Couple Highlight: Nich and Kelsey

This post is part of the series, “Couple Highlights.” Each Couple Highlight was originally shared in the Improving Intimacy in Latter-Day Saint Relationships Facebook Group, which is a private group. In order to share these posts publicly on danielaburgess.com, explicit written consent was granted by each couple.

Couple Highlights began on the Facebook Group as a way to hear about the growth happening for couples in the group, and to give them an opportunity to share their story--their marriage journey, where they are at, and the challenges they’ve overcome.

Hi! Whenever we are asked to introduce ourselves the first thing that comes to mind (for Kelsey), is “well we’re pretty normal I guess?” Pretty soon into thinking of details to share, though, we remember that while Kelsey is born-and-raised from Provo UT (pretty standard) and we met in the MTC, bound for the same mission (also not unheard of and surprisingly common these days), Nich is a convert from the Midwest with tattoos XD. I (Kelsey) forget sometimes that we might not appear typical to most people in Provo, UT (where we live). Another aspect of our lives that may provide some insight into why we are the way we are is that Kelsey works full time and Nich is a full-time student and at-home dad.

I guess you could say we hit it off as missionaries, but we also served in a pretty strict mission (under Elder Choi, see the talk “Don’t Look Around, Look Up” from the April 2017 General Conference), so we weren’t all flirty or particularly thought about dating each other while we were out serving. Because we were in the same MTC district, Kelsey got home about 6 months before Nich, in July 2016, and that’s when we started writing. We were engaged by the following Easter. We’re pretty confident that the mission president’s wife at the time shared a photo of us with the missionaries when we started dating, and not just to some missionaries, but probably in a zone-conference PowerPoint. It’s fun to have our mission memories in common and we find ourselves laughing about and reminiscing over many mission things together.

We have been married since August of 2017 and have one child who is just over 2 years old (yes, she was born before our first anniversary – by eight days!). Something some of you may know about us is that Daniel Burgess is Kelsey’s step-father. So, obviously, that’s how we were introduced to the group. We’re both really grateful for Dan’s perspective and the conversations he’s helped us have, as they have made it easier to navigate the tough conversations needed in every marriage.

Speaking of tough, while there are many things we feel are healthy and good about our relationship, we both struggle pretty majorly with mental illness. Nich has depression, suicidal thoughts, and ADHD, and Kelsey has high anxiety. You can imagine these things pair great with each other, amiright? Nich has had a sense that he needed help since he was a teenager, but the first time he got professional help was from the LDS family services therapist associated with our mission. He hasn’t had an official therapist since then, but has been on Wellbutrin on and off since we’ve been married. He still struggles to know how to handle his mental health problems consistently. As for Kelsey’s mental health journey, she loves to soak up information and get advice from others, so she has dived in to several podcasts since we’ve been married. One of the first ones was Dan’s, of course, and she has also found a lot of resonating concepts from Amanda Louder’s Live from Love. She’s currently loving Awesome With Alison (comment if you love her too!) and working with a therapist recommended by Dan. Together, we try to be really open about our struggles, and have conversations about how we can help each other often. It’s not easy to be dealing with, but we usually feel confident that we can work through things together.

When it comes to sex, you can imagine how a high-anxiety person and a person struggling to see meaning in life (depression and suicide ideation) might have difficulty feeling in-sync when it comes to connecting intimately. If either of us are feeling stressed or particularly overwhelmed by thoughts and emotions, sex isn’t a priority until we have talked and re-connected emotionally. For both of us, emotional connection is an extremely important aspect of not only general intimacy, but sex as well. We probably block ourselves from feeling like being intimate because we over-analyze where we are emotionally and get caught in our own thought-traps.

Because of everything described here, we are grateful to be able to participate in this group and have had a lot of mind-opening conversations about ourselves and our relationship because of the questions and opinions posed here. We’re both pretty active in the group and are of course willing to answer any further questions anyone has!

Couple Highlight: Daniel and Julie

This post is part of the series, “Couple Highlights.” Each Couple Highlight was originally shared in the Improving Intimacy in Latter-Day Saint Relationships Facebook Group, which is a private group. In order to share these posts publicly on danielaburgess.com, explicit written consent was granted by each couple.

Couple Highlights began on the Facebook Group as a way to hear about the growth happening for couples in the group, and to give them an opportunity to share their story--their marriage journey, where they are at, and the challenges they’ve overcome.

My wife and I will begin by sharing our Couple Highlight.

Hello! We are Daniel and Julie Burgess. We’ve been married for eight years. We have three married daughters, two living in Provo, and the other living in France working for Disney Paris. Our two sons are currently living with us. The oldest son is preparing for his mission and the younger son has one more year before he starts high school. We have one grandchild, and we’re loving getting used to the titles “grandma” and “grandpa”.

Daniel has a background in Finance, and currently works as a marriage and family therapist specializing in intimacy issues. I love sharing the joy that comes from my work as an author, podcaster, and presenter. I also find great joy in getting lost in my books; church history, LDS scholars, the writings of our prophets, etc.

Julie recently retired from teaching school, and is excited to get back on stage. I love performing in theater and spent 25 years performing in shows along the Wasatch front. I have written several published pieces of choral music, conducted numerous choirs, and taught voice for many years. I also love my wall of power tools, and relish a good project!

We love studying and discussing the gospel, remodeling our homes, weightlifting, hiking, and traveling. We’ve paddled kayaks in Mendocino, Alaska, Utah, and Nova Scotia.

Since each of us were previously divorced, we knew going in that we’d be facing as yet unrevealed triggers and dysfunctions. Many of these issues were rooted in the behaviors from our previous marriages. It affected the way we communicated with each other, and the way we perceived the meaning of each other’s words and actions. We have had many long (sometimes tearful) discussions as we’ve navigated these bumps. Being willing to actually talk out loud about our fears and misconceptions has made it possible for us to be more vulnerable with each other, and has definitely increased the depth of our relationship.

Having both grown up in the church, we’ve struggled with the way sexual/morality topics were taught in our teenage years. We have both strived to teach these important concepts in a better way. In our house, we wanted conversations about desire, arousal, and intimacy to be normalized. We’ve had open discussions with our kids at the dinner table and sitting together in the hot tub.

As parents of married kids, we’re grateful that they feel comfortable discussing questions about intimacy and the role it plays in their relationships. This is a huge difference from the way we were raised, where we would have never brought up these topics with our own parents. We love to see how the members of this group encourage each other and help each other understand differing points of view. It’s so wonderful to see the conversation about intimacy within LDS relationships change in such a healthy and supportive way!

The Unintelligent Parent

The following is an excerpt from Relief Society Magazine: Guide Lessons For April 1927 Lesson IV Social Service (Fourth Week in April).

Emotional Problems of Childhood—Jane and Henrietta 

Serious and difficult emotional problems are presented by the two adolescent girls, Jane and Henrietta. Both were the victims of unintelligent parents. The basis of these problems is not uncommon in adolescent development because of lack of understanding by their parents; one girl was on the verge of a mental breakdown, and the other was contemplating suicide. Both suffered these serious emotional upsets because of the lack of sex education and guidance.

It will be remembered from the introductory discussion of emotional problems that the individual has three dominant instincts or urges—the ego, or self; the herd, or social; and the sex or love instinct. The three instincts all seek expression, and if thwarted or frustrated cause emotional disturbances the individual expresses his ego urge by accomplishing certain ends and experiencing the joy and satisfaction of expression. He satisfies his social urge by gaining the confidence and approval of his family, playmates, and friends. In the studies of the emotional problems of childhood, it has been pointed out that the failure to gain normal expression or the failure to gain approval seriously affects the development of the child. His defeats, and unhappiness, and sense of failure deeply affect his emotional life, limiting his development, and making his conduct abnormal.

In our home and school life the tendency has been to ignore inquiry into the other important instinct, sex. The subject has been a taboo. Because sex has been recognized as a compelling life force, but its aspects have not been generally understood, the whole subject has taken on an atmosphere of morbid secrecy.

Sex education is the responsibility of the home. The first questions of the origin and development of life are asked in the home. The relation between parents, the relation between parents and their children, the attitude of brothers and sisters toward one another, and toward their friends, are all phases of sex relationships, and depend on wholesome; home guidance to lead the child to normal, healthful attitudes.

The method of sex education will not be the subject of this discussion, for the subject itself deserves special attention and study. The purpose of studying the problems of Jane and Henrietta is to observe the real dangers and pitfalls that endanger adolescents if, through lack of home guidance, they have wrong information concerning sex, and unwholesome attitudes because of their misconceptions.

Jane at nineteen was at the beginning of a mental breakdown she was suffering from what is known as an anxiety neurosis. This condition was the result of a secret worry that she had tried to crowd out of her conscious life. In spite of her effort to forget her worry, the unconscious mind kept harboring and remembering until she came near a breakdown All her anxiety, and nervousness, and weeping, and unhappiness, were the result of wrong sex information given her by her mother. She had at twelve, and again at sixteen met an experience not at all uncommon in childhood. Her mother had observed that she masturbated—practiced self-abuse—and had used the unintelligent method of correcting her by telling the child that she would go crazy if she did not stop the practice.

The mother filled the child's life with fear, shame and inferiority. The (girl felt herself unclean and unfit for friendships and love. The shame and self-reproach continued, for at no time was she given frank, sound, sex information.

Her other home guidance was also harmful. Her mother was most rigid and severe in her regulations concerning her friends and social life, and this close supervision intensified her feeling of weakness and impending dangers.

When she was given a frank explanation of the function of sex by the physician she consulted, her danger was past. Her doubts and fears disappeared as soon as the atmosphere of secrecy and accompanying feeling of shame were removed.

Our author states that this practice occurs frequently among children, and should call for attention but not anxiety. The hazard is not the effect on the mind or body, but the fears and anxieties aroused by the method of correction. Parents should not express horror or instill fears to meet this behavior difficulty. Sympathetic understanding, patient teaching, and frankness by the parents will lead the child more readily to overcome the practice, and will not undermine his confidence and self-esteem.

Henrietta at sixteen found life dull, and contemplated self-destruction. Her thinking then led her to consider finding pleasure and securing pretty clothes by pursuing a course already adopted by her sister. Her poverty, her lack of normal childhood amusement, made the course of abandoning her moral principles seem exciting and attractive.

It is not fair to pass judgment on Henrietta and girls in her position, for the attitude they develop. Youth is a time for amusements and gaieties, and if no wholesome recreation is afforded young persons, it is quite natural for them to seek it in thoughtless and unwise channels.

The developing sex impulse in adolescents needs to be better understood by parents. In homes where boys and girls meet frequently to play and dance and enjoy youth together, there is no great occasion for alarm. Where this harmless, natural association is denied, either by lack of a pleasant home or by too rigid puritanical standards, the frustrated impulse may lead to real difficulties.

Henrietta's difficulties were both the lack of frank instruction, and the lack of constructive direction. The importance of children gaining their information regarding matters of health, of the life processes, and the ideal of parenthood in a sane, natural way, cannot be over-emphasized. In homes where questions are evaded and the subject of sex physiology and development is left a mystery, the child's curiosity is not only stimulated but he develops a morbid attitude toward the whole subject. He then gains his information from sources such as his gang, and lurid magazines, and his entire conception of the part of sex in life becomes distorted. It becomes an unspeakable subject, one from which he gains an unwholesome pleasure in discussing and contemplating its unsavory aspects. The very mystery that his parents place upon the subject makes his attitude abnormal, morbid and unwholesome.

The child who receives frank answers to his early questions, and who has his own development explained to him in terms of ideals of parenthood is protected from this unpleasant and harmful speculation. Fore-armed with sound, accurate information from the parents whose sincerity he does not doubt, he will be able to dismiss the misinformation that he will later hear from his crowd or gang. He will also be spared the emotional upset when he finally realizes that his parents have deliberately given him false information.

Henrietta had further difficulty besides the lack of instruction. Her home had given her no opportunity for the outlet of her emotional interests. The release of this emotional energy is important to give the individual normal stable personality. The inherent craving of individuals for emotional satisfaction is termed the libido. If the libido finds expression for its great store of energy in harmless channels, the individual maintains a normal attitude towards life, and normal interests in the affairs of everyday living. If the libido finds no opportunity for release, that is, finds no emotional satisfaction in the daily associations, and in the regular scheme of living, the libido will find an outlet in some other channel, which may have undesirable effects on the person.

In terms of Henrietta her libido found no wholesome outlet. Her natural craving for emotional satisfaction was frustrated. Her parents did not realize how important these satisfactions are, until the effect of her barren emotional life was explained to them.

The libido can find expression and satisfaction in many channels. Affection and appreciation in the home are sources of emotional release. Games, parties, outdoor sports, recreation, new clothes, success in work, are all easily recognized as sources of emotional satisfaction, and releases of emotional energy.

Henrietta responded to the treatment prescribed, and her nearsighted plans of securing clothes and pleasures by sacrificing her standards was forgotten. She was not scolded, nor lectured, nor criticized. No attempt was made to change her attitude by discussing her responsibilities and duties. Her thwarted emotional life made an intellectual appeal futile.

The treatment outlined was agreeable work away from home, where she found pleasure in her work and in being with children. Her earnings made it possible for her to gain other small pleasures in the way of recreation. Her days that had been spent in pent up brooding were now changed to active happy ones.

It is apparent that wholesome activity, recreation and pleasant associations are normal releases of the emotional life. Associations should be varied. There is some danger of too strong attachment between parents and children or two children. A mother, especially a widowed one, might devote herself too entirely to her only son or daughter. Two friends of the opposite sex at. too early an age may make emotional ties that are upsetting when the necessity rises for separation. Two friends of the same sex may also become too dependent on each other for their later happiness.

There are types of individuals who do not mingle with groups readily or frequently. Such social expression as possible should be encouraged in these persons, but it must be remembered that the emotional energy can find expression in channels other than amusement. Creative work of any kind has been identified with emotional life. Any expression, whether through poetry, painting, music or other creative work, gives the person a real emotional satisfaction. This expression through creative effort, known as sublimation is the sex impulse released through other channels.

The program of sex education is based on frank information given by parents to children, and also on the direction of the emotional energy into channels of work, recreation, activity, and of its sublimation to satisfying, useful forms of expression.

Reference -- The Challenge Of Childhood by Ira S.Wile, pages 215-227

Questions and Problems

1. Why is frank sex information to children important?

2. Why should this information be given in the home ?

3. What is meant by the libido?

4. How can the libido find expression in normal channels?

5. What are normal emotional satisfactions for adolescents?

6. What are the dangers of lack of emotional expression?

7. What treatment was outlined for Henrietta?

8. What is meant by sublimation?

-------------------------------------------

1. The Relief Society magazine : Organ of the Relief Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/reliefsocietymag14reli#page/102

2. The Challenge Of Childhood. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.274695/2015.274695.The-Challenge#page/n227

My Son Is Not Baptized And That Is Okay

My son isn't baptized. I'm okay with that and he hasn't missed out on any blessings.

My son's mother has refused to provide permission for his baptism, and I'm not only okay with that, I support her decision.

I wasn't okay with it at first. When his mother and I decided to separate, I knew it would become an issue, and I was troubled and confused with how to approach the topic with him and his mother. It would not be appropriate to represent her side without her personally contributing to this article. What I have felt is appropriate to share, I wrote in my blog post, "Because I Loved Her, I Left Her."

However, there is some risk to not including details. Generally, when I share my experience with why I am okay with my son not being baptized, someone almost always dismisses my experiences because their divorce and ex were hostile and not agreeable in the least. My not-sharing-the-details in all its messiness, pain, resentment, years of court and financial ruin is with purpose. The absence of my sharing isn't to be mistaken as an absence of those trials; rather, it’s an example of how I personally decided to model healthy behavior to my children.

Learning At Every Opportunity

Today, as my son and I drove home from church, he did what he does every Sunday afternoon drive home:  he was reviewing what he learned in Sunday School class. Today, after sharing the particular lesson, he also reflected on how it's sometimes difficult to hear the teachers get excited about his class graduating primary this year. They mentioned how the boys will be able to start passing the sacrament. He said, "I wanted to raise my hand and say, not everyone will get to pass the sacrament." But he didn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. We used the opportunity to revisit the meaning of baptism, priesthood and looking forward to when he turns 18 and can get baptized.

The conversations are always wonderful. Sometimes the conversations are started as a result of feeling left out and sad, like today. Sometimes that feeling continues throughout the conversation, and sometimes he has a rekindled hope that his mother might provide her permission. What makes it a little more difficult too is his older brother is baptized. He is the only one in primary and in his current family dynamic who is not baptized. Whenever and however these conversations come up, we explore and validate his emotions and feelings without removing them. We also never frame the conversation in any way that suggests his mother is wrong or bad for not providing the permission.

Praying Without Parenting

Over the years, we have prayed and fasted many times that his mother would be willing to change her decision. But this was not the prayer we should have been having. Although it’s appropriate on occasion to have faith that others will change their hearts, this was not the only prayer we should have been having. In a divorce especially, there is a huge problem with each separating spouse "parenting" the other. This is often done through divorce decrees, court, manipulation, threats, using children as "pawns," and "righteous indignation" (which is a form of spiritual abuse).

Not only as a divorced father, but as a therapist who routinely works with divorcing couples in the church, I've routinely seen good parents become so fixated on demanding their child's other parent accommodate religious activities that they become abusive. One particular parent had become convinced that her child would be denied all the blessings of the church if they couldn't get baptized. She spent years in therapy, court and tens of thousands of dollars attempting to get her child's father to grant permission for baptism. Her child during this period began to mirror their mother’s anxiety and fear of losing blessings. The child also started to view their father as an evil man who hated God.

Why is it spiritual abuse? When we place ourselves in a position of power to control, dictate or parent someone in a way that removes, blocks and prevents their choice, it's abusive. When religion is used as that vehicle of control, its religious/spiritual abuse. We don't get to parent, control or demand how our ex decides to parent. Their house, their rules. Our house, our rules.

Isn't it spiritual abuse to deny a child's baptism? No. It could be abuse if that parent is denying baptism out of a desire to hurt the child or the other parent. But this is problematic. Because we don't get to read people’s minds and hearts. But what if the ex SAYS they are doing it to get back at the other parent? Well, pay it no attention. Some people are more married divorced than when they were married.

Abuse is a serious accusation. I have no tolerance for abuse in any form, as a parent or therapist. If the child is in emotional, spiritual or physical danger, there is no gray area. What I have seen, however, is the word "abuse" used to describe a behavior one doesn't like or agree with in the other parent. Neglect is another word that is sometimes lightly used too. For example, the child's other parent is being "neglectful" by not agreeing to be consistent with church attendance or agreeing to let the child be baptized. Divorce is already difficult enough for us and our children. In most divorces, there are going to be clear differences in how each parent decides to parent or not parent. The best thing we can do is teach our children how to thrive in this environment.

Pray And Fast To Change Your Heart

Through our frequent prayers and fasting, it became clear my son was becoming overwhelmed— overwhelmed in not seeing his mom's "heart change," feeling like he was not having enough faith, feeling like he must continuously ask/pester her for permission and fear of getting her angry. Also, I was communicating a subtle and sometimes not so subtle message that his mom was wrong. Quietly, our prayers have never stopped for her to change her heart. But now we pray for a change of our own hearts. In this hyper-focus to change his mother’s heart, we were missing beautiful opportunities to learn and prepare for baptism—whenever that might happen.

When he would ask questions like, "Why won’t my mom let me get baptized?" instead of focusing on the differences in parenting, we would validate and explore how he could love and support his mother. We also explored how God will never deny him any blessings and that we should find ways to serve, and strengthen OUR OWN faith. This has radically and wonderfully changed the spirit of our conversations. Religion has not become a divide in my son and his mother’s life. Where pain could have thrived, beauty and love flourished. Neither I nor my son get to "tell" his mother how to parent. But we have taken the opportunity to learn our Father's will in our lives, in our current situation.

Changing Our Heart Will Increase Our Love For Others

Some parents decide to leave the church, and that's okay too. One of the most destructive things parents can do to their children is engage in "holy wars." Whether that's a parent who decides the LDS faith is bad and requests their name be removed from the records, or one whose religiosity changes over time, or a parent who insists on unwavering church attendance and service, there is a place for each of these parents in parenting well-adjusted and healthy children. But regardless of one's belief in God or the LDS church, what are we teaching our child if they can't love the parent who thinks differently? To a child, you have placed them in an impossible situation. You are communicating that if they stop believing as you do, they will experience the same rejection you are showing the other parent.

Sometimes the situation is reversed. Some parents who believe the church is hurting their child will go to the same lengths to prevent them from attending. But regardless of which parent it is, this divisiveness teaches children how to hate. Or at the very least, how to condition their love based on someone else’s belief system. Learning how to change our own heart restores confidence and expands our ability to love and value others.

No Blessing Is Ever Prevented Or Delayed

My son will not be passing the sacrament when he turns twelve. But that is not to be confused with a denying or preventing of his blessings. As sacred and symbolic as the sacrament is, the act of passing should never be confused as the blessing. My son knows and is intimately familiar with the covenants made in baptism and passing and taking the sacrament. He has been blessed with a spiritual growth, insight, maturity and faith that is far beyond what I had at his age. Sure, it’s difficult at times for him and I to know he's not going to be passing the sacrament or doing temple work with the other youth. But we use that as an opportunity to have our hearts changed and our faith strengthened.

I encourage those in similar situations to exemplify to their children who don't have permission to be baptized to find ways to love and grow, how to lovingly honor their other parent’s decision, how to expand one's faith beyond controlling others, and how to use faith to increase one's agency.

For those serving in callings over youth in similar circumstances, find ways to model the same love. Frame the conversation in ways the youth can participate versus focusing on what they can't do. There is never anything wrong with exploring or understanding a child's situation. But generally, do that with their parent. What I do recommend avoiding is asking "why" questions like, "Why do you think your mom won’t let you get baptized?" But rather, explore with the child what they are doing to grow in the gospel, and emphasize that our loving God will bless them fully in their desires.

I am so thankful for each of my son's teachers who have done exactly this. Their love and support has made this process easier to experience.

Daniel A. Burgess is the author of the forthcoming book on LDS Sexuality. He is also the creator and Admin of the Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages" and content developer at its accompanying Blog, "Mormon Marriages."

“Don’t Touch” — Addressing Sexual Taboos in the LDS Faith Part 4

Previous Chapter: 3. Cultivating Versus Condemning

What Went Wrong?

The Depression, WWII and Kinsey.

The Church leadership noticeably changed their approach to sexuality in the ‘30s and ’40s, which was culturally reinforced in the ‘50s and ’60s.

In the 1942 April Conference, which was a time of great upheaval in the world with much uncertainty, the First Presidency, under the direction of President Heber J. Grant, issued a much needed message to the Saints. The First presidency message filled almost 10 pages and addressed a spectrum of topics including testimony and parenting during a time of medical and doctor shortages (they were being shipped off to help in the war). This was unusually detailed counsel, but understand that for the decades they were in it wasn’t surprising. This counsel included the following:

“We urge all parents to guard with zealous care the health of their children. Feed them simple, good, wholesome food that will nourish and make them strong. See that they are warmly clad. Keep them from exposure. Have them avoid unnecessary crowds in close, poorly ventilated, overheated rooms and halls. See that they have plenty of rest and sleep. Avoid late hours …”

Additional topics included: “Welfare Work,” “False Political Isms,” “Hate Must Be Abolished,” “Mission of the Church,” “Sending of Missionaries,” “Church and State,” “Church Membership and Army Service,” “God Is At The Helm,” “Righteous Suffer With Wicked” and a number of other topics addressing the needs and concerns of the time. However, it is the brief two-paragraph statement on sexual purity in which the First Presidency boldly declared, “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean.” This phrase was a pivotal change in how LDS addressed the topic of sexuality and desire. In its full context the message reads,

“Message to the Youth to the youth of the Church we repeat all the foregoing advice, but above all we plead with you to live clean, for the unclean life leads only to suffering, misery, and woe physically, — and spiritually it is the path to destruction. How glorious and near to the angels is youth that is clean; this youth has joy unspeakable here and eternal happiness hereafter. Sexual purity is youth's most precious possession; it is the foundation of all righteousness. Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean. Times approach when we shall need all the health, strength, and spiritual power we can get to bear the afflictions that will come upon us.”[1]

Not necessarily with the intent of defending the word choice, but in its full context the statement (although still a bold declaration), “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” may feel a little less abrasive when you consider both the historical chaos and the First Presidency’s desire for the youth to experience “joy unspeakable here and eternal happiness hereafter.” Although this was a first presidency message, its wording and theme is very similar to President J. Reuben Clark’s Conference message a few years previous, wherein he spoke specifically about marital relationship issues of “promiscuous sexual relationships that ends in misery, disease, and shame …” In maybe a concern that parents were becoming neglectful in teaching the Law of Chastity, he reminds them to “teach the youth as the children of God, with spirits that are to live throughout eternity and tell them plainly and clearly that the laws of God, and of men also, demand that they live chaste … let us not make the mistake, any of us, of assuming that our children are beyond temptation and may not fall. This is a delusion and a snare that will bring us to the very depths.”

It would seem, from a historical reading, that parents were neglecting to teach healthy sexuality and its eternal significance during these stressful times.

He continues, “Please believe me when I say that chastity is worth more than life itself. This is the doctrine my parents taught me; it is truth. Better die chaste than live unchaste. The salvation of your very souls is concerned in this.”

If his parents did teach him this “doctrine,” it was not one that appears to be common in the culture of the early Latter-day Saints of the time. It’s entirely possible this was a religious concept believed by his parents who were raised in the “New Dunkers” or Church of God before converting. From an early Latter-day Saint “doctrinal” teaching, it doesn’t appear to be present, at least not publically.

There is a fascinating warning Pres. Clark later gives in his talk. In what may well have been insights into behaviors we now recognize as narcissistic and maybe further evidence of the emotional/spiritual climate of the time, he warns of the emotionally manipulative behaviors of individuals who use “love” to convince others to lose themselves, abandon their values. He cautions,

“I say that whenever a man or woman, young or old, demands as the price of his friendship that you give up the righteous standards of your life, or any of them, that man's friendship is not worth the price he asks. You may not trust that friendship; he will cast it off as he does his worn-out coat. Friendship is not now, and never was, the offspring of debauchery or unrighteousness.

“I ask you young women to believe me further when I say that any young man who demands your chastity as the price of his love, is spiritually unclean, and is offering something that is not worth the purchase price; his love will turn to ashes under your touch; it will lead you to misery and shame; and too often it will curse you with dread disease.”[2]

I share this quote not in an attempt to defend the word choice nor the use of fear as a motivator to follow God's commandment, but in light of President Clark’s conference message and the First Presidency message, it was a reminder to parents that they had neglected teaching youth to avoid those who don’t honor their values and also an admonition to hold on to hope in a time of war and uncertainty. I believe this is important to understand and why the idea of “better dead, clean, than alive unclean” became a part of Latter-day Saint culture.

I don’t believe it is better to be dead than unclean, but whether or not he meant it literally, it eventually became a literal belief and “doctrine.” As such, a critical gospel thought process needs to reconcile the apparent contradictions it presents. The first is that the statement “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” is ambiguous. What does it really mean? What specifically, or at what point, is the First Presidency referring to as unclean? Are they also suggesting that purity can’t be obtained again through the Atonement? Are they referring to only sexual intercourse outside of marriage? What about thoughts, desires, feelings, impulses, lusts? “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” seemed to negate the idea that the Atonement redeems.

Maybe this statement would make sense if what the First Presidency meant by “unclean” was in the act of completely denying the Atonement, the saving power of Christ. But even in this context, only those who have had a sure knowledge of Christ are capable of such a dire rejection. Those who “lose” their way from The Church still have the fullness of the gospel available to them through the infinite power of the Atonement. The Atonement also allows for those who have have lost their “purity” before marriage to become pure again. It would seem the idea “Better dead, clean, than alive, unclean” wasn’t so much a doctrine or absolute, but an emphasis on the need to be ever watchful.

In the following decades, we see this concept morph into beliefs that are not supported by scriptural teachings but merely by logical assumptions at best — and at worst reverting to archaic medical warnings. Where previously The Church’s stance on sexuality was in opposition to the 1920 medical findings that abstinence increased suicidal ideation (a stance which is further supported in current medical and emotional health), it had adopted the unsubstantiated ideas of self-harm and self-abuse. President Clark declared that those who engaged in masturbation were sinful and those — even in the medical and psychological field — who taught it where like "the teachers who prostitute the sex urge."[3]

Why the change in approach at this point?

1953: This change and urgency might have been compounded from publications of Dr. Alfred Kinsey (the father of the sexual revolution) on male and female sexual behavior — which sold like Harry Potter.

“President Ernest Wilkinson, alarmed at Alfred Kinsey’s reports on sexual behavior, appointed a faculty committee to determine if the school’s sex education provided a strong defense of chastity. When members of the sociology department learned that the committee had decided ‘who shall teach [sex education] and where,’ they registered ‘strenuous objection to administrative prurience in this regard.’ Wilkinson, however, knowing of ‘no more important need on our campus,’ pushed for a BYU-authored health textbook. One of the school’s faculty assigned to the project became skeptical that his treatment of sex could pass the scrutiny of both trustees and colleagues. Some university administrators agreed, and the project was abandoned. Instead, BYU officials arranged to have a national publisher remove objectionable material from a health text. When the publisher overlooked one offending page in 1967, BYU bookstore employees excised the page before placing the text on store shelves. Student reaction ranged from amusement to outrage. Studies undertaken since have found that many freshmen enter BYU misinformed about sex, and that student attitudes towards sex education become more disapproving following enrollment in the university’s required health classes.”[4]

President Wilkinson’s concerns were valid and spiritually guided. Kinsey wasn’t simply providing scientific findings but actively stripping morality and human emotions out of the research. It's appropriate for science to approach research objectively, however, Kinsey went above and beyond his role as a scientist. As much as he felt morality interfered with science and skewed what normal is, his disdain (a result of his father's abusive aversion methods) for a moral guideline highly influenced his approach, findings, and sample selections.

Scientifically and socially, his findings would be defined as the new “normal,” and his influence was far spread. Kinsey would become known as the “father” of the Sexual Revolution; he would usher in the massive social and cultural upheaval of the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s. As much as we needed improved science of sexuality, it could have been done with significantly more respect and dignity. Furthermore, many in the science field were questioning his “scientific methods.”

Supporters of Kinsey have claimed that even though he may have been disturbed and engaged in immoral behavior with his clients, his fundamental conclusions and his data still remain accurate. This too proves blatantly false. According to Dr. Reisman,

“1. [Dr. Kinsey’s team] ‘forced’ subjects to give the desired answers to their sex questions, 2. Secretly trashed three quarters of their research data, and 3. Based their claims about normal males on a roughly 86 percent aberrant male population including 200 sexual psychopaths, 1,400 sex offenders and hundreds each of prisoners, male prostitutes, and promiscuous homosexuals. Moreover, so few normal women would talk to them that the Kinsey team labeled women who lived over a year with a man ‘married,’ reclassifying data on prostitutes and other unconventional women as “Susie Homemaker.”[1]

As a zoologist and with his rejection of morality, he viewed his subjects (including himself) as little more than “animals” and actively removed the human and emotional —let alone the spiritual element — from sexuality. His debasing of the sexual experience wasn’t just a normalizing of sexual behavior but was an attack on a moral center. It is true the Puritan era rejected scientific developments and forced a suppressive and “evil” ideology of sexuality; Kinsey on the other hand entirely rejected a human moral center. This rejection of morality did more harm in the study of sexuality than the Puritan ideology. His lack of ethical center tainted and skewed his research; he engaged in unethical and illegal methods, including sampling children and condoning pedophilia. The disturbing and unethical details of Kinsey’s behavior, much of which would not be revealed for a few decades, don’t need to be included here. But suffice it to say, although the full details of Kinsey’s behaviors were not known at the time, the leaders of the Church were justified in their concern for how he was influencing society and inevitably members in the faith. Kinsey was highly influential and convincing, removing ALL definitions of “right” and “wrong.” Moral guidance was needed. The Church’s response wasn’t unreasonable, like one can find in scripture when a people become so indulgent the Lord will sometimes take a hard line to refocus his followers. This example can be seen with the Children of Israel when the Law of Moses was established. However, like I will demonstrate with the sexual culture of our church, sometimes those laws and commandments grow into something they were never intended to become.

In the following decades of the sexual revolution, you will see a similar response, rigidity and clarity from the leaders. While there was a need for a strong and clear voice of morality, you will also see how this rigidity grew into the sexual shibboleths (Stephen Smoot provided an insightful writeup on shibboleths here) of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Instead of growing into a more healthy view of sexuality, tradition and cultural assumptions turned the moral guidelines into doctrinal absolutes.

Is it any wonder that the leadership increased focus on sexual issues intensified with previously unseen rigidity? As such, and in the desire to save souls, preventing Latter-day Saint moral decay with societal values, they attempted to reinforce the moral lines. Therefore, during this time the Brethren addressed masturbation as a gateway perversion that led to nothing good. Although not medically or religiously supported, masturbation seemed to become the new measure of sexual purity and a “preoccupation” that required complete abstinence. President Kimball published “Be Ye Clean,” which would later be included in his book “Faith Precedes a Miracle.” This became the first track that focused on the “reprehensible nature” of masturbation and thoughts of sex.[5]

General Conference has always served as a guidepost to current social issues. Therefore, in this decade, as in previous, increased attention was given to The Church as a whole regarding sexual issues. It makes absolute sense in context of the history. Society's increase of moral decay was met with an increased moral rigidity. Was it the best way? I can’t judge that. It's not my desire to judge their approach, but it is important to see these developments in the correct context to better understand the solution. Therefore, in this societal context, the conference messages, books and articles more frequently identified behaviors associated with sins “next to murder.” It was at this time that there was a clear Latter-day Saint cultural change in how sexual desire was taught. The idea that sexuality and desire were beautiful and to be mastered and cultivated in one's youth then became a message that thinking and acting on these desires was committing grievous sins; masturbation became a grievous sin.

1956: “Petting is indecent and sinful, and the person who attempts to pet with you is himself both indecent and sinful and is likewise lustful … Is that what you want? Will you not remember that in the category of crime, God says sex sin is next to murder?”[6]

1957: “To keep the Children of Israel from committing these sins, the Lord proceeds to name them and to prescribe penalties for their commission. I am going to name a few of them. First is incest. I am not enlarging on it. In the law incest included more than we now ascribe to it. It included marriage between people within prohibited relationships. The penalty for incest was death to both parties. Fornication, sometimes adultery and fornication are used interchangeably, but for most kinds of fornication the penalty was death. For adultery, it was death for both parties. For homosexuality, it was death to the male and the prescription or penalty for the female I do not know.”[7]

Four years later, Elder Bruce R. McConkie boldly and emphatically stated that masturbation was not only "condemned by divine edict," but was among the "chief means" the adversary is "leading souls to hell."[8] He also solidified the teachings of President Clark with the rebuke of medical, psychiatric and mental health workers who were teaching that masturbation is "not an evil," and stated the “guilt and shame” experienced by individuals was a result of disobedience. In a return to archaic medical beliefs, he said they were keeping Latter-day Saints from being clean and experiencing the blessings of the gospel, which would lead to "mental and spiritual peace" that helps one overcome mental disorders of masturbation.

“An individual may go to a psychiatrist for treatment because of a serious guilt complex and consequent mental disorder arising out of some form of sex immorality — masturbation, for instance. It is not uncommon for some psychiatrists in such situations to persuade the patient that masturbation itself is not an evil; that his trouble arises from the false teachings of the Church that such a practice is unclean; and that, therefore, by discarding the teaching of the Church, the guilt complex will cease and mental stability return. In this way iniquity is condoned, and many people are kept from complying with the law whereby they could become clean and spotless before the Lord—in the process of which they would gain the mental and spiritual peace that overcomes mental disorders.”[9]

The leadership, specifically Elder McConkie, did have a valid doctrinal concern in that psychotherapists prior to 1970 predominately held to Freudian anti-religious ideas: “Trouble arises from the false teachings of the Church.” In the psychodynamic models of the time, they were not equipped to address the various faith practices, rituals and beliefs. But it would have been poor and unethical therapy to clinically assert one's culture is “false.”

It is the responsibility of the practitioner to provide healthy mental/physical solutions that are both within good medical science and within the individual's faith rituals and culture. As such, I completely agree with Elder McConkie in that it was improper for psychologists to be so blatantly rejecting of one's faith and culture — even in those cases where one's faith and culture might be in conflict with current medical standards. To blatantly dismiss the culture of that individual could create additional mental health concerns. However, I see this as a separate issue. Elder McConkie refuted the validity of the scientific intervention while tying it to the treatment method. This would be similar to condemning doctors for prescribing medications because they may be addictive.

Next Chapter: 5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine and Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s

Table of Contents:
0. Introduction
1. Background — It Happened Again
2. Context is Important: A Brief History of Masturbation Beliefs Within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
3. Cultivating Versus Condemning
4. What Went Wrong?
5. A New Culture Is Born: “Doctrine and Addiction” And Returning To The 1700s
6. Purity, Modesty, And Moral Ambiguity
7. Solution: Real Self-Mastery Cultivating Sexuality

Additional Resources

Facebook Group "Improving Intimacy in Mormon Marriages"

Blog, "Mormon Marriages"

[1] First Presidency message, 112th Annual Conference April 1942 p. 89 https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1942a

[2] President Ruben J. Clark, In Conference Report, Oct. 1938, pp. 137–39. https://archive.org/details/conferencereport1938sa

[3] Clark, J. Reuben (Dec 1952). "Home and the Building of Home Life". Relief Society Magazine: 793

[4] Religion and Academics at Brigham Young University A Recent Historical Perspective Gary James Bergera “Religion, Feminism, and Freedom of Conscience” Edited by George D. Smith pg. 98-99 http://signaturebookslibrary.org/religion-and-academics-at-brigham-young-university/#20

[5] Kimball, Spencer. "Be Ye Clean!: Five Steps to Repentance and Forgiveness". churchhistorycatalog.lds.org. LDS Church

[6] Apostle Mark E. Petersen, General Conference, 3 October 1956

[7] Apostle J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Address, April 8, 1957

[8] McConkie, Bruce R. (1958). Mormon Doctrine. Deseret Book. p. 708

[9] McConkie, Bruce R. (1958). Mormon Doctrine. Deseret Book. p. 610

Marrying Outside Of Faith

Anonymous Question Series:

The following two questions are so similar that I chose to include them both in this response. 

Q: I met a man who is generous, grateful, patient and compassionate but knew nothing about my faith, which is important for me. Is happiness possible with such a person who does not believe in Christ?

Q: Would different faiths work out in a marriage?

A: The quick answer, yes! Be mindful that it must be guided by the Lord.

Yes, absolutely. However, as you know, marrying outside the faith adds an additional complexity to the relationship. Though, marrying within the faith doesn't guarantee success or happiness, having an interfaith marriage or marrying someone without a faith also doesn't mean you can't have a successful and happy marriage. You must simply be aware of the potential challenges.

Here are some interesting statistics: 21 Intriguing Interfaith Marriage Statistics

As I have shared in my other post, Happiest Marriages, there has to be a solid foundation of true love — a foundation of what it means to truly adore each other. You must not in any way go into the marriage with the belief that you will "convert" your spouse. Neither should the other ever make you feel the need to compromise your beliefs to any degree. Go into the marriage recognizing that it is inappropriate for you to make your spouse comply to your belief system, just as it would be for them to make you loosen up on your belief system. You will both need to explore what it will look like to raise kids and if that will be in or out of the faith. It will be hard, but if you can both truly embrace each other in adoration, and the Lord guides you in that direction, then yes, absolutely, it can work — and it can work really well.

See also:

Happiest Marriages

How to Train Your Spouse

Marital Myth of Communication

Book: "Real Love"

A [Not So] Better Way To Say Sorry

“Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (2 Cor. 7:9-10)

"Empathy is one of human beings’ highest qualities. Empathy is the root of most of the behaviour that we associate with “goodness.” It’s the root of compassion and altruism, self-sacrifice and charity. Conversely, a lack of empathy is the root of most destructive and violent behaviour — in fact, everything that we associate with “evil.” A lack of empathy with victims makes crime possible. A lack of empathy with other human groups makes warfare possible. A lack of empathy enables psychopaths to treat other human beings callously, as objects who have no value except as a means of satisfying their desires." —Steve Taylor Ph.D., "Out of the Darkness Understanding Empathy Shallow and Deep Empathy"

Empathy is a powerful tool for connecting with others and protecting ourselves from emotionally destructive people. Empathy is a difficult and ambiguous attribute to teach, especially to children. A good educator is skilled at taking the complex and simplifying it for their students. However, in the case of empathy and emotional connection, I am concerned the oversimplification has done more harm than good.

Aside from examples established by adults and peers, children are first taught how to empathize with others through apologies. The steps to apologies are intended to create an emotional awareness in the individual and those affected by their behavior. This should be a beautiful and essential part of a child's development. Parents, educators and psychologists have all come up with various steps to meaningfully outline an effective apology. There appears to be a variety of steps and approaches that become popular. Some try to simplify the steps to add new clarity or life to the process of empathy. But in the simplifying, I believe authors are unfortunately teaching something other than empathy, as in the following case.

On March 30, 2014, "joellen" published “A Better Way to Say Sorry.” This post quickly made its rounds on the bloggersphere. A year after it was published, it is still frequently making its appearance on Facebook and other social media. It’s a well-written post with an intriguing idea. I applaud joellen's insight regarding needing a better way to say sorry. This is a neglected concept that is very difficult to teach children. I also applaud the author for taking on this concept and sincerely trying to improve how we teach children to empathize.

I agree that the old way of demanding others to say sorry is wrong, and I deeply appreciate the author’s intent to foster greater personal responsibility. However, I believe and feel the four steps she outlines don't promote responsibility, but rather unhealthy communication, expectations and obligatory communication. I will give my take on her article.

Step one:

"I’m sorry for…: Be specific. Show the person you’re apologizing to that you really understand what they are upset about.

Wrong: I’m sorry for being mean.

Right: I’m sorry for saying that nobody wants to be your friend." —A Better Way to Say Sorry

This first step is critical, there is profound value in being specific with our words. This shows ownership and clarity. However, I would add to the step, "Learn to say sorry without saying the word sorry.”

This could be in words or deeds. It's not about the word "sorry." There is nothing wrong with the word sorry, but it easily becomes a trite phrase — a quick and repetitive way to acknowledge (or dismiss) your mistakes. It sometimes misses an opportunity to connect and learn from the experience. I believe this is what the author is trying to do in step two but misses the point.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell (1926–2004) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles pointed out, “Pride prefers cheap repentance, paid for with shallow sorrow. Unsurprisingly, seekers after cheap repentance also search for superficial forgiveness instead of real reconciliation. Thus, real repentance goes far beyond simply saying, ‘I’m sorry.’” (“Repentance,” Ensign, Nov. 1991, 31)

Step two:

"This is wrong because…:

This might take some more thinking, but this is one of the most important parts. Until you understand why it was wrong or how it hurt someone’s feelings, it’s unlikely you will change. This is also important to show the person you hurt that you really understand how they feel. I can’t tell you how much of a difference this makes! Sometimes, people want to feel understood more than they want an apology. Sometimes just showing understanding– even without an apology– is enough to make them feel better!

Wrong: This is wrong because I got in trouble.

Right: This is wrong because it hurt your feelings and made you feel bad about yourself." —A Better Way to Say Sorry

The author is not teaching responsibility in this step. It communicating a very emotionally manipulative message, which makes the offender responsible for the other’s emotions. In the example, that was provided:

"Wrong: This is wrong because I got in trouble."

"Right: This is wrong because it hurt your feelings and made you feel bad about yourself."

On the surface, these seem to be two very different experiences. But they are essentially the same. Here's how they are the same: the "right" example is just an emotional version of the the "wrong" example.

In the "wrong" example, the offender is sorry because they were caught. In the "right" example, the offender is sorry because someone is visually, emotionally hurt about the incident. In a way, this a a form of being caught. If the offended never acknowledged their hurt, the offender might not have recognized their behavior was inappropriate. This approach bases awareness on another person's reaction to an event. Neither of these examples teach a child the internal values of integrity, empathy, self-awareness or the ability to know right from wrong. Rather, they identify whether or not their actions were hurtful by another’s response; in a way, this is an emotional form of being caught, which is a form of emotional manipulation.

The emotional manipulation comes at the moment we decide an apology is needed based on another’s emotional response — NOT on whether our words or actions were wrong. You might be thinking, “What's the difference?” or that it’s semantics, or “That's just silly, other people's emotions matter.” Absolutely, other people's emotions are valid and do matter. We should never desire to hurt or ignore someone. Even more so, we should learn how to empathize. But hurt feelings are not a reliable indicator that you did something wrong. It is equally important for the offended to practice empathy in difficult situations too.

Let's look at this example. After a long day at work, I am hungry, tired and discouraged about my day's performance. Unfortunately, two people on separate occasions interact with me during which I am short in my communication, distracted and maybe come across as rude. It's been a difficult day; it had nothing to do with these two individuals. However, one responds very hurt, angry and emotional that I would treat them in such a way. The other brushes it off and recognizes I was possibly having a bad day and this behavior is out of character for me and even finds a way to help.

But in step two, the author is suggesting we would only say sorry to the first person because they were hurt and emotional, but not the other. That is wrong and teaching an unhealthy lesson. It might be that the emotionally reactive and hurt individual is the one who needs to apologize for being self-centered and unaware of the other’s bad day. Maybe the other individual needed some private time or words of encouragement, and the hurt individual failed to recognize that. Step two ignored that completely.

Step three:

"In the future, I will…:Use positive language, and tell me what you WILL do, not what you won’t do.

Wrong: In the future, I will not say that.

Right: In the future, I will keep unkind words in my head.

Now let’s practice using positive language. It’s hard at first, but you’ll get better. Can anyone think of a positive way to change these incorrect statements?

Wrong: In the future, I won’t cut.

(Right: In the future, I will go to the back of the line.)

Wrong: In the future, I won’t push.

(Right: In the future, I will keep my hands to myself.)

Wrong: In the future, I won’t take your eraser.

(Right: In the future, I will ask you if I can borrow your eraser.)" —A Better Way to Say Sorry

This is an entirely different process and should not be a part of the "sorry" process. Promising to never do something again is misguided. It’s setting the offender up for failure. It’s suggesting that a person can never have a bad day, and if they slip or repeat, there is shame, distrust and resentment. It continues a manipulative cycle. A current "sorry" should never be predicated on future promise! 

Step four: 

"Will you forgive me?” This is important to try to restore your friendship. Now, there is no rule that the other person has to forgive you. Sometimes, they won’t. That’s their decision. Hopefully, you will all try to be the kind of friends who will forgive easily, but that’s not something you automatically get just because you apologized. But you should at least ask for it." —A Better Way to Say Sorry

We cannot "forgive" anyone. Neither should we ever base our sorry's effectiveness off of another's inability or ability to forgive. It's not their place. Only God can forgive. Although there is appropriateness in certain types of "righteous judgement," Elder Oaks clarifies this is only in cases of stewardship and is not to be guided by anger.

"Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest ...

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities." —Elder Dallin H. Oaks Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Judge Not”

The atonement and principles of repentance teach us that we don't say sorry to be forgiven. This is worldly sorrow. We are forgiven because we have a change of heart. Otherwise it's selfish: “I am feeling bad and want you to forgive me so I feel better” or "I want to you stop feeling bad so I am apologizing." It is not up to us how or if another will forgive, and we don’t repent or say sorry to be forgiven of that individual. It defeats the point and again sends a very wrong message to both the offender and offended. This is a form of worldly sorrow —an attempt to end another's pain so it doesn't hurt so much, or a means to meet an emotional criteria or demands of another to qualify as an apology.

“And it came to pass that when I, Mormon, saw their lamentation and their mourning and their sorrow before the Lord, my heart did begin to rejoice within me, knowing the mercies and the long-suffering of the Lord, therefore supposing that he would be merciful unto them that they would again become a righteous people.

But behold this my joy was vain, for their sorrowing was not unto repentance, because of the goodness of God; but it was rather the sorrowing of the damned, because the Lord would not always suffer them to take happiness in sin.

And they did not come unto Jesus with broken hearts and contrite spirits, but they did curse God, and wish to die. Nevertheless they would struggle with the sword for their lives.” (Mormon 2: 12-14)

What needs to happen is an internal recognition, a change of heart.

“Paul taught that ‘godly sorrow’ is required if true repentance is to take place (2 Corinthians 7:10). As you study 2 Corinthians 7, consider the following words of President Ezra Taft Benson: ‘It is not uncommon to find men and women in the world who feel remorse for the things they do wrong. Sometimes this is because their actions cause them or loved ones great sorrow and misery. Sometimes their sorrow is caused because they are caught and punished for their actions. Such worldly feelings do not constitute “godly sorrow.”’ (2 Corinthians 7:10)

Godly sorrow is a gift of the Spirit. It is a deep realization that our actions have offended our Father and our God. It is the sharp and keen awareness that our behavior caused the Savior, He who knew no sin, even the greatest of all, to endure agony and suffering. Our sins caused Him to bleed at every pore. This very real mental and spiritual anguish is what the scriptures refer to as having ‘a broken heart and contrite spirit’ (D&C 20:37). Such a spirit is the absolute prerequisite for true repentance” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 72).

So, how do you teach personal responsibility and the "sorry" process. My suggestion is to approach it in an entirely different way. DO NOT focus on the person who offended or did the wrong. This is where it takes trust, creativity and self-worth. Focus on the individual who was hurt. Help them to articulate their experience, take responsibility for their emotional experience as opposed to expecting an apology, and learn how to not be defined by the poor actions/words of others to affect their self-worth.

My wife and I came up with many great examples of this — from 3-year-olds to adults. That would require greater detail. But in short, it was interesting as I read the post and I confirmed with my wife, I have never demanded or asked our children to say sorry; I never realized it till now. I think that whole approach, even this four-step approach, isn’t obligatory. But, again I think the focus or teaching moment needs to be on identifying self-worth and how to respond appropriately to those who do harm, not the other way around. This is KEY.

May I add: that whole experience at the end of the article with having a student come up with things they should be or can be sorry for was, I trust, in the best of intentions — but not healthy at all. I understand it was a "good" experience for the author and students. However, it's like this. My wife and I are very happy and loving with each other. We have not had an argument ever let alone a fight. I can sit with her and think of a hand full of things to apologize for, despite our great love and relationship together. This is how it might go:

"Honey, I woke up late and ran to the office and I know I told you I would do the trash and dishes before I left, I am sorry." She would look at me and say (because I know what she would say ). “Oh sweet heart, thank you it wasn't a big deal. I know you were busy.” This was a good experience. I was honest, it gave us a moment together, a hug and kiss. Right?

There are a couple issues here, I can always think of something to apologize for. In the above example, as my wife pointed out, there was nothing to apologize for. It created a need that wasn't previously there. It actually replaced something more significant: trust. My wife trusted that I didn't intend to "fail." In fact, she didn't see it as a failure at all and needed NO apology. The other issue is it creates anxiety, wondering, looking and finding ways to apologize or room to always do better. It destroys trust and creates an expectation.

I trust that my wife will take responsibility for her emotions and experiences. If she feels my need to help around the house more, I trust she will lovingly discuss it with me. At the same time, she trusts that I will respond responsibly and understand her need, say ‘thank you for sharing’ and desire to help. No apologies needed, just healthy, honest communication. It is better to teach self-worth, healing and trust than obligatory apologies.

I Do Not Govern Them At All

"‘How is it that you can control your people so easily? It appears that they do nothing but what you say; how is it that you can govern them so easily?’ Said he, ‘I do not govern them at all. The Lord has revealed certain principles from the heavens by which we are to live in these latter days. The time is drawing near when the Lord is going to gather out His people from the wicked, and He is going to cut short His work in righteousness, and the principles which He has revealed I have taught to the people and they are trying to live according to them, and they control themselves.'" —Brigham Young, “Leading in the Lord’s Way” (Deseret News: Semi-Weekly, June 7, 1870, p. 3)

Lately, I have noticed a popularity in various family contracts, specifically for regulating cell phone usage. As a principle, I caution families to avoid this approach to parenting. It communicates the wrong message, teaches the wrong principles and can lead to increasing the behavior you are trying to avoid. We'll see this same experience happen in missions: very well-intended, spiritual, insightful mission presidents pile rules on top of the standard missionary guidelines. The already obedient continue to be obedient and the less obedient tend to become less obedient. However, the obedient often become more focused on the "rule" and neglect the quiet whisperings of the Spirit.

With the advent of smartphones, youth have open access to the internet. I understand parents’ concerns and fears. A phone contract can be done if it is done well and with the right amount of seriousness and lightheartedness. But it’s interesting; in therapy we are discovering that “contracts” are not usually an effective method. In fact, it often enables problems.

For example, creating a contract has a tendency to remove one from living the principles and concepts to living by the letter of the law — making the parent have to spell everything out, as the child then becomes brilliantly (or desperately) clever in finding loopholes: “Well, that’s not what was said in the contract …” It can inadvertently make the contract into the parent, and both the child and parents subject to the document instead of to the spirit or intuition.

Take for example, a well-intended family who attempted to create a contract intended to help teach, remind and encourage gospel values, all with wit and humor. The son was excited and, of course, agreed to all the terms and signed the contract. It went well for the first few months. But as clever as the parents were at writing the document, it was of course impossible to consider all details and potential issues.

Like the contract in this post, it defined specifics about a curfew and never having the phone in his room. But it failed to mention that he couldn’t get up early before school and use it in the living room while everyone else was in bed. The parents were impressed that their son who never gets up on time, let alone early, was now fully ready for school most mornings. When inquiring what the new motivation was, they discovered what he was doing.

It was clear to the parents that what he was doing was not what they desired. But nowhere in the contract was it considered. Tension grew as the son continued to get up early and play his games, and because no one was up, every room became a private place. The parents told him that he was not to do that, and he argued back that that’s not what they agreed on. Do the parents revoke the contract and create a new one in greater detail or insert a provision that the contract can be edited or modified at any point per parents’ discretion? Both of those options defeat the purpose of the contract and discourage the very teachings they were intending.

While serving in the Phoenix Arizona Mission in 1995, Elder Lynn A. Mickelsen of the Quorum of the Seventies came and spoke to the leaders in the mission, which is where I served. He shared with us an interesting pattern of experiences he had while working with the mission presidents in his area. He was praising our mission president, Val Christensen, for the way he ran the mission, and that it was done on principles and concepts, not rules.

Elder Mickelsen said there are mission presidents who pride themselves on the binders of rules they institute in their missions. Upon Elder Mickelsen’s arrival, one such president laid a three ring binder of rules on his lap as he drove him from the airport. Elder Mickelsen said he removed it and discarded it. He warned that such things destroy missionaries.

We cannot foresee every issue, and the moment we attempt that in a contract, it becomes a burden. Natural parenting is interrupted, and you become bound to yesterday’s knowledge.

Such contracts are sometimes used to inappropriately control the behaviors of others. Another family intentionally established a contract they knew would be difficult for their daughter to follow. Whether they were cognizant of it or not, they were setting her up to fail. Instead of using the contract to govern and guide, it was used to get her to stop behaviors that annoyed the parents. Although the parents believed it was geared toward teaching her good habits, the message was one of shame and not a reminder of her being a child of God.

Creating a contract lends itself to a subtle communication that the behaviors are more important than the individual. It defines what one can’t do, but not what one should become or how they can use their behaviors for good. And good behaviors should never be contracted.

I have seen, even in the best of contracts, that it ends up binding the parents more and setting up an unhealthy power dynamic in the family — where kids will demand they have followed every rule in the contract and argue against a parent’s desire to remove them from their usage.

Using a contract can be good, but I would suggest it as more of an “articles of (faith) use” policy. As Joseph Smith taught, teach them principles and let them govern themselves. It is tempting to list rules and not principles, but I have seen this promote only rule following and not Spirit guiding. As a result, children develop the expectation “to be commanded in all things.”

Phone or no phone, my children know their electronics usage is NOT private. Their passwords are not private and at any time and length of time, we get to remove them from their usage. No questions asked.

Sunday School For The Noisy

If you have kids, a noisy husband or are a nursing mother, this Sunday School class is for you. For the last two years I have had the wonderful pleasure of teaching a Sunday School designed specifically for parents of toddlers. The class is open to everyone, and there is a handful of individuals and couples without kids, but it is structured specifically for those who have active children too young to attend nursery or primary. 

My hope in structuring the class is to provide a living room–type classroom experience. Parents are encouraged to let their kids roam and play. If kids become antsy or upset, parents can attend to their needs right there in class. Over the last two years, we have had many diaper changes, crying babies and nursing mothers. All is welcome and encouraged. This is an environment where mothers and fathers never need to be concerned with a distracting child or that they are interrupting others' spiritual experience. We have proven reverence doesn't equal silence. 

This Sunday School has been a welcomed refuge for mothers and fathers with young children who have traditionally felt banished to walking the halls or hiding out in nursing rooms when their children have become inconsolable. There is never a need to leave this classroom. Everyone who attends knows what to expect from the environment. Parents never need to be concerned that their fussy baby or roaming child is a distraction to another. Now the foyer couches, hallways and nursing rooms are empty and the classroom is always full. By providing this open, comfortable — and in a lot of ways, safe — environment, I have heard the thankful relief from the spiritually-craving mother who once felt torn from either being spiritually fed or feeding their baby. Now she feels she can do both. 

Additionally, class participation is never an issue. I have taught Sunday School on and off for over 15 years, and this is the first time I've actually never encouraged the class to bring or open their scriptures. You'll never need to feel concerned that you'll be caught unprepared or called on to read out of your scriptures. With a bottle in one hand and a baby in the other, my hope is that you will not feel you have to put down the bottle to reach for the scriptures. Therefore, I present every lesson on a screen. Each quote, scripture and video is easily seen by everyone. Even if your hands are full tending to your parental duties, you can follow along, read and not feel you lost your spot in the lesson while tending to your child's needs. 

How to have a successful, spiritual noisy Sunday School:

1. Seek the individual needs of the parents.

Pray over each family to understand their gospel needs and how it can be addressed in the lesson. 

2. Become comfortable with noise.

Learn how to talk through the noise. Avoid getting louder or waiting till the noise subsides. Getting louder or silencing can make parents feel they are disrupting the class. Do your best to stay on point and continue the lesson as though the noise was not present. 

3. Prepare and use PowerPoint, Google Presentation or slide presentation.

Use technology in a meaningful way, but keep it simple.

Refer to my Sunday School Class slides for an example of how to use media in the class.

4. Eliminate shame.

When the idea for the class was inspired, some perceived the class as a form of punishment, where the "Hallway Parents" were assigned to attend. It could potentially even reinforce the idea that parents with children don't belong in "normal" Sunday School class because it disrupts the Spirit. Fortunately, our bishop did a wonderful job at reminding the congregation each week in a loving way that there was this new class designed to meet the needs of those with toddlers. 

5. Eliminate shame in class.

Like number 4, continue that love and admiration of your ward family and bring it into the class each week. Be mindful to remind everyone the nature of the class: that they never need to leave with their child or feel bad that their child is noisy. 

6. Make the lesson applicable to their lives.

This point is essential for any class you teach, but I believe more so for a class of young parents who are distracted with children. They come for nourishment in the gospel of Jesus Christ. As tempting as it may be to lecture a scholarly presentation with PowerPoint or rattle the lesson off point by point as outlined, don't! I am not suggesting "dumbing down" the lesson. We have had amazing, profound discussions over the last couple years. But remember these are parents juggling kids, listening through the noise and thinking about the week full of activities.

Keep the slides simple but meaningful.

I have found it much more useful to present a thought-provoking 1-4 sentence quote rather than a 10-15 verse reading of the scriptures or detailing of historical events or scholarly perspectives.

7. Make sure you have more than enough room!

This is critical. After a year of a very successful Spirit-filled noisy Sunday School, our ward had a schedule change. We were moved from a large room that was packed each week to a room that was about half its size. We didn't lose half the class; we lost almost all the class. With the room change, if we were to set the class up like a traditional class we could fit everyone in. But doing so would not allow parents space to feel comfortable in letting their kids roam. Parents couldn't stand and soothe their crying kids without being in the way of other parents. As a result, families were again in the halls and nursing rooms. Fortunately, we were able to remedy the issue — the bishop assigned us a new, much larger room. 

This has been one of the most rewarding callings I have ever had. Our bishop was truly inspired when he identified the need for a Sunday School class like this. Over the last two years, we have had many visitors who deeply appreciated the class and wished they had one in their home ward. I hope that these ideas can be used to bring a successful Noisy Sunday School class to your ward. 

Spirit Guided Life

If there was one thing I could teach my children, it would be to listen and discern the Spirit within their lives, how to embrace that perfect teacher without fear, hesitation or resistance but with excitement, clarity and confidence. It’s one thing to teach them obedience, another to meaningfully understand the lessons of obedience. Commandments would be understood in power, and when commandments are not understood, faith would be embraced and trust in Father increased. They would be able to apply life lessons to all situations, identify falsehoods, recognize wisdom, and not fear the unknown.

Oh, how much time is spent on repeatably teaching what it means to be obedient (in the home, at church, at school and at work), and what it means to be loving in our relationships and human interactions. Although the teaching of obedience is essential in our spiritual growth, I wonder if we miss precious moments to enable our children and loved ones to learn through trial and error. Because we are in a rush or too busy in the moment, we demand obedience and for them to comply, as opposed to establishing a pattern of spiritual insight and learning.

If you have have a teenage son who is overly distracted, frustrated, tired and unable to focus on his homework—and in the hope to teach obedience, responsibility and to just finish that assignment, you become the broken record of parenthood. This only seems to aggravate both child and parent without much success. This can even lead both to resentment, hard feelings towards each other and feelings of failure. The Spirit is nowhere to be found.

Allow them to fail. Unfortunately, it seems to be one of the more difficult things to teach them.

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26)

In these difficult moments, we struggle with the thoughts and perceptions within ourselves of what it means to be a good father or mother. We may be concerned that our child's successes and failures are an indicator of our ability to parent or our own worthiness. Or, we may be driven by the overwhelming feeling of teaching our child the lessons of being responsible at all costs. But I wonder if taking ourselves out of the equation might be the best and most effective approach of all. I learned this powerful lesson on my mission many times and many times again since then.

One of the mistakes I made in my mission was believing I had all the answers and that it was my responsibility to convert individuals. I loved the gospel of Jesus Christ and had a profound testimony of its teachings. It was an absolute joy and passion of mine to bring every investigator all that I had learned, teaching them into conversion. I had every answer and knew how best to present the gospel message to them. It was my calling and my responsibility. Of course I knew it was the Spirit that converted individuals. Nonetheless, I also believed my ability as a missionary reflected on my ability to bring individuals to the gospel. Fortunately the Savior’s atoning sacrifice covered me in this naïve and incorrect belief, and through that mercy I was taught a principle I would never forget.

We were teaching a part-member family. Jeff, the husband and father was the only nonmember in the family. For years, missionaries had visited and taught him the lessons. Jeff was a good man with a heart of gold. By the time I met him, he had had the lessons so many times I am confident he could have taught us every lesson. Nonetheless, it was my duty to convert Jeff. I would teach him the discussion in a way that no other missionary had before. Needless to say, by the end of our discussions no commitment for baptism was made. I struggled with my companion in fasting and prayer. We retaught and retaught and retaught principles and concepts WE believed he needed to hear. Nothing.

Teaching the gospel to Jeff, I regret to admit, was getting frustrating to me. But we had one last brilliant idea. My companion and I had become familiar with a wonderful lecture series on Joseph Smith the Prophet by Truman G. Madsen. 

Surely no one could listen to this great scholar and not be converted. We brought these recordings to Jeff and used them in the structure of our lessons. One night, during a lecture we felt was moving and powerful, Jeff appeared distracted and uninterested. This was unlike Jeff. He was always interested and engaged. I believe he even asked for a break in the lesson. This was difficult for me, and I questioned my ability to bring him the gospel message.

It was at least a month later that Jeff invited us back, but not for a lesson. When we arrived, he and the family announced that he was going to be baptized. He explained that earlier that week he escaped to the bathroom from the hustle and noise of the morning when his family was getting ready for work and school. There he felt a need to pray. As he prayed, the Spirit filled his heart and mind and taught him what he needed and, he knew it was time to be baptized. I was both thrilled and humbled. At that moment, he was telling me of his spiritual experience and I was realizing my prayers and fasts were being answered—but not in the way I had expected.

My prayers and fasts were to find ways that I could convert Jeff. In that moment, it was clear I had nothing to do with his conversion. In fact, I might have been getting in the way of the spiritual lessons that needed to be taught to Jeff. My fear, my sense of responsibility as a missionary and the way I was measuring success were distracting from the spiritual lesson. Sometimes the most responsible thing to do is get out of the way. Jeff's conversion was deep and between the Lord and him. He has been a faithful member ever since and currently serves as a bishop in Arizona.

“The Prophet further directed Brigham Young as follows:Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach you what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the kingdom. Tell the brethren to keep their hearts open to conviction, so that when the Holy Ghost comes to them, their hearts will be ready to receive it.

They can tell the Spirit of the Lord from all other spirits; it will whisper peace and joy to their souls; it will take malice, hatred, strife and all evil from their hearts; and their whole desire will be to do good, bring forth righteousness and build up the kingdom of God.” (23 February 1847, Manuscript History of Brigham Young: 1846–1847, ed. Elden J. Watson (Salt Lake City: Elden Jay Watson, 1971), 529)

I wonder how often we get in the way of the spiritual lessons that our children need to learn. As a parent, it’s my duty to teach my children how to be successful. But it is equally important that after we have adequately instructed them to provide them an opportunity to struggle and even fail. It is better that their own experiences in their moments of failure be their guide than repetitive parental reminders. Additionally, there is great power in our children discovering that they can succeed on their own. Both in the failure and success we can lovingly remind them and provide an example of how to seek out the answers with the Spirit.

Seeking answers is a process and can even be time consuming. But like Jeff, I have learned the value of stepping out of the hustle and noise to seek peace and guidance from the Spirit. Additionally, instead of fasting and praying about how you can teach your children better, fast to find and recognize opportunities for your children to learn from the Spirit.