested in how the process of being a fan of the show and being a member of the church have been strangely similar to me. Think how rather than what. Here are the top three observations about being a fan of the show that came up over the last six years, as well as some honorable mentions:

3. Varying but predictable reactions

With every new season, many complained about the show jumping the shark. Plain crash on a deserted island? Cool! Underground hatch with a button that has to be pushed every 108 minutes? Um, what? Start traveling through time? Lost half the viewers. In each case, a significant amount of viewers predictably fell away, or became more disgruntled. Not just major changes caused these hard feelings though—general disillusionment, feelings of being lied to (not kidding, some people feel lied to), and cries of “it wasn’t what I thought it was” were guaranteed to happen. Some complained about giving up 120+ hours (READ: 2 years!) of their life for the show. Any of this sound familiar? On the other hand, there are viewers like me loved the show, enjoyed the changes, and generally found it immensely satisfying, while being aware of the flaws. Some people are inevitably going to be disappointed, disillusioned, or feel abused (really, one person compared it the finale to spousal abuse… and I thought Richard Dawkins was crazy).

2. A lot of good, a little bad, a dash of ugly

• The good: amazing acting (Michael Emerson anyone?), great character development, intriguing mysteries, huge fan community, meaningful symbolism, and hilarious podcasts. Not to mention an amazing locale with Hummer Tours! (Yeah, I went on one.)
• The bad: Walt and Aaron are important! You really should be thinking a lot about them… no wait, no they’re not, please forget everything we ever said.
• The ugly: Jack gets a tattoo in Thailand from Bai Ling. Nikki and Paulo… well, actually I’m ashamed to admit I actually liked that episode… it had Lando!

For each viewer the ratio of good/bad/ugly was probably different (just as it is in the church). For me, the good outweighs the bad.

1. Subjective experience vs. The Truth

After the finale, myriad arguments ensued about the merits of the show. Amazing masterpiece? Horrible mockery of actual story telling? One of the best shows ever? Another J.J. Abrams “start with a bang and end with a whimper”? I think the debate about whether or not the show is objectively good TV (essentially, “truth claims”) is not very useful. How do you measure and compare subjective experience? Maybe it comes down to the percentages of importance one places on subjective experience and the Truth. For me it’s about 70-30. I care a little less about objectivity than utility. Consider me a post-positivist Lost fan (and church member!). The Truth Is Out There, but it is experienced by individuals. I am more interested in the community, the characters, and the big themes of love and redemption, than finding out all the answers, having everything neat and tidy, and whether or not the show is “objectively” good. Debates over “fact” or “truth” or “reason” have, for the most part, led me nowhere in terms of improving life. To be sure, every once in a while I am encountered with a new view on something that modifies my views or is useful in some way, but I don’t think the “Truth” can really be found this way. Certainly not utility. If people enjoy Twilight or the Twilight Zone, Miley Cyrus or Bob Dylan, Lost or Lost in Space, I refer them to The Duke: “If it sounds good, it IS good.” Follow your own heart and mind, not what some TBM/Atheist/Middle-way/DAMU says.

Honorable Mentions:

Sharing the good news: I often tried to convert my friends and family to the show, with moderate success. However, many fall away after some activity with the first few seasons… I’m now at peace with the fact that many people are just not going to watch it, and many aren’t going to like it.

We don’t have all the answers: We weren’t given the answers to many of the questions. Some questions took years to answer. Tolerance of ambiguity reigns supreme. Research suggests that we remember things better when they are left incomplete, so perhaps not having all the answers is not all bad.

For Lost TBS and DAMUS (and middle-way Losties!) out there, what did you think of the show? Did you find any of the show’s themes relatable in your own life or belief system? As this post is not meant to debate the merits of any “content” or specific truth claims of the church or the show, please stick to the “process” themes in your comments!

I have mixed feelings about my experiences with home teaching. My father taught me from an early age about visiting the widows, the less fortunate, those who did not fit in with the Saturday golf games.

We probably went every month, and usually had a message, but we also spent a lot of time helping these people move, chopping up wood in backyards, and just talking. I watched my father care for these people. When a few members questioned his politics when he was called to be our bishop, I knew that politics had nothing to do with it. He taught me by example what really mattered, and I learned to love these people as well. Not because I was assigned, although that’s how it starts. I did fall asleep a lot though. Those old couches were always really comfortable.

On the other side of the issue, I have had very reliable, come-every-month types. Some stand out more than others – like the one who invited my wife and I over for dinner more than once, made dessert, played board games, and helped us move. I know it was important to him that he did his monthly duty, but I also knew he cared. He listened empathically as I expressed my frustration with the Prop 8 letter being read in Sacrament meeting (this was in Washington) last year–right after he gave a lesson about following the prophet.

As a home teacher, I have struggled with certain families. It often seems the standard, “Is there anything we can do for you” question at the end of the visits doesn’t get much in response. Not that we need to be pushy, but I think we can try a little harder to be of real service to our families.

Perhaps even more importantly, I think we need to do a better job of allowing our own home teachers to serve us. It is one thing to take care of others. For some people, it is an entirely different–and often more difficult–challenge to allow others to do the caregiving from time to time.

What makes a good home teacher to you? What are some of your better experiences?

What, really, is sin? Not so much “what are some examples of sin…” because we all know there are endless ways and means TO sin. What IS it?

How do you define it?

I have often read from those who have left the church about the very idea of sin being silly. I can’t blame them, because for a long time I didn’t really know what it meant either. Missionaries trying to convince people of their sins, in order to help them see they needed a savior seemed a little strange.

My paradigm shifted when I began to think of what was most important to me in my faith (right after charity of course!): personal growth. From that point onward, “sin” became anything that thwarts, disrupts, or otherwise damages my progress.

In addition, while I believe there may be many universal “sins,” there may be some things that stunt my growth that do not harm others. We all have to figure that out on our own.

Looking at the LDS.org definition, I don’t really see a conflict with my definition either, perhaps just a different angle:

“To commit sin is to willfully disobey God’s commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth.”

God’s basic commandments? Love others. Love God. Be perfect. We are all “sinners” in the sense that we all do things that stunt our growth from time to time. That is NORMAL. We are here to learn from our mistakes, our sins, and to grow. To me, progression is the most important key, not being “worthy” vs. “unworthy.” We are all somewhere on the worthiness (read: progression) spectrum.

What does sin mean to you? How do you define it?

So far there are some good and bad sides to this. On the one hand, I am much more enthusiastic and enjoy the good parts of the meetings A LOT more. On the other hand, I’m still not sure what to do when something is happening that I think is wrong. For example, one person in my ward (not the bishop, but in a fairly prominent position) during each of the last few weeks has taught some things that I felt were false and misleading, to say the least. I’m sure this person has good intentions and doesn’t know of the error, but it is REALLY starting to concern me as I have a young son who will hear these lessons over and over again, and there is no way I’m going to be able to catch every comment about how important issues like earrings are, or how Lehi “sailed to America” or how John Taylor’s watch saved his life. During a recent lesson my wife said I “visibly scoffed” after one of these things was shared. It wasn’t intentional, but when I hear things like that I guess I can’t help it.

So what should I do? How do I keep the peace and not upset the apple cart, so to speak, while still standing up for what I believe in? We can’t let these things slide, or the truth will be the victim of the comfort-level of the crowd.

If anything, all this has taught me that the Truths of the gospel are the things that can be simplified without being twisted, distorted, or whitewashed. Love one another. Serve each other. Grow. Be kind. Reach out to those who are suffering. That is what I’m teaching my sunbeam class, and that is what I want my son to learn.

I was talking with a friend recently about addictions. Things like alcohol, caffeine, meth, and heroin (among many other substances) all seem to rob the addict of their free will to some extent. At some point in the conversation we started talking about mythology, and he mentioned how vampires could be viewed metaphorically as heroin addicts. (There is even a movie with the vampire/heroin metaphor, “The Addiction” staring Christopher Walken as a vampire who abstains from blood through fasting and meditation.)

Of course being LDS I couldn’t resist making the comparison to Twilight. I’ll spare you the plot synopsis but the “good” vampires in the story also abstain from human blood. This is incredibly difficult for some. The temptation is so great that they need a lot of social support as well as constant effort to stay on the straight and narrow. Even the sight of blood triggers their urge to the point that it is nearly uncontrollable. As they progress, they may be more in control but still feel the temptation, as Edward often does with his human girlfriend Bella. The father in the story is the most controlled of all, having abstained for decades.

Pornography seems to be the major addiction of choice in Mormon culture. Granted, there are other addictions that members face, but this one seems to stand out above everything else. Twilight is, like it or not, THE vampire mythos of choice for Mormons. Edward Cullen may as well be a metaphor for a porn addict because he wants more than anything to be with Bella, but he is constantly fighting off his urge to drink her blood, just like an addict may end up destroying, or at least ending, their family or marriage if ultimately they succumb.

This conversation led my friend to remark how unfortunate it is that someone who drinks a lot is not seen to have a problem until they’re a raging alcoholic. There is no middle ground in mainstream society for someone to “have a problem” with alcohol. They either enjoy drinking, and you wouldn’t dare say they had a problem, or they drink all the time and they have a disease.

I think that Mormon culture is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and it may serve to exacerbate the problems of addiction. A drop of alcohol, a quad shot of espresso, a glance at a porn site all spell a serious problem. Note that I am not justifying any of those actions. I DO think abstinence is the best rule to follow in those cases. However, it is often not the reality, and I think it would be more effective to view problems with addictions as being on a spectrum. The flaxen cord in the Book of Mormon illustrates this very well. One cord isn’t going to be that strong, but many will be binding. Each choice we make contributes to who we will become.

This wasn’t just any seminary teacher either. Brother Pratt was one of those teachers who made me feel important every time I talked to him. He inspired many to live good and clean lives.

Apparently there are “hundreds” of text messages between Pratt and a 16 year-old student, some of them explicit. That is all the evidence so far, but the “story” unfortunately goes MUCH further. He has not been found guilty yet, but it seems overwhelmingly like he is.

The dissonance is too much right now. I need to condemn something – blame it on Satan and the male sex drive, decide Pratt really was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, etc. Those are the easy ways out, and I really want to take one of them.

It is hard to sit and wait. Even harder to just sit with the fact that someone who has helped so many people may be guilty of something like this. Hard to resist picking up a stone.

May our prayers reach out to all. May we all be free from suffering and the root of suffering.

I have recently received some “further light and knowledge” on this topic. For the past three years or so I have become very interested in attachment theory. Basically, it says that we have an evolutionary necessity to seek out closeness or security to significant others. It ensures survival as the infant seeks proximity to its caregiver. Without emotional connection and touch, infants will die despite having their other needs met.

As adults, it is more emotional than physical. Think of Tom Hanks’ character in Cast Away. Isolated from society and separated from the one he loves, he creates his friend Wilson to keep him company, even risking his life once to save Wilson. This basic attachment need is with us from the “cradle to the grave.” 1  Whether we deny it, ignore it, ramp it up and become overly anxious, or embrace it, it is there to stay–in all of us.

Infants have a hierarchy of attachment figures–usually but not always a relative. The primary attachment figure is the one whom the child usually prefers when distressed, or whom the child seeks out, monitors, or attempts to maintain proximity to. Basically, the one whom the infant prefers to be nurtured by. It seems normal to assume that the parent who is around the child more, or is the most caring would naturally be the primary attachment figure. If the father is the stay-at-home parent, wouldn’t he be the primary attachment figure, i.e the primary nurturer?

Not in most cases. This role is usually given by mother nature to mothers, regardless of how involved she is with her child.

“The fact that infants preferentially seek proximity to their mother derives from the reality that attachment is mainly a function of availability. Interestingly…even when the mother works outside the home and the father is de facto the primary parent, the mother is still strongly preferred.” 2

One of the foremost attachment researchers, Mary Main, suggests that this may be due to the infant’s prenatal experience. I wonder if there are any studies with primary attachment figures and adopted children.

This finding softened my feelings a bit. While I am certainly capable of nurturing my son, it is okay with me that he generally prefers my wife first… especially now that I understand it a little more. It also tells me that this part of the Proclamation is spot on. Mothers are the primary nurtures, AND there are cases where individual adaptation is better, or necessary.

1. John Bowlby

2. David Wallin, Attachment in Psychotherapy

This is an adaptation of a post my good friend Ron wrote. He is Catholic, so with his consent I have modified some of it to fit the audience here, as well as added some of my own thoughts. It was inspired by some of his encounters with a “rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian” who was “more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.” These points, however, may be applied to anyone who wants to prove other people wrong rather than understand or learn.

“After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let’s take a close look, shall we?”

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn’t matter if it’s out of Mormon Doctrine, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the side you’re on is just as guilty as those you are making accusations against. The goal is not to be fair minded or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from the other person. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is simply to supply enough rope for your opponent to hang himself. Manipulative (e.g. “Don’t you think _____?”) and leading questions are also really effective here.

2. Rely on mocking or sarcasm to ignite passion. If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking or morally superior tone to deliver your message (Ann Coulter). If you are liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent’s attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (Al Franken).

3. Do not give an inch. If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny, or reframe the conversation! In all cases, NEVER concede even a minor point to your opponent. Also, be sure to ignore any sincere questions by your opponent. In the very least do not answer them directly. Again, the point is not to help the other person understand you, but to prove they are wrong.

4. Make Your opponent work harder. Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, put them in a place where they feel like they have to prove you wrong. If they present troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to response from your opponent. After all, reading your opponent’s posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, WINNING! Instead of reading, skim your opponent’s post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponents point–why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat or either mocking/moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the course! Or leave! Whatever you do, just don’t engage! Eventually your opponent will either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing. If it just keeps going you may want to consider eventually checking out. There are two ways to do this, either just disappear quietly until the next post comes along that you can slam, or make a big announcement about why you are not coming back. Try to make everyone reading it feel bad about your departure, and say self-deprecating stuff like “I guess I’m just not popular here”). Whatever you do, NEVER admit to any good points the other side made in their last comment, and when you come back, make sure it is only to attack again.

How can we avoid this? How can we learn together even when we disagree?

1. Ask sincere, open-ended questions. Look around and you’ll be surprised how little actually happens. Example, “What do you think about _____?” Amazing concept, but so often we end up trying to trip each other. Make sure your questions are not meant to lead the other person down a particular path, or that you don’t have some hidden underlying agenda.

2. If you use sarcasm or a lot of humor, be kind. Even if you don’t like emoticons, make sure others understand your intention, and don’t use it as a weapon. I know many people (myself included) like to use mocking now and then, but we must refrain.

3. Acknowledge (write in your replies) when the other person has a good point. Or, *gasp* when they say something you agree with.

4. Monitor the conversation to make sure it is not one-sided. Is there always one person on the attack and the other constantly on defense, or is it more even-handed?

5. Consider the whole comment. Don’t just pick out stuff to argue with.

6. Apologize when appropriate. Take a break when you need to, but don’t completely check out or make threats when you get upset. Come back and engage. We can all learn from each other.

7. When in doubt, ask Ray what to do. He will have the answer.

Why do you converse with others online? More specifically, why do you engage in commenting back and forth with other people on Mormon Matters? To share your views? To influence others? To learn from others?

What is your method of going about this? Debate? Crafting arguments? Sharing and working towards mutual understanding? What are the pros and cons of the different ways?

I am well aware of most of the controversial issues (Book of Abraham, DNA, Book of Mormon historicity, polyandry, etc.). Some of them occasionally bother me. Others do not. Although according to statistics I am very educated, I probably could not win an argument defending the church on any of those points. I could not support the church on Prop. 8, (if you want to specifically comment on that, please go here). I will probably never understand in this life why we are discouraged from praying to our Heavenly Mother, or why women are no longer allowed bless the sick. I am sure I could go on, and so could many of you.

I occasionally get asked or read questions like, “If Joseph Smith made claims that were false, how can you believe any of his claims?” “When you line everything up, how can you still logically believe it to be true?” For anyone questioning the faith, or those who have left the church who may be reading this, feel free to mentally insert other questions here. They are all good and valid in my opinion. I do not fault anyone for asking them, nor for being disturbed enough by them to leave the faith. Although my path is different, I wish you the best.

How do I explain my belief and activity in the church? Have I put “feelings” above reason?

I was raised by a saint of a mother and an intellectual yet very spiritual father. Church books lined the shelves: Quinn, Compton, and even Bagley’s Blood of The Prophets and Southerton’s Lost Tribe made appearances. On hunting trips my father would sometimes shoot his buffalo in the name of Allah (in Turkish) so our good Muslim friends could enjoy it with us. As bishop, he helped countless families regardless of legal status, blessed a neighbor’s sick cat, and was a safe haven for gay members to turn to. My parents left their ward a few years ago to attend a Hispanic branch, where they can do a lot more than debate in Sunday School over gospel minutiae. They taught me by word and example that serving and loving others always trumps theology.

As a priest I loved blessing the sacrament. It was probably the first time I felt a significant sense of the sacred–it was intoxicating. I loved seminary and institute, even when I was taught that Darwin was Satan’s answer to Joseph Smith (that one still makes me smile). I often felt a sense of awe watching the RMs come home. I wanted what they had. My father called it “spiritual muscle.” My mission in Japan was the right place at the right time for me, for many reasons. It was the best investment of time I had ever made (up to that point, of course!).

The Book of Mormon has a special place in my life. One experience reading King Benjamin started what became a small series of nearly indescribable subjective positive spiritual experiences, (I once tried to describe what it was like to an inquiring non-member/acquaintance and was mocked for it, so I hold close what is most sacred–let’s just say that a few of them were more than just a “tingling down the spine” or “warm feelings”). I have also felt what I interpret to be the infinite love and patience of God, for me and for all of his children. These “feelings” are as important and special to me as my “feelings” for my wife and son.

I love having a community wherever I go. I generally enjoy responsibilities at church, (currently the strengthening marriage instructor) and I have found that if I’m prepared and attentive, the meetings are usually more than worthwhile. I love General Conference, and agree with the teachings almost all of the time. Some people (both in and out of the church) seem to think that a prophet is either always right or not a prophet at all. I was not brought up that way, and have a difficult time understanding it now. Like Henry Eyring (Sr.) said, I think that prophets are wonderful because sometimes they speak for God. It is for those special moments of elevation and insight that I respect and listen to them.

Certain aspects of Mormon theology also fit me better than any religion or philosophy I know. This will have to be a later post, but marriage and personal growth are two of the most important things in life to me, and Mormonism fits those quite well, (I am definitely open to other views or ideas on this, if you have some).

I love symbolism, and enjoy the temple ordinances–I expect that they will continue to evolve, and look forward to it. I see Christ and relationships in everything in the temple. It can be different, even awkward at first, but looking deeper provides inspiration and insight that is a moving and a stabilizing force in my life. I believe in Christ. He inspires goodness. He is the answer to the question of evil and tragedy and suffering. He unconditionally loves everyone. That is a God I believe in. His revelations are in the Church, in books, in the rocks, and hopefully in my dissertation in a few years. None of those conduits are free from error.

This is not an argument for Mormonism. I am not telling others how they should approach faith, or activity in the church. This is simply how I am doing it. I could not be more logical: Some stuff bothers me, some of it really inspires me, gives meaning to my life and family, and has been the source of experiences (not always just feelings) and growth that I cannot reject. I do not have my head in the sand. I am not plugging my ears and yelling “faith! faith! faith!” at valid and logical arguments against the church’s claims.

Some people may think that if I have concerns or disagreements I should drop the church. Others may think I should try harder to procure some answers for my questions and concerns. I have pondered the first option and tried out the second for a while. In one of the clearest insights in my life, I found that neither option is even remotely satisfying. I believe in the gospel, and I am not an apologist. So here I am, in the church, good and bad, best and worst, inspiring and awkward.

What is your story?

• How do you handle issues that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reconcile?
• What are the best parts of your experiences in the church?
• Why have you ultimately decided to stay or leave? (Please keep these in a spirit of sharing and mutual understanding.)

Do you know of any good related posts (by those who have stayed OR left–again, written with some humility, please). Next week there will be a guest post by a friend of mine who left the church a while back. Here are a few others, from various perspectives:

• Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon
• Not ashamed
• The atheist hiding within the Mormon
• I Have Always Been A Pagan

With his blessing, here are some “best and worst” Mormon quotes. To keep it balanced, each best and worst will come from the same person in LDS history. The intent here is not to “speak evil of the Lord’s anointed,” and I value being able to look back at our missteps with a little humor. I am sure when I review my life someday, there will be plenty of ill-advised quotes to assemble. Looking at our blunders with openness and not getting defensive about them are, in my view, attributes of godliness.

David O. McKay
Worst:
“Although, I do not care much for a negro, still I have a warm spot in my heart for those beautiful singers.”

Best:
“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse.”
“Children are more influenced by sermons you act than by sermons you preach.”

Bruce R. McConkie
Worst:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which was the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.”

Best:

“I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity. It is the supreme act of goodness and grace that only a god could perform.”

“I believe in Christ; he stands supreme! From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain, His voice is heard: ‘Ye shall obtain.’”

Brigham Young
Worst:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man mixes who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Best:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Are there other quotes, best or worst, that stand out to you? If you share one, please try to keep with the dissonant nature of the post.

Why is it often looked down on to recognize our blunders? I have had a few leaders in my church life admit past mistakes or prejudices, and if anything my respect and admiration for them increased. I realize that a lot of us value the “warts and all” version of history, but some get defensive in trying to explain it or rationalize it away, or suppress it, lest it damage someone’s testimony. Debate is one thing, but defensiveness is a form of contention… and we all know what contention is.

When Edward Kimball was writing his father’s (Spencer W. Kimball) biography, he was told that “the story of a life should be told candidly, ‘warts and all.’  His concern was that there should not be unfair emphasis on the warts.” That is a challenge I think, to give weight to but not overemphasize the bad, and also not to “canonize” (i.e. hold them up as more than human) our leaders (something I once heard Elder Maxwell warn against in a fireside). In that spirit, I will put out some posts in the future regarding best and worst in history, politics, speculation, teachings, etc.

We all make mistakes, we all have a lot growing to do in some areas, and most of us occasionally say things we later regret. In that light, I think it is a healthy and non-defensive stance to recognize the flaws along with the greatness of ourselves, and our leaders. May we all work on focusing on the good, but recognizing and being non-defensive about the bad.

Exclusivist – Believe in “the only true church.” Exclusivists may see the church or the restored gospel as the only means of salvation. They may not openly try to share the gospel with everyone, everywhere, but that is their goal. The most obvious members in this category often include “I know this is the only true church” in bearing their testimony. They may appear to be intolerant of other religions practices, or be accused of having an agenda in their relationships with non-members.

Rejectionist – Basic religious concepts (such as a creator) are denied, and religion is viewed as a crutch or a psychological defense. Rejectionists like to point out that spiritual experiences are invalid because they cannot be known objectively. They may have some disdain for religion and may think that we would be better off without religion because of all the conflict it has caused in the world.

Constructivist – Believe that everyone constructs their own meaning and reality even if there may not be an absolute truth. It is the quality of the other’s perspective that matters in the sense that it must be consistent and helpful in living and coping. This group may be comfortable talking about religion from another’s perspective, but may not necessarily believe that anyone has “the Truth” or that absolute truth in terms of religion is even knowable.

Pluralist – Believe in a spiritual reality or truth, but also believe that everyone interprets it differently, which allows for differences among religions and cultures. They are open to sharing their beliefs, but also open to the idea that they may not have it all. They like to quote Paul saying, “we see through a glass darkly.” They also like the story of the blind men and the elephant.

These approaches do not necessarily dictate whether someone is a believer or not. For example, not all atheists are rejectionists.

What approach do you have to the faith of others? Please click here to participate in a quick poll. Are these categories exclusive? Do we use them even amongst fellow members? How do we react to those who approach our faith from a different perspective?

*These are adapted from Incorporating Spirituality in Counseling and Psychotherapy, by Geri Miller.

Has anyone taught or been in this class (or any class in the church on relationships) before?

What worked? What didn’t? What was interesting? What was boring?

So far I am planning to use the 6 lessons as a framework to bring in a lot of what I have learned about couples during the last few years, and possibly show some video clips to illustrate some concepts, (on that note, is it a bad idea to show clips from non-LDS sources/movies during the block?). The biggest concern I have is not getting too intellectual (read: pedantic) and end up putting a lot of husbands to sleep. Sorry, that was sexist but in my experience husbands just generally are not as interested in learning about marriage.

The 6 lessons are:

Applying Gospel Principles
Communicating with Love
Fostering Equality and Unity
Overcoming Anger
Resolving Conflict
Enriching Marriage

Any notable omissions? There is very little on sex/intimacy in the manual, for example…

What say ye?

“So powerful is the need for congruence that when people are forced to look at disconfirming evidence, they will find a way to criticize, distort, or dismiss it so that they can maintain or even strengthen their existing belief.”                                                                                             ~Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)

The authors also cite a study in which neuroscientists found that “reasoning areas in the brain virtually shut down” when people are presented with dissonant information, and emotion circuits of the brain light up when consonance is restored. We do not rest easy until the dissonance is resolved.

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray… If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God…” [1]

In my experience, this is a statement and a belief that causes a LOT of dissonance.

We all deal with it in different ways. Some try to distort or dismiss past teachings, or even criticize the teacher (i.e. “he wasn’t speaking as a prophet,” or “it was just his opinion.”)

Obviously there have been contradictions in teachings (feel free to list some if you like, for the sake of the debate). Here is a common one: [2]  Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the Father. Spencer W. Kimball taught, “We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.” So which of these leaders is leading us astray? If you believe that a prophet cannot teach false doctrine, one of them is definitely leading us astray.

 If a doctrine (in my mind) has proven itself to be false, then I can no longer believe it. I cannot accept that “never lead us astray” means “never teach false doctrine.”

This idea is backed up by Bruce R. McConkie. When talking about the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood he said,

“We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world… We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past.”

Elder McConkie’s statement suggests that sometimes prophets have limited understanding, and even “darkness” in their views (as we ALL do). Notice McConkie did not say “sorry, but the Lord was wrong. We actually did lead you all astray.”

In sharing this with other members, a common reaction I get is “well, if you take the view that a prophet can teach something wrong, then what use is a prophet at all? How could you trust anything he said? Why would you believe any of it? Do you think a prophet is just a guy with some good ideas?”

I resolve this dissonance with the belief that God has given us prophets to guide us in our ultimate goal in life, that of progress and salvation. God will not allow a prophet to do anything that would “separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Resolving dissonance is not always bad. In fact, it often leads to pro-social action. [3] In the case of religious belief, it has spurred me to examine my beliefs and assumptions, discard what I deem to be error, and strengthen my commitment to what I believe is truth.

One final thought: Following a prophet requires a lot of faith, prayer, guidance of the Spirit, and (dare I say) use of one’s mind. May we all have the courage to use our intellect as well as our our feelings, for they are equally vital.

Notes:

[1] Woodruff, W. (1890). Excerpts from three addresses by President Wilford Woodruff regarding the manifesto. Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church.

[2] Young, B. (1852). Adam, our father and our God. Journal of Discourses 1, 46-53.

[3] Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. From page 18: “Fortunately, dissonance theory also shows us how a person’s generous actions can create a spiral of benevolence and compassion, a “virtuous circle.” When people do a good deed, particularly when they do it on a whim or by chance, they will come to see the beneficiary of their generosity in a warmer light. Their cognition that they went out of their way to do a favor for this person is dissonant with any negative feelings they might have had about him.”