Making Your Marriage Work: Part 2 - Standing United

Chapter 8

Should I Keep Trying to Work It Out? Sacred and Secular Perspectives on the Crossroads of Divorce

Alan J. Hawkins and Tamara A. Fackrell

Quotes and passages to focus on from chapter 8: Part 2 -

The first test President Faust gave was that serious marital problems should exist for a prolonged period of time before one can determine if there is just cause for ending a marriage. (Although if there are safety issues, then a separation is likely necessary while assessing whether change can occur.) There is not much research on how long people experience problems before seeking a divorce. However, research documents that the first five years of a marriage are the years with the highest risk of divorce, and these risks are even higher for remarriages (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002). Apparently, then, many who divorce are married for a relatively short period of time. In our own professional work, we have learned that unfortunately many people divorce after a short period of problems and make their decision quickly, based almost solely on emotion.

 

Some research suggests that many who divorce have regrets about the divorce later. Divorce scholar Robert Emery reports that ambivalent or mixed feelings about a divorce are common (Emery & Sbarra, 2002). A handful of surveys from various states in the United States estimate that perhaps half of individuals wished they had worked harder to try to overcome their differences (see Hawkins & Fackrell, 2009, 65–74). A study that followed divorced individuals over a long period of time found that in 75 percent of divorced couples at least one partner was having regrets about the decision to divorce one year after the breakup (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). If feelings of regret are common, this suggests that the decision to divorce may not have been fully considered.

The second part of President Faust’s test of just cause is that the marriage is “apparently irredeemable,” or that there is little hope of repairing the relationship. Related to this point, researchers estimate that only about 30 per-cent of U.S. couples who divorce make an attempt to reconcile before the divorce (Wineberg, 1995). Other research suggests that most couples do not seek counseling before they divorce. A survey of Utah adults found that only about half of couples who divorced first sought either secular or religious counseling (Schramm, Marshall, Harris, & George, 2003; see p. 22). This is unfortunate because researchers have estimated that about 80 percent of couples may see improvement in their relationship after visiting a marriage counselor (Ward & McCollum, 2005) and, over the short term, almost half say all of their major problems were resolved (Bray & Jouriles, 1995; Ward & McCollum, 2005). One Latter-day Saint couple said: “One of the things we’ve worked on since [we decided to try to save our marriage], we’ve actually gone to counseling a lot. . . . It’s been really helpful. . . . I think [counseling provided] a backbone of stability for us.” A final determination of whether problems are “irredeemable” rests with each spouse. However, we should seek help from various sources, including religious leaders and professional counselors who provide needed perspective and who help distressed couples develop the skills to resolve their problems. 

Many people seem to believe that once a marriage has gone “bad,” it is like bruised fruit that cannot be restored, but instead needs to be thrown out and new fruit bought. But research shows that a high percentage of people who say they are unhappy in their marriage, but persevere for several years, later report that their marriages are happy again (Waite & Gallagher, 2000). More than 75 percent of individuals in Waite and Gallagher’s study who gave the lowest rating on a marital satisfaction scale but persisted reported a few years later that they were happy or very happy. This study suggests that long-lasting marital unhappiness is uncommon; unhappy marriages often improve significantly over time for those who are patient and keep trying to work things out. Thus, we think there should be a presumption that current unhappiness in a marriage will diminish, problems will be resolved, and happiness will return. Patience and perseverance can make a real difference. 

Perhaps this intriguing research finding can be better understood in the context of the common reasons that people give for divorce. A national study documented that the most common reason people gave for their divorce was a lack of commitment; nearly 75 percent said it was a major factor (National Fatherhood Initiative, 2005). Other common reasons given were too much arguing (56 percent), infidelity (55 percent), unrealistic expectations (45 percent), lack of equality in the relationship (44 percent), and lack of effective preparation for marriage (41 percent). A survey in Utah found a similar pattern of common reasons (Schramm et al., 2003). Most of these reasons seem amenable to patience and effort. People can learn better communication and problem-solving skills; they can establish more realistic expectations; they can learn to treat each other with greater respect and act as equal partners. Also, many good resources are available for engaged couples who want to work before their marriage to prepare better for the challenges that lie ahead. (See www.twoofus. org/engaged/preparing-for-marriage/index.aspx and beforeforever.byu.edu for resources.) There are ways to strengthen commitment to each other and to the marriage before and after the wedding (Stanley, 2005). While infidelity is one of the most difficult marital injuries to heal, therapists devoted to helping couples recover from infidelity report significant success (Sny-der, Baucom, & Gordon, 2007). While most (63 per-cent) Americans say they would not forgive their spouse and would get a divorce if they discovered he or she had been unfaithful ( Jones, 2008), in actuality, researchers have found that about half of men and women who have been unfaithful are still married to their same spouse (Allen & Atkins, under review).

Another interesting finding that sheds light on whether marriages can be repaired is that most divorces come from marriages that were not experiencing abuse or high levels of conflict. One set of researchers estimated that half to two-thirds of divorces come from couples who were not having a lot of serious arguments or experiencing abuse (Amato & Booth, 1997; Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007). Instead these divorces seem to result from other problems, such as one or both spouses having unrealistically high expectations about the marriage. Also noteworthy is the finding that the children of these divorces are generally the ones who have the hardest time adjusting to divorce (Amato & Booth). In high-conflict marriages, the children likely are aware of the problems, and divorce may be an expected and even welcome resolution. But in low-conflict marriages that end in divorce, the children likely are surprised and bewildered. A key foundation of their world has been cracked, and they struggle to deal with these unwanted and, from their perspective, unwarranted changes in their family. 

The third, inter-related part of President Faust’s test of just cause for divorce is that the marital relationship has become destructive to a person’s basic human dignity. Certainly there is ample evidence that the process of marital breakdown, the aftermath of divorce, and struggles to rebuild a life and meet daily challenges can leave people feeling exhausted, lost, beaten down, lacking confidence, and depressed (Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Waller-stein et al., 2000). Of course, for some adults, divorce, despite its difficulties, can be the beginning of a new, energizing, and exciting path (Hetherington & Kelly). But for most, marital breakdown and divorce carry with them difficult adjustments that challenge our personal resources to adapt (Amato, 2000; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002). In this body of research findings, it is difficult to separate the effects of marital breakdown from the effects of adjustment to divorce. Most likely both con-tribute to adjustment difficulties. That is, problems in the marriage make people unhappy and contribute to lower self-esteem, for instance, but problems adjusting to divorce exacerbate these problems and likely spawn additional ones. Moreover, research finds little evidence that, overall, those who divorce rather than stay together are able to rebuild a greater sense of well-being and happiness (Waite et al., 2002; Waite, Luo, & Lewin, 2009). Specifically, those who were unhappy in their marriage and divorced did not end up having greater emotional well-being a few years down the road compared to unhappily married individuals who stayed together. This was true even for those who remarried (or repartnered) after the divorce. Evidently, for most, divorce is not a reliable path to improving one’s well-being over time. 

However, it is important to acknowledge that this is only a general statement. Certainly there are far too many instances when one’s basic human dignity or safety—as well as children’s well-being—is put in jeopardy by a destructive marital relationship. Spousal abuse carries with it a high risk of destructive consequences, including poor mental and physical health (Afifi et al., 2009; Campbell, 2002). Similarly, the discovery of infidelity, especially a pattern of repeated infidelity, can produce feelings of traumatic stress, anger, depression, anxiety, disorientation, and psychological paralysis (Snyder et al., 2007). Furthermore, when children are witnesses to ongoing high levels of marital conflict, research suggests that most are better off if their parents divorce (Amato & Booth, 1997). 

 One challenge associated with this third principle is that sometimes individuals struggling in a destructive marriage get so worn down that they lose a sense of self-efficacy and an ability to trust their own judgment. Hence they may be unable to make a difficult but correct decision to divorce. In these instances, caring family and friends may need to help. As we said earlier, generally we believe family and friends should encourage loved ones at the crossroads of divorce to act with faith and do all they can to repair the marriage. But there may be times when a family member or close friend will need to prayerfully and carefully intervene to help a loved one see that the marriage has become destructive or unsafe and strengthen them to make a difficult decision to divorce.

One situation that can cause great marital pain occurs when one spouse rejects or questions his or her faith while the other remains devout. We do not believe that a spouse’s spiritual wanderings are just cause for divorce. With the right perspective, this situation does not constitute a threat to human dignity. Instead, we should offer compassion, love, and patience as a light to attract our spouse back onto the path of full righteousness.

The Lord’s standard for just cause for a divorce is a high one, even if God mercifully allows us to live by some-thing less than the celestial law. In no way do we want to imply that adhering to this standard is easy. With-out question, it takes courage and discipline to stay in an unhappy marriage for a prolonged period of time to attempt change and improvement. It takes wisdom (and perhaps seeking some wise counsel) to evaluate whether a highly troubled marriage can be redeemed, plus skill and effort and humility to repair the relationship. And it takes spiritual insight to discern if an unhappy marriage is becoming destructive of one’s basic human dignity. But because marriage is “central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children,” the bar should be set high, encouraging couples to work to preserve the marriage. Moreover, from a secular perspective, research suggests that a wise course includes patient efforts to repair the relationship, if possible, and that there is wisdom in carefully considering the potential consequences of divorce for all in the family. 

Then what is the best course if we come to the crossroads of divorce? Echoing similar, earlier teachings from President Gordon B. Hinckley (2000), Elder Dallin H. Oaks (2007, pp. 71–72) provided challenging but needed counsel:

"Now I speak to married members, especially to any who may be considering divorce. I strongly urge you and those who advise you to face up to the reality that for most marriage problems, the remedy is not divorce but repentance. Often the cause is not incompatibility but selfishness. The first step is not separation but reformation. . . . Under the law of the Lord, a marriage, like a human life, is a precious living thing. If our bodies are sick, we seek to heal them. We do not give up. While there is any prospect of life, we seek healing again and again. The same should be true of our marriages, and if we seek Him, the Lord will help us and heal us. Latter-day Saint spouses should do all within their power to preserve their marriages."

Some divorces are necessary and just, and may actually serve to clarify the moral boundaries of marriage by identifying behavior that seriously violates marriage covenants. But both spiritual principles and secular learning should motivate us to do all we can to keep our marital covenants. If we find ourselves at the crossroads of divorce, the best path usually is to seek divine help to change course and repair the marriage.

Prayer can be invaluable in this process. There is social science evidence that personal and couple prayer and the faith that motivates it can soften hearts and help strengthen marital relationships (Butler, Gardner, & Bird, 1998; Lambert & Dollahite, 2006). Seeking spiritual guidance from priesthood leaders can also be helpful, even though it is difficult for some because they do not want to reveal their personal struggles to others. Similarly, it can be helpful to seek out trusted family members or friends who have overcome struggles in their marriages and gain strength, perspective, and support from them. In addition, it is important for those at the crossroads of divorce to surround themselves with a net-work of friends and family who will support their efforts to repair and strengthen their marriage rather than urge them to abandon the marriage. It is more effective to work on repairing the relationship together, but if only one spouse is willing to do so, there is still hope that the actions of one can create positive change in the relation-ship and spur the other spouse to action (Davis, 2001). We also recommend three excellent books for those at the crossroads of divorce to give them perspective and guidance. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (Gottman & Silver, 1999) and The Divorce Remedy (Davis, 2001) take a secular approach while Covenant Hearts (Hafen, 2005) has a sacred focus.

Whatever sincere actions are taken, we know that a loving God will support those efforts to help couples preserve a union that is essential to his plan for the eternal welfare of his children. And if those efforts ultimately prove unfruitful, then couples can know that they have done all they could to honor a relationship ordained of God.

Personal Thoughts

I divided this chapter into two posts because of the importance and gravity of the content. As someone who has experienced three marital relationships of my own, I have known what can cause a marriage to falter. Usually there is a catalyst of some kind, a major event or issue that instigates the conflict within a marriage. But without all the little things chipping away at your marriage on a daily basis there would be no question of if your marriage could survive such conflict. For example, one of the ‘little things’ chipping away at my first marriage was the interference of parents. My parents were constantly full of advice, pressure and corrections for us, especially my Mother. She called often and if I didn’t take her call she would stop by our apartment unannounced. Her constant attempts to influence us caused a great strain that we were not able to see until it had already caused damage. On the other hand, his Mother was recently divorced from his Father and he was the eldest son. She was constantly asking him to come over to help with things, making him dinner, having him stay late while I waited at home with a meal prepared. It happened often, but I felt like I couldn’t express frustration or it would make me seem selfish. President Spencer W. Kimball said it best in a talk on marriage – 

“Well-meaning relatives have broken up many a home. Numerous divorces are attributable to the interference of parents who thought they were only protecting their loved children… Live your own life.”
The catalyst that ended my first marriage was my spouse’s pornography addiction, but without all the smaller, unaddressed issues that permeated our relationship we would have been a stronger, united force against the world. The catalyst in my second marriage was my spouse’s infidelity but again there were smaller issues that lead to his choice. He was not a member of my church for one and it weighed on me when I participated in church activity without him. There was also an expectation that his decisions were more important as the husband and that I was expected to follow and support him no matter my own thoughts or feelings. In an article in the LDS Church magazine the Ensign, President Gordon B. Hinckley (who I regard as an excellent example of sustaining a “perfected” marriage) wrote –
“Marriage, in its truest form, is a partnership of equals, with neither exercising dominion over the other, but, rather, with each encouraging and assisting the other in whatever responsibilities and aspirations he or she might have.”
I was disappearing in my second marriage, deferring everything to my husband’s word. By the time I discovered his infidelity and confronted him we had very little respect for each other and our marriage quickly crumpled. 

Equality, communication, respect, love. The humility to kneel together in prayer. There are many little conflicts that chip away and cause cracks in our marriages and if we do not address them and find amicable solutions our relationships will weaken and we will not be able to withstand the onslaught of a major problem. In my current marriage my husband and I see and treat each other as equals, we communicate constantly about every little issue, we show each other respect both inside our relationship and to others outside of it, and above all we remind each other and ourselves daily of our great love for one another. Through this effort we are able to stand united against the trials of life. 

Making Your Marriage Work: Part 1 - Where's the Poop?

Chapter 8

Should I Keep Trying to Work It Out? 

Sacred and Secular Perspectives on the Crossroads of Divorce

Alan J. Hawkins and Tamara A. Fackrell 

Quotes and passages to focus on from chapter 8: Part 1 -

Virtually everyone desires a healthy, stable marriage, but when a person’s marriage does not fit that description, he or she may consider divorce. Researchers have estimated that 40 to 50 percent of first marriages—and about 60 percent of remarriages—are ending in divorce in the United States (Bramlett & Mosher, 2002; Popenoe & Whitehead, 2007). And although the United States unfortunately has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, it is common in many other countries, as well (Popenoe, 2008). Faithful Latter-day Saints are hardly immune to divorce. Precise estimates of the Latter-day Saint divorce rate are difficult to obtain. One estimate is that 25 to 30 percent of Latter-day Saint couples who regularly attend Church experience a divorce (Heaton, Bahr, & Jacobson, 2004). Other researchers estimate that the lifetime divorce rate for returned missionary men was about 12 percent and for women about 16 percent (McClendon & Chadwick, 2005). While it is heartening to know that the divorce rate for faithful Latter-day Saints is much lower than the national average, still many Latter-day Saints face difficult decisions regarding serious problems in their marriages at one time or another. Some will find themselves at a crossroads, pondering whether their marriages can be repaired or would best be ended.

Marriage is ordained of God and central to our spiritual and temporal well-being. Accordingly, ancient and modern prophets have provided important counsel on marriage and divorce. Though our actions often fall short, the celestial law treats the bonds of marriage as permanent. The Lord taught:
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.. . . What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:6–9).
That God intended from the beginning for us to cleave to our spouse and not separate is evident in Adam’s response to God’s inquiry of whether he had partaken of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil:
“The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat” (Moses 4:18). 

In the celestial law of marriage, God has commanded us to remain together and keep our marriages strong, even when that means we must partake of some of the bitter fruits of life together. In our day, latter-day prophets and apostles have provided valuable clarifications and counsel regarding divorce. First, President Gordon B. Hinckley (2000, p. 134) said: “There is now and again a legitimate cause for divorce. I am not one to say that it is never justified. But I say without hesitation that this plague among us. . . is not of God.” Referring directly to the doctrine of marriage, Elder Dallin H. Oaks (2007, p. 70) explained: “Because ‘of the hardness of [our] hearts’ (Matthew 19:8–9), the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard [of marriage]. He permits divorced persons to marry again.”
Like the ancient Israelites whom Moses suffered to divorce (see Deuteronomy 24:1), Latter-day Saints too struggle to live the higher law. Thus, a loving God gives us a law more aligned with mortal capabilities and circumstances. In addition, Elder Oaks (2007, p. 71) taught that “when a marriage is dead and beyond hope of resuscitation, it is needful to have a means to end it.” For Latter-day Saint couples, it would be wise to make this determination in consultation with a bishop. Elder Oaks also explained that when one spouse abandons the other, the option of divorce allows an innocent spouse to remarry.

Although the Lord permits divorce and remarriage, the standard for divorce is still high. President James E. Faust addressed this issue directly (2004, p. 6; italics added):
"In my opinion, any promise between a man and a woman incident to a marriage ceremony rises to the dignity of a covenant. . . . Over a lifetime of dealing with human problems, I have struggled to understand what might be considered “just cause” for breaking of covenants. I confess I do not claim the wisdom nor authority to definitely state what is “just cause.” Only the parties to the marriage can determine this. They must bear the responsibility for the train of consequences which inevitably follow if these covenants are not honored. In my opinion, “just cause” should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship which is destructive of a person’s dignity as a human being. At the same time, I have strong feelings about what is not provocation for breaking the sacred covenants of marriage. Surely it is not simply “mental distress” nor “personality differences,” nor “having grown apart,” nor “having fallen out of love.” This is especially so where there are children."

President Faust’s humble statement is striking in that he does not claim to possess “the wisdom [or] authority to definitively state what is ‘just cause.’” His statement underlies an important principle—circumstances surrounding each marital breakdown are unique and perhaps cannot be fully understood by others. Thus only the individuals involved—and an omniscient and all-loving God—can determine “just cause.” President Faust provides some counsel, however, on the decision to divorce. He gives a three-part “test” for those seeking to determine if ending a marriage is justified: “just cause” should be nothing less serious than “a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship which is destructive of a person’s dignity as a human being.”

The first part of President Faust’s test is that only prolonged marital difficulties should lead a couple to contemplate divorce. By this we believe President Faust counsels that spouses should not seek a divorce without a lengthy period of time to attempt to repair or reduce serious problems. The standard does not require that couples spend the decision-making time living together, and in cases where a spouse’s or child’s personal safety is at stake, a separation likely is necessary while determining whether repentance, forgiveness, and change are possible. For obvious reasons, President Faust does not specify how long is long enough to meet the “prolonged” standard, and indeed behavior that places family members at risk may require immediate separation from the perpetrating spouse. But the principle President Faust sustains is that a determination of just cause for divorce requires a substantial period of problems, time for potential change to occur, and an unrushed, careful decision. 

Elder Oaks (2007, p. 73) counseled: “Even those who think their spouse is entirely to blame should not act hastily,” noting that most unhappy marriages become happy again if couples hang on and work to resolve their problems. As professionals, we strive to promote this counsel not to be hasty about a divorce decision. We encourage people at the crossroads of divorce to do everything possible to correct the problem: get rid of the computer (if Internet pornography is an issue), go to counseling, move (if needed)—whatever it takes. At the end of this process, a person can look her or his children—and God—in the eyes and honestly say, “I tried everything possible.” The process of trying everything to keep the marriage covenant is as important as the outcome of staying married.

The second part of the test is directly related to the first. The marital relationship must reach the point where it is apparently irredeemable. By this we believe President Faust means that there appears to be little hope for repairing the marital relationship. This determination requires that sincere and sustained efforts have been made to understand and fix the problems. If one spouse is unwilling or unable to make such an effort, this does not excuse the other spouse from determining his or her part in any problems and making needed change. Elder Oaks (2007, p. 73) reassures us that the Lord will “consecrate [our] afflictions for [our] gain” (2 Nephi 2:1–2) in difficult circumstances such as these, and promises, “I am sure the Lord loves and blesses husbands and wives who lovingly try to help spouses struggling with such deep problems as pornography or other addictive behavior or with the long-term consequences of childhood abuse.” While a member of the Seventy, Elder Bruce C. Hafen (2005) taught that we have a shepherd’s covenant in our marriages, not a hireling’s contract: “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep; but he that is an hireling . . . seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep and fleeth” ( John 10:11–12). Even in the face of serious problems, Elder Hafen urges us to do all that we can to protect the marriage.

The third part of the test is that the relationship has deteriorated to the point that it threatens to destroy the dignity of one or both spouses. By this we believe President Faust means that the marital problems have become serious enough over a period of time that an individual begins to lose his or her sense of worth. Although this may be a difficult standard to discern, certainly abuse or repeated infidelity can threaten a victim’s sense of worth. President Faust’s counsel suggests that feeling unhappy or unfilfilled in the marriage does not meet this standard. Nor do feelings of emotional or psychological distance or growing apart. Irritations or conflicts brought on by personality differences and other personal preferences rarely rise to the level of threatening our sense of worth. Indeed, these kinds of problems motivate us to pursue changes and improvements that affirm our agency, good desires, and skills that, in turn, reinforce our personal dignity. If this appears to be the hardest course, we can take strength in knowing that we are on the right path. Elder Bruce C. Hafen (2005, p. 86), again referring to the parable of the shepherd, the sheep, and the wolf, taught that “life is hard and full of problems—wolves. 

Dealing with the wolves is central to life’s purpose. For a husband and wife to deal with the wolves together is central to the purpose of marriage.” In a case of a couple confronting the serious challenge of adultery, the husband also was insulting to his wife and belittled her often in front of friends and family. Not surprisingly, the wife’s sense of worth eventually hit rock bottom. Nevertheless, the couple was able to work through this difficult time through tears and counseling. Many years later, however, the husband again had multiple affairs. At this point, the wife knew that the marriage needed to end. Later the wife remarried a good man. She was confident she made the right choice to divorce. Another couple began the divorce process because of a pornography addiction, but with the aid of professional counseling, the couple overcame the problem and eventually reconciled. The three-part test that President Faust offers to determine just cause for ending our marital covenants is a high standard by contemporary secular ethics. Such a high standard is best understood in light of God’s eternal plan for His children. In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the Lord’s anointed proclaim that marriage is “ordained of God,” it is “essential to His eternal plan,” and it is “central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children” (¶¶ 1, 7). In this context we can fully understand the spiritual significance of marriage and God’s commandment not to “put asunder” (Mark 10:6–9) the marital bonds that God ordains for his purposes.

Personal Thoughts

In John Gottman's book The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work he discusses the need for a "marital poop detector". This is described as a "built-in early warning system that lets you know when your marital quality is in danger of deteriorating". This poop detector is when one person realizes/notices that their is something wrong or not quite right with the other. It may be their mood, their tone of voice, emotional distance and many more signs that lead you to "smelling the poop". You'll want to bring up this subject carefully and gently as they may be like a pet that has gone to the bathroom in the house - ashamed, afraid of repercussion and feeling badly. Through gentle questioning and a supportive attitude you can help your spouse feel comfortable with sharing their issues with you. 

 

It may be that your spouse is not willing or emotionally able to show you the "poop". I had an experience at work a few months back where I was yelled at and had my arm grabbed by the angry man. I did not feel like I could share the experience with my husband, knowing how agitated it would make him. But the memory caused me distress and I found I had trouble being happy and talkative. My sweet husband realized something was wrong but couldn't figure out how to get me to talk about it. One night during our evening prayers he asked that the Lord sooth whatever it was that was troubling me. His "prayer" had a double purpose in helping me realize that, not only did I need to talk about my troubled mind, but that he was in need of my honesty and confidence. We had a long talk that night that helped me overcome my anxiety. Through love and compassion I was able to rid myself of the "poop" that had been infesting my life. And through that same compassion others can implement their own "poop detector" in their marriages. If you hold all things things in resentment can grow because you are growing through your challenges alone. And with that growing resentment will come other problems that will separate you even further in your marriage. This is an important thing to overcome in order to have open communication and emotional support in your marriage.

This Week's Goals

It's time to talk about your "poop" together. To start this exercise, take turns discussing things you feel your spouse has a hard time sharing with you. Discuss your feelings on this and why this communication is so important. Make sure to write down your feelings in your journal.

The Romance of Friendship

Chapter 5

Marital Sexuality and Fertility 

James M. Harper and Leslie Feinauer

Quotes and passages to focus on from chapter 5 -

A loving Heavenly Father reserved something divine, the physical union between husband and wife, for the heart of marriage. In the intimate, personal, and often vulnerable space of marriage, God drew bounds around sacred physical union as something to be experienced with each other as husband and wife. Sex within marriage potentially teaches Heavenly Father’s deepest truths about oneness. In this sense, sex within marriage is sanctified and serves great spiritual and temporal purposes, but as with most divine opportunities, much depends on the attitudes, timing, and behaviors of the individuals involved.

Marital sexuality serves several purposes for both husband and wife as individuals as well as for the couple relationship. These purposes include becoming one, connecting with God, strengthening the emotional and spiritual bonds in marriage, avoiding temptation, and continuing the generational chain by bringing children into a family.

The first purpose, becoming one, while a doctrinal foundation of Christian belief, is only given lip service by many couples—the sexual aspect of their relationship is not always acknowledged. Elder David A. Bednar (2006, p. 83) taught, “The natures of male and female spirits complete and perfect each other, and therefore men and women are intended to progress together toward exaltation.”  

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (2001, pp. 17–18) said that sexual union is a “welding . . . in matrimony . . . [a] physical blending [symbolic of a] larger, more com-plete union of eternal purpose and promise . . . a symbol of total union . . . of their hearts, their hopes, their lives, their love, their family, their future, their everything.”

A second purpose of marital sexual intimacy, connection with God, is described again by representatives of various religious views. Latter-day Saint writers and other Christians describe the sexual union of husband and wife as a sacrament. Gardner (2002, p. 5) described sex in marriage as “an act of worship, a sacrament of marriage that invites and welcomes the very presence of God.” 

The third purpose, strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds in marriage, is likewise explained in various religious views around the world. President Spencer W. Kimball taught that the intimacy of sexual relations in marriage is a way of expressing love for one’s partner in marriage (Kimball, E. L., 1982). He said, “There is nothing unholy or degrading about sexuality in itself, for by that means men and women join . . . in an expression of love” (p. 311). Husbands and wives can learn to share a view that marital sexual expression is designed to protect and strengthen emotional bonds, which in turn will influence marital sexuality and satisfaction.

The last purpose of marital physical intimacy, procreation and continuing of the generations. For the continuation of generations, the marital act of procreation is the foundation of the bridge between ancestors and progenitors. For those married couples unable to have children, the promise of increase as part of the Abrahamic covenant is an eternal promise (Nelson, 1995), and of course, for those who choose to adopt, the sealing power will achieve this same purpose as though the adoptive parents had borne the child biologically. 

In summary, the doctrinal views of the Latter-day Saint Church as well as many major religions of the world identify several purposes of marital sexuality: becoming one, connecting with God, strengthening the bonds of marriage, and bringing children into a family. Unfortunately, couples often understand only one or two of these purposes and ignore the rest. The sex-saturated culture so prevalent in modernized societies worships bodies and only focuses on the erotic purpose of sex, which emphasizes individual pleasure. Only focusing on this purpose of marital sexuality leads to a focus on “technique” to create the greatest physical pleasure. Gardner (2002, p. 13) agrees that despite more available knowledge of technique, couples are “more sexually empty, more sexually frustrated, and more sexually lost than ever before.” Alternatively, some couples may focus on the procreative purpose of their sexual union and forego the divinely appointed purposes of oneness and connection. By seeking to have a balance of all the divine purposes in their sexual relationship, husbands and wives together will experience not just satisfaction but more commitment, relationship growth, and connection with God.

Sexual problems are a major cause of divorce in the first two years of marriage. Anticipatory anxiety, awkward and unsuccessful sexual experiences, and a cycle of avoiding sexual interaction contribute to early marital sexual problems (McCarthy, 1998).

McCarthy and McCarthy (2003) listed attitudes that help promote positive marital sexuality as including the beliefs that:

1. Sexual interaction is a healthy component of marriage that need not be a source of negative feelings or guilt.

2. Married persons deserve to feel good about their bodies and to view sexual expression as a normal, healthy part of their marriage.

3. A primary component of marital sexuality is giving and receiving pleasure-oriented touching in the context of an intimate, committed, and divinely supported relationship. As such, it requires relaxation and focus on the other person as well as on one’s own pleasure.

4. Sexuality should be expressed in a way that enhances your intimate, marital relationship and bonds you together.

5. Couples should strive to create a “we” relation-ship, where both partners’ sharing and pleasure is important as opposed to one person individually focused on what she or he will get out of the experience.

In a marriage, not all affectionate touching should proceed to sexual intercourse. Couples should be physically affectionate with each other separate and apart from sexual interaction. If a wife begins to feel that physical touch from her husband is always a prelude to sexual interaction ending in intercourse, she will learn over time to avoid any kind of touching when she does not desire to be sexual. This affects couple attachment and interferes with good couple bonding, which is partly built on marital affection. Holding hands, hugging, kissing, and cuddling should all be part of a marital relationship—without these shared behaviors always leading to sexual interaction.

 Over time, successful marriages shift from romanticism as a time-limited binding force to companionship and attachment as a stable, enduring force (Schnarch, 2009). President Spencer W. Kimball (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2006, pp. 191) observed,

"We need an unspoiled companion who will not count our wrinkles, remember our stupidities nor remember our weaknesses; . . .we need a loving companion with whom we have suffered and wept and prayed and worshipped; one with whom we have suffered sorrow and disappointments, one who loves us for what we are or intend to be rather than what we appear to be in our gilded shell."

Realistic expectations that are mutually acceptable and shared between partners help establish a good foundation. Some research findings may help couples develop realistic expectations of their sexual relationship. Among happily married couples who report they are highly satisfied with their sexual relationship, slightly less than half of their experiences involve equal desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction (Frank, Anderson, & Rubinstein, 1978). According to Schnarch (2009), one fact about sexual desire that transcends all relationships is that husbands’ and wives’ sexual desire do not usually vary together. He states that “there is always a low desire partner, just as there is always a high desire partner—and there is one of each in every relationship” (p. 9, italics in original).

The “good enough sex” approach. The fact that husbands and wives are not usually at the same level in terms of desire, arousal, or satisfaction is related to what McCarthy and Metz (2008; Metz & McCarthy, 2007) have coined “good enough sex” for marriage. Relying on a career of more than forty years of counseling couples with sexual problems, McCarthy argues that equal desire, arousal, and satisfaction are unrealistic expectations and will interfere with positive marital sexuality (2003). The central aim of the “good enough sex” approach for marriage is that husband and wife become emotion-ally close, erotic friends, who can accept marital sexuality as a variable and flexible experience and not be anxious when sexual interaction does not flow to inter-course. In this approach, desire and satisfaction are far more important than arousal and orgasm. In this sense, marital sex and pleasure belong together, but marital sex combined with expectations that the experience will always be 100 percent satisfactory results in unrealistic demands of marriage. In the “good enough” approach, the couple is an “intimate team” who work together to create relaxation for both, which is a crucial foundation for pleasure and sexual function. Both spouses value abandoning a goal of “perfect performance,” which helps them overcome fears and pressures associated with sexual performance. he “good enough” approach promotes sex in marriage as playful and even spiritual and also encourages the belief that marital sexuality grows and evolves throughout life. In contrast, the “always great” approach often portrayed by media and culture results in disappointment, as experiences fail to match high expectations.

 

Sexual desire may present challenges to some couples, including Latter-day Saint married couples. Both partners may understand that sexual interaction is expected in marriage, but they both might experience inhibitions early in marriage due to poor body image, reluctance to initiate sexual interaction with their spouse, fear of relaxing and letting go with the spouse present, embarrassment with nudity in front of their partner, awkwardness in talking about sex with each other, and embarrassment in seeking information (McCarthy & McCarthy, 2003). These inhibitions are counter to the idea that married partners need to be honest, disclose deep feelings and experiences, and create safety for one another that leads to optimal relaxation during marital sexual interaction. The antidote to all of these inhibitions is being able to talk about them together, and in the moments of sexual interaction to be able to disclose what is happening rather than closing down emotionally and backing out of sexual interaction, which will likely be experienced as rejection by a partner. Some suggestions for talking about sex include finding a convenient time, making sure that both partners have opportunity to talk about what they like and what they don’t like, making sure that statements aren’t blaming but stated in terms of wants. For example, a wife might say to her husband, “I want us to spend more time leading up to intercourse” rather than, “You always move too quickly to intercourse.” 

Who initiates sexual interaction in marriage is often a source of conflict for married couples. A good attitude to develop about this is that both husband and wife should feel free to initiate sexual sharing with each other. The “good enough” approach would guide couples to expect that the initiation aspect of a couple’s sexual relationship may vary from time to time, but it also encourages couples to work together to share initiation so that one partner does not feel like he or she is always initiating and the other partner is always accepting or rejecting. Rigid patterns where husbands are always the initiator often develop into desire problems. Husbands and wives need to work together to achieve a pattern of equal participation in order to avoid getting into rigid patterns of high-desire partner versus low-desire partner. Both spouses need to value and set aside time for physical intimacy, engage in affectionate touching, and establish a rhythm of sexual sharing (McCarthy, 1998). 

When any sexual dysfunctions occur, a couple should seriously consider seeking reliable information and possibly professional help. While such problems are often embarrassing to a couple, early intervention usually alleviates the problem quickly, whereas waiting may make it more difficult to resolve.

 Sex is one of the areas married couples may argue about (Chethik, 2006). Usually such arguments occur when one person is focused on his or her personal needs and desires rather than the couple working together to achieve the attitudes and practices of the “good enough sex” approach for marriage. Disagreements about frequency of sexual intercourse typically involve men wanting to have sex more frequently than their wives. When initiation of sex in marriage seems compulsive and there is a large discrepancy in desire between a husband and wife, working on emotional bonding and disclosure of vulnerable feelings often helps reduce the discrepancy in desires. Men who feel inadequate, unwanted, or “bound up with stress” are likely to pursue sex as a way of managing these feelings. Sharing such feelings with a spouse often helps relieve the feelings and the associated sexual tension. On the other hand, a married partner who has little or no desire to have sex should also work with her or his spouse to determine if they can together, as intimate friends, build a bridge to desire for the lower desire spouse.

 In summary, the “good enough sex” approach was

developed as a result of research finding that happily married people experience their sexual relationship as good about 60 to 85 percent of the time and that even the happiest married couples’ experiences do not fit an “always great” approach. Couples who are flexible enough to adapt their attitudes and expectations to the principles of the “good enough sex” approach will likely experience greater overall marital satisfaction.

 In conclusion, marital sexuality serves many purposes that are part of the divine plan of a loving Heavenly Father. A sexual relationship is symbolic of the total union of husband and wife working together as “we” and “us” rather than individually. Husbands and wives should strive together to develop good attitudes about the sexual aspect of their relationship. One of the important purposes of sexuality in marriage is to express love to each other, “to bind husband and wife together in loyalty, fidelity, consideration, and common purpose” (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2004, p. 26). An added purpose is to provide physical bodies for God’s children, which is a sacred matter and should receive serious attention regarding when and how many children to have. Couples who turn to the Lord for spiritual guidance to make proper use of the choices and challenges that come with the wonderful gift of marital sexuality will find comfort and eternal blessings.

Personal Thoughts

When it comes to love and marriage, most people seem to focus on the romance of it all. Because the romance is the fun part. But without building up a friendship, a relationship is bound to feel the strain when things go South. John M Gottman, a doctor of psychology and specialist in marriage and relationship studies stresses that friendship is at the core of a strong marriage. He states in his book 'The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work' that friendship between couples means they "know each other intimately" and "are well versed in each other's likes, dislikes, personality quirks, hopes and dreams," So often we forget how important cultivating that friendship throughout our years of marriage is. A favorite quote comes to mind -

“Perhaps, after all, romance did not come into one’s life with pomp and blare, like a gay knight riding down; perhaps it crept to one’s side like an old friend through quiet ways; perhaps it revealed itself in seeming prose, until some sudden shaft of illumination flung athwart its pages betrayed the rhythm and the music, perhaps . . . perhaps . . . love unfolded naturally out of a beautiful friendship, as a golden-hearted rose slipping from its green sheath.”
― L.M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables series.

In H. Wallace Goddard's book 'Drawing Heaven Into Your Marriage', he begins by showing through some examples the power of learning to serve with a Christ-like attitude. Through selflessness and service to your beloved, you will bring yourself closer to them and them in turn to you. My favorite quote on love comes from President Gordon B. Hinkley. He said that “True love is not so much a matter of romance as it is a matter of anxious concern for the well-being of one's companion.” More profound words on love have never been spoken. Through our anxious concern we will reach beyond ourselves to know divine, unconditional love. And we can find it together.

This Week's Goals

Find time this week to share special time with your spouse with no expectations of sex - take sex off the table this week. Remember what it was like to make-out in the beginning of your relationship? Kissing, snuggling, touching, massages, etc are all encouraged. Also talk together about things your spouse does for you that makes you feel romantic feelings for them like making your lunch, singing to you, helping you with a chore you dislike, and so on. Something my spouse does for me is offer to brush my hair when I've had a stressful day. He knows it calms me and knowing that he wants to do that for me makes me feel butterflies inside for him.

Forgiveness and 'Hugging It Out

Chapter 20

Repentance and Forgiveness in Family Life 

Elaine Walton and Hilary M. Hendricks

Quotes and passages to focus on from chapter 20 -

Repentance and forgiveness are two sides of the same coin and are frequently addressed together. For example, apologies facilitate forgiveness, and forgiveness motivates repentance (Holeman, 2008). In families, repentance and forgiveness blend into an interactive process that is strengthened by family members’ commitment to each other (Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). The term “interpersonal transgression” implies the involvement of a victim and an offender who are, at the time of the offense, connected through an ongoing relationship. Although the process of repentance and forgiveness is interpersonal, successful outcomes are profoundly intrapersonal—experienced individually, apart from or in addition to any interpersonal interaction. The noted forgiveness researcher Worthington (2006) wrote, “Forgiveness does not occur in a relationship. It occurs within the forgiver” (p. 20). He posited that this was true, even in intimate relationships.

Types of interpersonal forgiveness: 

Three kinds of forgiveness will be discussed in this chapter. By implication, the repentance/forgiveness scenario involves an offender and a victim. However, in the first type of forgiveness, the interpersonal transgressions are such that both parties are at fault and the roles of victim and offender are shared. In this case, the resulting process is mutual forgiveness. By contrast, bilateral forgiveness—the second type of forgiveness—presumes there has been wrongdoing on only one side, and forgiveness comes in response to apology and repentance. In the third case, the offender will not or cannot participate in this type of healing, and therefore unilateral, or one-way, forgiveness can be achieved by the victim, without the offender’s apology or repentance (Govier, 2002).

Situations that necessitate forgiveness: 

Battle and Miller (2005) found a wide range of situations and events within families that necessitate forgiveness: In addition to infidelity and abuse, many other types of transgressions are reported as important. . . . These include (a) unequal treatment of siblings by one or both parents, (b) failure of a parent to protect a child from harm, (c) hurt feelings from divorce and/or remarriage, (d) lack of parental acceptance of a spouse or romantic partner (particularly in interracial or same-sex relationships), (e) irresponsible or dishonest financial decisions made by a family member, (f) problems associated with a family member’s addiction or mental illness, (g) inequitable distribution of household tasks, (h) repeated instances of broken family commitments or prolonged absences, (i) disagreements regarding care of an ill or elderly relative, and (j) disputes regarding funerals and estate settlement (p. 233). 

Repairing the damage caused by such occurrences in families is hard work for all involved. However, the well-established benefits of repentance and forgiveness make those efforts worthwhile.

From a religious perspective, the need for repentance is clear. Hundreds of years before Christ’s birth, King Benjamin taught that “salvation cometh to none . . . except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 3:12). President David O. McKay (1953. p. 13) stated that no “principle or ordinance of the gospel” is “more essential to the salvation of the human family than the divine and eternally operative principle [of] repentance.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks (2003) identified the instruction to repent as the gospel’s “most frequent message” and defined repentance as transformation:

The gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to change. . . . Repenting means giving up all of our practices—personal, family, ethnic, and national—that are contrary to the commandments of God. The purpose of the gospel is to transform common creatures into celestial citizens, and that requires change (p. 37).

For victims of serious offenses, Elder Richard G. Scott (2004, p. 16) recommended forgiveness—although it is “most difficult”—as “the sure path to peace and healing.” And President Gordon B. Hinckley (2005, p. 81) emphasized that forgiveness “may be the greatest virtue on earth, and certainly the most needed.” Benefits to families and individuals. Interpersonal repentance and forgiveness have obvious benefits in repairing or mediating damaged family relationships (Enright & Fitz-gibbons, 2000). In addition, individuals and families who are able to forgive important transgressions are likely to have better emotional and physical health (Battle & Miller, 2005), and positive emotions improve health in a variety of ways (Harris & Thoresen, 2005). Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between forgiveness and well-being (e.g., Thoresen, Harris, & Luskin, 2000). By contrast, not forgiving can lead to harm. “Unforgiveness” is considered a stress reaction in response to a perceived threat (Worthington, 2006), and the emo-tions associated with unforgiveness, such as resentment, hostility, blame, and fear, have been linked to health risks (Harris & Thoresen, 2005).

It is natural to be angry and even vindictive when one has been wronged. Sometimes victims are uncomfortable with these emotions and try to skip straight to reconciliation, without adequately acknowledging the wrong or allowing time for meaningful repentance and forgiveness to take place. But forgiveness demands recognition of wrongful behavior. 

Murphy (2005, p. 33) warned of this superficial forgiveness, or “cheap grace,” explaining that “hasty forgiveness can . . . undermine self-respect, respect for the moral order, respect for the wrongdoer, and even respect for forgiveness.” Elaborating, Murphy explained that resentment legitimizes the wrongness and empowers the victim to seek redress: “Just as indignation over the mistreatment of others stands as emotional testimony that we care about them and their rights, so does resentment stand as emotional testimony that we care about ourselves and our rights” (p. 35). 

Malcolm, Warwar, and Greenberg (2005) warned of “short-circuiting” anger, such that the victim inappropriately condones hurtful behavior or ends up taking responsibility for the injury. They explained that anger provides a self-protective mechanism. Indeed, there is evidence that some forms of anger (such as “constructive anger,” which focuses our energies on ways of rectifying the situation) may actually improve health (Davidson, MacGregor, Stuhr, Dixon, & MacLean, 2000). Such constructive anger can even reduce or moderate an unforgiving attitude. Clearly, the problem with resentment is not in having it but in being dominated by it and stuck in it. An understanding of what forgiveness is—and is not—will help both victims and offenders as they attempt the complicated processes described next.

Repentance is a process of enhancing internal aware-ness and interpersonal accountability (Holeman, 2008). Outwardly, the offender not only acknowledges wrong-doing but also makes reparation. Inwardly, repentance is achieved through humility and empathy, making it possible for the offenders to see themselves and those they wounded with a new perspective that is refreshing and motivating. Humility is the opposite of arrogance, narcissism, or

pride. Transgressors who are truly contrite are able to admit their mistake and make every effort to accept the consequences and conditions desired by the offended party without blaming others or justifying their actions. However, seeking forgiveness should not be confused with submissiveness, non-assertiveness, or inappropriate responsibility (Sandage, Worthington, Hight, & Berry, 2000), such as child victims of abuse who try to make sense of injury by reasoning that a parent who loves them wouldn’t hurt them unless they deserved it in some way. Empathy is the ability to understand the deep feelings of another person. While humility helps transgres-sors see themselves differently, empathy helps them see their victim differently (Holeman, 2008). True empathy is experienced as a feeling, not merely as a cognition. It is not enough to say, “I know I hurt you.” With empathy, the offender can know how it feels to be the offended person. 

Guilt or shame? With the offender’s newfound perspective may come feelings of guilt or shame. Shame involves a painful focus on self—feeling small, worth-less, or unworthy: “I am a bad person.” However, guilt is more likely to be associated with a particular act: “I did a bad thing” (Tangney, Boone, & Dearing, 2005). Guilt involves tension, remorse, and regret—emotions that can motivate repentance. Elder Richard G. Scott (2004) explained that guilt can be constructive: 

“The ability to have an unsettled conscience is a gift of God to help you succeed in this mortal life” (p. 15). 

On the other hand, feelings of shame often result in defensive behavior that inhibits the repentance process. Guilt or shame that serves only to generate feelings of unworthiness without instigating change is counterproductive. Alma counseled his wayward son,

“Let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance” (Alma 42:29). Excessive feelings of guilt or shame may require the intervention of a professional or a spiritual leader in order to transform these feelings into positive changes in behavior. 

There are many ways for offenders to acknowledge their wrongdoing and express remorse. According to Lazare (2004), a successful apology includes several parts:

(a) an accurate acknowledgment of the offense; 

(b) an appropriate expression of regret, remorse, or sorrow; 

(c) a suitable offer of repayment or restitution; 

(d) a pledge for behavior reform to ensure that the offense is not repeated. 

The apology will fail if any of the steps is missing or inadequate. For example, wrongdoers may minimize the offense or not recognize the injury suffered by the victim, resulting in a less-than-authentic apology (see Holeman, 2004). Regardless, victims may find inadequate apologies bet-ter than none. Apologies are essential for reconciliation (Lazare, 2004). 

However, in the case of severe interpersonal transgressions, it takes more than apology to restore love and trustworthiness. It takes genuine repentance. Repentance implies that a sin has been committed and involves an acknowledgement of the damage done to the offender’s relationship to God as well as to the victim. Holeman (2004, p. 238) defined repentance as a decisive turning away from thoughts, words, and deeds that have betrayed love and trust, and a wholehearted turning toward attitudes and activities that can restore love and trust to the relation-ship. [It] includes confession and a commitment to consistent changed behavior over time.

...Repentance is more than apology. It is a hum-bling, all-encompassing experience. It requires offenders to see themselves through the eyes of the injured party as well as through the eyes of God. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the repentance process is explained in the manual Gospel Principles (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2009), and includes the following:

1. Recognize the sin. We admit to ourselves that we have done something wrong.

2. Feel sorrow for the sin. Feeling sorrowful, we are humble and submissive before God, and we come to Him with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

3. Forsake the sin. We stop committing the sin and pledge to never do it again.

4. Confess. We should confess all our sins to the Lord. In addition, we must confess serious sins that might affect our standing in the Church to the proper ecclesiastical authority.

5. Make restitution. Insofar as possible, we make right any wrong that we have done.

After true repentance, if forgiveness is not forthcoming, self-forgiveness can facilitate healing for the transgressor (Hall & Fincham, 2005). Ultimately, offenders must forgive themselves in order to restore self-respect or complete the process of reconciliation where reconciliation is possible (Dillon, 2001).

For victims, forgiveness means being released from anger and developing empathy for the offender (Gordon, Hughes, Tomcik, Dixon, & Litzinger, 2009). This implies a change of heart and a change in expectations—there will be no later recriminations or paybacks (Walton, 2005). Being able to say “I forgive you” means that the feeling of injury no longer supports resentment, though the definition of forgiveness does not specify how the injured person arrives at this change of heart. The change may happen through the victim’s realizing that resentment was a mistake (for example, no wrong was done), or the harm may be excusable, such as an honest misunderstanding. 

Another possibility may be that the victim recognizes that feeding resentment and dwelling on injuries is a bad idea, with negative implications for health or a valued relationship. Genuine forgiveness is a process, not a product. It is hard work and it takes time. It is a voluntary act that gives meaning to the wound and frees the injured per-son from the ills of bitterness and resentment.

Several models of forgiveness have been examined in the scholarly literature (Worthington, 2006). Some are inter-personal models with reconciliation as the goal. Others are intrapersonal with a cognitive, behavioral, emotive, or process-oriented approach. For this chapter, we chose to focus on Worthington’s (2001) cognitive–behavioral, five-step process, which is summarized below:

1. Recall the hurt. It is human nature to try to protect ourselves from pain. Too often we try to deny or forget the pain of the offense and avoid the dis-comfort associated with addressing that offense in an interpersonal relationship. In order to forgive, we have to be clear about the wrongdoing and acknowledge the injury.

2. Empathize. Empathy involves borrowing the lens of another person so we see something from their point of view. In order to forgive, it is important to understand the transgressor’s feelings. Was the offense committed knowingly or was it an honest mistake? What were the pressures that influenced the offender to commit the offense? Is there an understandable reason for the offender to dis-agree with the victim regarding the seriousness of the offense? In what ways may the offender have been victimized in the past? What pain might the offender be experiencing associated with guilt and remorse?

3. Offer the altruistic gift of forgiveness. Forgiving with altruism is easier when the victim is humbled by an awareness of his or her own shortcomings and offenses, with special gratitude for those occasions when he or she was freely forgiven.

4. Commit publicly to forgive. The victim has a better chance of successful forgiveness if he or she verbalizes the forgiveness commitment to another person (for example, telling a friend or counselor about the decision). Some victims have formalized their decision by writing a letter, making a journal entry, or creating a certificate of forgiveness.

5. Hold on to forgiveness. After completing the forgiveness process, victims may still be haunted on occasion by the pain of the offense. During this stage it is important to move forward. When thoughts revert to the painful injury, the victim is reminded that the decision to forgive has already been made. He or she does not have to repeat that process. Also, it is important for the victim to remember that having forgiven, he or she has promised that there will be no paybacks or grudges. Although painful memories are not necessarily replaced by forgiveness, the pain should be a reminder to move forward with one’s life instead of revisiting the transgression committed against him or her. Deliberate efforts to stop unwanted thoughts are often unsuccessful. Instead, when victims have successfully re-framed their thought processes, it is probably because they have replaced the unwanted thoughts with some-thing more meaningful or important.

Elder Richard G. Scott (2008, p. 42) explained how faith in Christ brings about the ultimate healing:

The beginning of healing requires childlike faith in the unalterable fact that Father in Heaven loves you and has supplied a way to heal. His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, laid down His life to provide that healing. But there is no magic solution, no simple balm to provide healing, nor is there an easy path to the complete remedy. The cure requires profound faith in Jesus Christ and in His infinite capacity to heal.

The most meaningful and growth-promoting repentance and forgiveness require a relationship with the Lord—the willingness and humility to be taught by the Spirit. The process is about reconciliation with God first and foremost. That is the reconciliation that makes reconciliation with family members possible. Healthy guilt and godly sorrow are gifts that motivate repentance. And remembering the graciousness of God in forgiving our sins makes it easier to forgive the sins of others. Cathy moved toward forgiveness as she prayed, like the publican in Luke 18:13, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”

Reconciliation is often, but not always, the desired result of repentance and forgiveness (Worthington, 2001). Park and Enright (2000) conceptualized the process of resolving an interpersonal transgression as a series of possibilities in which forgiveness may be achieved with or without reconciliation and reconciliation achieved with or without repentance. 

People generally work at reconciliation because they have invested a lot in the relationship and do not like to accept failure (Worthington, 2001). In addition, they are likely to still value the other person and the relationship, and they recognize that if nothing is done to mend the relationship, it is likely to worsen.

Reconciliation is a give-and-take process wherein the parties gradually move closer to each other. For example, victims are more likely to reconcile with offenders who have repented, and offenders are more likely to confess and apologize to victims whom they believe will forgive them. However, false starts and missteps are common, and there are barriers to overcome. Offenders may dis-agree with the charge, or they may be afraid of punishment or restrictions associated with confession. Victims may be reluctant to give up the leverage associated with victim status (Exline & Baumeister, 2000), or they may fear appearing weak and being hurt anew. Courage and humility are required for both parties in order to repair the injury—especially because in most cases of inter-personal transgression there is neither a “pure victim” nor a “pure villain” (Holeman, 2008).

Nonverbal assurance, such as eye contact and touch, provides verification of the sincerity of an apology or evidence of acceptance on the part of the victim. Also, explanations and discussions are part of the clarifying process. Offenders need an opportunity to share, without inappropriate justification, their side of the story along with motives or reasons surrounding the infraction. Waldron and Kelley (2008, p. 115) state that “explanation may help the offender save face but it also helps the wounded partner interpret the transgression and assess its seriousness.” Reconciliation is a process of renegotiating the rules of the relationship, reframing shared memories and, in the case of couples, starting over again with a second courtship. At some point, future planning will be an essential component in the process. When partners or family members collectively plan activities or set mutual goals, they are imagining a future together and moving away from a painful past (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). 

For victims whose offenders cannot or will not repent, forgiveness is understandably more difficult. Although reconciliation may not be feasible or even desirable, forgiveness is still an important part of the healing process. All victims need to be relieved of the burden of resentment and the entanglements of a painful relationship. Govier (2002, p. 63) asserted that “no victim will benefit, psychologically or morally from clinging to a resentful sense of her own victim-hood and dwelling on the past.” 

Repentance and forgiveness are divine expectations that are particularly relevant to family life. The question is not if forgiveness should take place, but how? When the offense is associated with a simple misunderstanding, forgiveness can be almost immediate. But with deep betrayal and serious injury, the process is lengthy and painful, and there is no shortcut. True healing comes only through experiencing the pain of loss and completing the tasks associated with repentance and forgiveness. In the end, sincere repentance and genuine forgiveness are gifts from God made possible through the Atonement of Christ. With enhanced humility and empathy, the offender can gain new perspectives—that of the victim and of Jesus Christ, who atoned for that transgression. Likewise, victims also achieve forgiveness through sharing Heavenly Father’s perspective—infinite love for all His children.

Personal Thoughts

I have read a lot on forgiveness this week. And out of all that I have viewed, what hit me the hardest was this quote by the LDS Apostle James E. Faust on Forgiveness -
“Recognize and acknowledge angry feelings. It will take humility to do this. But if we can get down on our knees and ask our Heavenly Father for a feeling of forgiveness, He will help us. The Lord requires us to forgive all men for our own good because hatred retards spiritual growth.”
“Hatred retards spiritual growth.” That is such a powerful phrase! The definition of ‘retard’ according to Google Dictionary is to “delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.” Anger easily leads to hatred and by choosing to be angry we are stopping our own spiritual progression! We have no one to blame but ourselves for how we react. Elder L.G. Robbins put it best in his talk entitled “Agency and Anger” (Ensign magazine, May 1998) -
“He made me mad.” This is another phrase we hear, also implying lack of control or agency. This is a myth that must be debunked. No one makes us mad. Others don’t make us angry. There is no force involved. Becoming angry is a conscious choice, a decision; therefore, we can make the choice not to become angry. We choose!

I don’t know about you, but I have most definitely used the phrase “he/she/you/they made me mad/angry”. We tend to blame anyone and anything for how we feel because… well… why would we ever CHOOSE to feel angry or sad. And in a marriage it gets even more confusing. Why would we want to feel those feelings? Surely we can’t believe that our spouses who committed their lives to us would actually want us to feel angry at them! But that is exactly what happens. In ‘The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work’ by John M. Gottman it states that issues within a marriage are either solvable or perpetual (occurring repeatedly). Some difficulties are inevitable but you either find your own ways to cope or work through it, or you gridlock over it, having the same issue come up again and again. Tone is huge in determining whether a conversation will be productive or destructive. 

 

My spouse and I started dealing with the stress of perpetual issues (or any issues for that matter) by hugging it out. When one of us is angry or upset (usually me) we wrap up in each other's arms and speak gently about the issue. It follows a great quote by LDS Church Elder David O. McKay - "Let husband and wife never speak in loud tones to each other, 'unless the house is on fire'". That is us now and it is working really well. Now I need to figure out how to work on anger and upset feelings outside of the home. Not everyone would be accepting of my hugging technique.

This Week's Goals

Empathy helps a transgressing spouse. Please spend time separately thinking about the following questions:

“What if something strange happened, and you were suddenly transformed into your partner? Knowing how you treated [him or her], how would you feel? What would it be like being in an intimate partnership with you?” 

( Jory, Anderson, & Greer, 1997, p. 408).

If you have a journal (if not, please start one) please write down your responses and feelings to these questions.

Turning Towards Each Other & Growing Together

Chapter 4

Equal Partnership between Men and Women in Families 

Valerie M. Hudson and Richard B Miller

Quotes and passages to focus on from chapter 4 -

Equality is all too often used to mean “identity”; that is, that two equal things must be identical to each other. Such usage represents a fallen and harmful understanding of equality that is espoused by Lucifer, who passionately wants all to be “like . . . himself” (2 Nephi 2:27). In contrast, Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin taught:

The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole (2008, p. 18).

Even though we all aspire to be of “one heart and one

mind” (Moses 7:18), apparently that does not mean that we will all be identical. Since the proclamation teaches that gender is “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (¶ 2), gender or sex presents at least one way we will differ in the eternities.

Think of all we believe to be true about the equality, both here and in Zion, of men and women in God’s kingdom: equal in blessings; equal in power, intelligence, wisdom, dignity, respect, giving counsel, giving consent, agency, value, potential, authority, exalted fullness, virtue, spirituality, and spiritual gifts; equal in temporal things in Zion; and equal heirs with Christ. When we read this list, do we unconsciously redefine “equality” as “identity” and thus struggle with these concepts? If so, it is time to work on a personal definition of equal that eschews both intimations of identity or hierarchy. One gender does not have greater eternal possibility than the other (Moses 2:26–27; 2 Nephi 26:28, 33). While serving as a member of the Seventy, Elder Earl C. Tingey said:

You must not misunderstand what the Lord meant when Adam was told he was to have a helpmeet. A helpmeet is a companion suited to or equal to us. We walk side by side with a helpmeet, not one before or behind the other. A helpmeet results in an absolute equal partnership between a husband and a wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other (2008, n.p.).

As this passage suggests, without understanding the story of Adam and Eve in light of the restored gospel, much that we understand about God’s plan for the equal relationship between the genders is apt to go awry. For this reason, we turn to the story of our first parents.

Just as Adam hearkened first to Eve, accepted from her the fruit of the first tree, and entered into mortality, so Eve would hearken to Adam, accept from him the fruit of the second tree, and enter into eternal life. When viewing the entire plan of happiness, we see that the man and the woman play equally powerful and equally important roles in the plan. Each is to hearken to the other for the plan to work. Each stands before the other, and in the sight of God, as equals.

Spouses are to enter their marriage relationship convinced of each other’s equality. They can-not form a relationship that will be blessed by God if they come to the marriage altar unsure of each other’s equality, doubting it, or not even thinking about how it should order their relations. According to Latter-day Saint doctrine, the first utterance after God married Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was Adam’s bold declaration of Eve’s equality with him—that they would be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Family stewardships should be understood in terms of their responsibilities—obligations to one’s spouse, not power over one’s spouse.

President Hunter said: “The Lord intended that the wife be . . . a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. . . . For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion” (Hunter, 1994, p. 51). Gender equality is not some gratuitous element of God’s vision of marriage: rather, we are commanded to presume the equality of our spouse as we approach the marriage altar, for otherwise we cannot truly love her or him. It is hoped that we then deepen that vision of our spouse’s equality in the divine work that is procreation and parenthood. Indeed, given that we believe Adam and Eve lived this law, a marriage reflecting the equality of the spouses is the ultimate traditional marriage. 

...Contrary to scripture and the teachings of latter-day prophets, some men and women have interpreted presiding to mean that after equal counsel, equal consent is not necessary because the presider (or husband) has the right of final say. But President Boyd K. Packer (1998, p. 73) explained: “In the Church there is a distinct line of authority. We serve where called by those who preside over us. In the home it is a partnership with husband and wife equally yoked together, sharing in decisions, always working together.” In considering the equal partnership envisioned by the proclamation on the family, Elder L. Tom Perry (2004, p. 71) puts it eloquently: “There is not a president or a vice president in a family.” We have copresidents working “together eternally for the good of their family.” In other words, “they are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” 

The stewardship of priesthood does not superimpose a hierarchical relationship over the God-ordained equality between husband and wife. President James E. Faust (1996, p. 6) taught that “every father is to his family a patriarch and every mother a matriarch as coequals in their distinctive parental roles.” We emphasize that the patriarchal priesthood is not so called to imply a hierarchy between men and women.

One of the most revolutionary aspects of the restored gospel is its ability to help us envision difference without hierarchy, distinctiveness without inequality. This is what the proclamation calls upon us to hold as the ideal relationship between husbands and wives.

A marriage of equal partners will also be one in which the partners help one another in their steward-ships, indeed, are “obligated to help one another as equal partners” (¶ 7). This assistance includes help with housework and childcare. President Boyd K. Packer (1989, p. 75) has said, “There is no task, however menial, connected with the care of babies, the nurturing of children, or with the maintenance of the home that is not [the husband’s] equal obligation.” Likewise, women assist their husbands, directly and indirectly, with the burdens of supporting a family.

Of course, marriage is not only about responsibilities; it is also about dreams, both shared and individual. After his wife’s death, President Gordon B. Hinckley shared some tender moments from their marriage. He described one of the most poignant moments this way:

“In our old age my beloved companion said to me quietly one evening, ‘You have always given me wings to fly, and I have loved you for it’” (2004, p. 85). There must be room enough in a marriage for the dreams of both the husband and the wife and sweet encouragement from each to the other to follow those dreams. 

Thus, among the Latter-day Saints, marriages should not be built around the domination of one partner over the other, whether that domination be male over female or female over male. Such is not the vision of sincerely equal partnership to which we are called of God. Both husband and wife have a sacred obligation to refrain from thoughts and actions that might undermine an equal partnership. Thoughts or actions that tend toward the domineering or the subservient are to be avoided by both spouses.T he doctrine of equal partnership in marriage points powerfully and gloriously to truth. Thus, it should not surprise us that social science research, even with its limitations, confirms the importance and benefits of equal partnership in marital and family relationships.

Research has demonstrated that couples who have an equal partnership have happier relationships, better individual well-being, more effective parenting practices, and better-functioning children. Researchers have consistently found that couples who share power are more satisfied and have better overall marital quality than couples where one spouse dominates (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983). An important reason for equal partners having greater satisfaction is that they have less negative interaction and more positive interaction in their relationship (Gray-Little, Baucom, & Hamby, 1996). In addition, couples that are equal partners are significantly less likely to experience verbal aggression and physical violence (Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 1999). Moreover, there is evidence that equal partners are more satisfied with the quality of the physical intimacy in their relationship (Brezsnyak & Whisman, 2004). Research also indicates that the personal well-being of spouses is greatest in equal partnerships. There is substantial evidence that spouses who feel that they lack influence in their relationship—those who don’t have a voice—are more likely to experience symptoms of depression (Halloran, 1998). This is especially true among women (Byrne & Carr, 2000).

Power outcomes refer to which spouse typically makes the final decision when there are differing opinions between the spouses (Babcock et al., 1993). When there is a disagreement, who “wins”? Which spouse usu-ally has the final say? In an equal partnership, spouses continue to discuss the issue and negotiate until they agree on a decision. They both have veto power, meaning that both have to agree on the decision. In an unequal relationship, on the other hand, one partner tends to have the final say and can make decisions without the spouse’s consent or agreement. 

As we have seen, the family proclamation’s exhortation to equal partnership in marriage does not mean that husband and wife are identical, but it does mean that in a very real and meaningful sense they must stand as equals before each other to find the joy that is their heritage in marriage. For Latter-day Saints, equal partnership in marriage is a commandment, not an alternative lifestyle. The reason is simple: men and women are that they might have joy! (2 Nephi 2:25). Recent social science research findings confirm that better physical and emotional health, better marital relationships, and better parenting and outcomes for children are the fruits of equal partner-ship in marriage.

Personal Thoughts

 LDS songwriter Michael McLean wrote a beautiful musical entitled ‘The Garden’ which shows the events of the Garden of Eden as they might have been seen from the point of view of items within the garden. There is the seed that cannot grow, the barren olive tree, the ram caught in the thicket and the worn down millstone. Each has their own song and I have been able to relate to each throughout different times of my life. After my second divorce I would listen and cry to the song of the seed entitled “I Can’t Grow” (I am including a link to the song at the end of this post). Sung by a young woman, she laments missing out on all that the world above has to offer her. I in turn was lamenting missing out on all that a happy marriage brought to so many others. The difference between their marriages and mine was the growth they accomplished together. That growth is something to be striven for daily as I do in my current marriage to my wonderful husband Gabe.

 
    There is opportunity for a unique growing experience within every marriage. Each marriage is different – differing personalities, hobbies, dreams, backgrounds, etc. But the same guidelines apply to all marriages. When the Lord told Adam in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”, he didn’t mean only some men when they felt like it. And when the Lord told wives in Ephesians 5:22 “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord”, he didn’t mean only when you’re having a good day. When you get a chance read the Ephesians 5:22-33 for it shows how God wants us to have the same love and devotion with our spouses as we have with Him. But how do we show it when we have worked a long day and come home to a spouse who may be laying into our last nerve? 

     I asked my husband to help with the laundry by folding the clean clothes on the couch. Three days later the clothes were still there. Now, usually I would pester and nag at him, maybe even playing the guilt card of how much housework I do when we both work long days and do full time schooling online. But after reading through this chapter I’ve started thinking how I could turn towards my husband as an equal and loving partner. Last night I stared at that pile of clean laundry, then I sat down and folded it. As I was putting the clothes away my husband said in a sad voice “I’m sorry sweetheart. I kept meaning to get to it.” I held back a snide comment and instead kissed his cheek and told him it was ok, I know how he can get sucked into things when he is busy. After finishing his homework he went into the kitchen and unloaded the dishwasher. Without being asked. This is a big deal to me because I often feel he has blinders on when it comes to housework. I made a fuss over how wonderful and helpful he was. We were smiling and filled with love, turning to each over in our selfless attempts to make the other happy. It was a small thing, but life is made up of many more small things than big ones. They are what can matter the most when times get hard because you have already created that foundation of growth. A small tree can easily be shaken from its dirt foundation, but a large tree that has withstood the test of time cannot. That is how we want our marriages to be. By “turning to each other” and creating opportunities for ourselves and our spouses to grow, we can create a strong marriage that will be able to withstand anything that would shake it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQ3hZvLbys

This Week's Goals

A power outcomes scale has been developed that assesses the distribution of power between spouses (Miller et al., 2008). Agreeing with the statements suggests an unequal relationship, while disagreeing with the statements indicates an equal partnership. I suggest going over the below on your own and then together. Discuss your feelings.

Assessing Power in Relationships

Power Processes 

Scale 1. My partner tends to discount my opinion. 

2. My partner does not listen to me. 

3. When I want to talk about a problem in our relationship, my partner often refuses to talk with me about it.

4. My partner tends to dominate our conversations. 

5. When we do not agree on an issue, my partner gives me the cold shoulder.

6. I do not feel free to express my opinion about issues in our relationship.

7. My partner makes decisions that affect our family without talking to me first.

8. My partner and I do not talk about problems until we both agree on a solution.

9. I feel like my partner tries to control me.

Power Outcomes Scale 

1. When it comes to money, my partner’s opinion usually wins out.

2. When it comes to children, my partner’s opinion usually wins out.

3. It often seems my partner can get away with things in our relationship that I can never get away with.

4. I have no choice but to do what my partner wants.

5. My partner has more influence in our relationship than I do.

6. When disagreements arise in our relationship, my partner’s opinion usually wins out.