Marital Myth Of Communication

Marital Myth of Communication: It’s never about communication.

My hope in this piece is to address a mistaken idea that if an individual (or both) in a relationship will improve their “communication skills” they will save and improve their marriage. It's my belief that this idea has become popular among both therapists and couples because it's easier to focus on words instead of emotional health and core values systems — it’s more tangible. Unfortunately, improving one’s skills in communication doesn't foster connection, trust or empathy. At best, they just become really good at not saying the "wrong" thing or triggering their spouse. It's a form of spousal emotional management. At worst, with these improved communication skills couples become more skilled at hurting and dismissing each other. The hurt and dismissing can be both intentional and unintentional.

What enables this myth is a false-positive that the newfound skills are working. In the beginning phase, couples have reported that they have improved in their communication significantly and are doing "better." However, the false-positive appears to directly correspond with how precisely the one spouse complies with the the other. For example, the spouse who enforces (the "Enforcer") or strongly recommends a solution (usually the Enforcer’s solution is in the the form of a popular method or book they are reading) reports success based on their view of how well the other spouse (the "Mitigator") is complying with the rules of engagement established in that method or book they recommended. The Mitigator, out of either a desire to prove their love or mitigate the Enforcer’s disappointment (although not completely sold on the method), complies.

The couple then begins to engage in an interaction of what I call "book speak." One engages in "book speak" when one adopts the specific language and jargon of a book and repeats it with conviction, often claiming disproportionate results and incorporating these claims and jargon into every conversation. But like the Crossfit, vegan, paleo, or popular MLM friend (or family member), their passion always seems to outweigh practicality, actual results and sincerity. Unfortunately for some, this passion is blinding, and when the placebo effect wears off, or when others don't report the same level of success, their solution is MORE of what's not working.

Sometimes that’s learning about “love languages,” grammar/word choice, "Emotional Intelligence," what "color" you are, the ridiculously oversold Myers-Briggs personality test (MBTI) designed by a non-scientist (Carl Jung, I am sure, is turning in his grave), or any one of the many other methods out there. Although, there is value in understanding and discovering our own differences in communication and personalities, it is a distraction from the real issue(s).

Conversely, while the Enforcer measures success in precision, the Mitigator measures success based on the decrease in reactivity of the Enforcer (and usually increased sexual encounters). Are you seeing how this is spousal emotional management, not improvement?

But after the novelty wears off, the Enforcer often expresses they “feel” just as distant, if not more distant than before. Even though the Mitigator uses the “right” words and phrases are said, he/she still feels empty. The Enforcer (and sometimes the Mitigator) see their partner as “not really meaning” what they say. They are just saying what they learned. If they really loved them, it would be more natural and they would “feel” the difference. The Mitigator will often continue to "book speak" and engage in this new skill because the Enforcer's reactivity is still decreased. But the moment the Enforcers behavior returns, the Mitigator will also return to old habits, to, well, you know, mitigate their spouses reactivity, pain, hurt or disappointment.

Sometimes the Enforcer will acknowledge how well the Mitigator is doing in adapting to the improved communication skills, but only to reconcile the cognitive dissonance between the improved skills and continued emotional disconnect. The Enforcer will escalate the expectation of the skill and express disappointment because the Mitigator didn’t say the right things, correctly, at precisely the right time, or quick enough. Some Enforcers will become what I call, "serial communicators," rotating through every communication style and method. During this, the Mitigator becomes lost in which method to apply when and is seen by the Enforcer as not "caring enough" to make it a priority.

Before you think these are individuals who failed to understand the concept or are exceptions of these various communication skills, I should tell you that these are impressive individuals and well educated: doctors, lawyers, CEOs, engineers, professors, mothers, fathers and even other therapists. Interestingly, whether it was the engineer with multiple Ph.D.s or the high school dropout, these individuals and couples were all experiencing the same thing. These are well educated individuals with a firm grasp on language and communication. It wasn’t a matter of not doing it correctly or consistently or understanding the concepts and applying it in precisely the right moment. Something else was happening.

What I believe is happening at its core is an individual's loss of identity. What seems to be consistent in relationships that struggle with communication — and specifically see communication as the problem — is the individual’s ability to clearly identify with themselves. They have either lost themselves in their career, in parenting, in life or in how they believe God sees them — to the point that they no longer (or never have) known themselves. The fear of not knowing oneself is not only scary, but claustrophobic and reactive. It prevents one from giving and receiving real love. This fear clouds their ability to look past words and experience real connection.

This lack of confidence and insecurity, places an unpredictable burden on loved ones to manage expectations and feelings of the individual’s uncertainty — which is impossible, since they don't know how to manage their own expectations and feelings.  Assuming the best about their spouse is frightfully difficult when they can't assume the best of themselves. As a result, they begin to show signs of projection and assume that their spouse meant to hurt them because they would have if the roles were reversed.

From the pragmatic to the emotional, I have heard each say “words have meaning.” They do have meaning, but until we master that skill, we would do well to first assume the best in our spouses.

In the October 2003 Ensign, Elder Holland urges us to do exactly this:

“The second segment of this scriptural sermon on love in Moroni 7:45 [Moro. 7:45] says that true charity—real love—'is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity.' Think of how many arguments could be avoided, how many hurt feelings could be spared, and, in a worst-case scenario, how many breakups and divorces could be avoided if we were not so easily provoked, if we thought no evil of one another, and if we not only did not rejoice in iniquity but didn’t rejoice even in little mistakes. Think the best of each other, especially of those you say you love. Assume the good and doubt the bad.” ―Elder Jeffery R. Holland, How Do I Love Thee?

Interestingly, just a few years earlier, at a 2000 BYU address, he gave the same talk but used slightly different wording, which I believe emphasizes this point:

"The second segment of this scriptural sermon on love in Moroni 7:45 says that true charity—real love—'is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity.' Think of how many arguments could be avoided, how many hurt feelings could be spared, how many cold shoulders and silent treatments could be ended, and, in a worst-case scenario, how many breakups and divorces could be avoided if we were not so easily provoked, if we thought no evil of one another, and if we not only did not rejoice in iniquity but didn’t rejoice even in little mistakes.

Temper tantrums are not cute even in children; they are despicable in adults, especially adults who are supposed to love each other. We are too easily provoked; we are too inclined to think that our partner meant to hurt us—meant to do us evil, so to speak; and in defensive or jealous response we too often rejoice when we see them make a mistake and find them in a fault. Let’s show some discipline on this one. Act a little more maturely. Bite your tongue if you have to. “He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city” (Proverbs 16:32). At least one difference between a tolerable marriage and a great one may be that willingness in the latter to allow some things to pass without comment, without response." ―Elder Jeffery R. Holland, How Do I Love Thee?

Again, let me be very clear. Unfortunately, some will interpret the concept of "assuming the best" as justification for abuse — ironically because of the same fear, which stems from a fear of "giving up" on their loved ones. As such, some will dismiss their spouse’s verbal, emotional, spiritual and physical abuse because they assume the best in their spouse, or they believe they have to have "hope" in their eternal marriage. There is NO scripture, doctrine or prophetic council that says that our loving Heavenly Father believes we should tolerate, endure, allow or continue in any way with an abusive relationship.

For additional reading on abuse:

The Invisible Heartbreaker By Judy C. Olsen

Stop Using Words That Hurt By J. Thomas Cearley Director, LDS Family Services, Louisiana Agency

Building Trust Through Assuming The Best

For most of us, assuming the best is logical but counter-intuitive. How does one assume the best when there is a history of so much hurt and undesirable words exchanged? How does one move past that? How does one assume the best, especially if your spouse isn't assuming the best in you?

Remember, it’s not about your spouse; it’s about you.

1. Build yourself

There is another profound misconception I will address in another post — that is, the order of importance one places on their own worth and development. Ideally, our priority should be God, self, spouse, children. When you remove yourself from second on the list, you do so because of fear. To the degree we prioritize fear on the list, we lose ourself. Additionally, if we are not second on the list of priority, I can assure you God is not first. Assuming the best includes yourself too.

2. Adoring the dumb

Yes, I mean it. Adore the dumb in your spouse AND in yourself. My wife and I have a saying: “Everyone is stupid but us.” This isn't said in a tone of conceit, but, rather irony. My dumb isn't your dumb and your dumb isn't my dumb, but there is one thing that is common: we are both doing our loving best.

I say dumb things a lot. Sometimes intentionally, most of the time unintentionally. I say the wrong things. I am dyslexic with my words (thoughts) and am not always as sensitive with my words. Sometimes, I think I am being brilliantly funny and it comes out insulting unfortunately. I already know this; I don't have to have it pointed out every time. That creates resentment and hyper-awareness and usually causes individuals to fluctuate between diligent carefulness to a “screw it” mentality.

However, because of my spouse’s ability to assume the best in me, this burden is lifted. I never fear of hurting my wife or drawing distant from her because of something I said. I never feel like I have to prove, defend or convince her of my intentions. I can be the real me. I can be absolutely vulnerable with her. Thus, reducing the fear that "being me" hurts her.

3. Be vulnerable

Confidence and love can only grow if we are vulnerable.

“We cultivate love when we allow our most vulnerable and powerful selves to be deeply seen and known, and when we honor the spiritual connection that grows from that offering with trust, respect, kindness, and affection.

Love is not something we give or get; it is something that we nurture and grow, a connection that can only be cultivated between two people when it exists within each one of them. We can only love others as much as we love ourselves.

Shame, blame, disrespect, betrayal, and the withholding of affection damages the roots from which love grows. Love can only survive these injuries if they are acknowledged, healed, and rare.”1 ―Brené Brown

4. Encourage your spouse to be unfiltered in their communication. 

You want to end the 2-8 hour-long conversations that go until 4 a.m.? Encourage your spouse to say exactly what is on their mind, and don’t take any offense. Most conversations endure endlessly and painfully because you are constantly managing the other person's emotions, in addition to your own.

5. Stop trying to understand

No, you don't need to understand or ensure the other understands. It's a form of controlling behavior to demand understanding. You can't understand. There is no way I can ever understand everything my wife feels and experiences. One of the most comforting and loving things my wife has said to me is, "I don't understand but I love you." It caught me off guard. I stopped talking and felt a closeness I wasn't expecting to feel. It was a trusting and loving response. I also felt safe and adored.

Often, we try to get the other person to understand us so we don't have to explain anymore, so they will do what we want them to do. We should trust our spouse's needs, convictions and desires.

6. Improve communication

Communication IS important; it's just not the reason. We would do well to constantly strive to improve in our communication, finding more healthy and meaningful ways to express and receive love. Because I am confident in myself, I know who I am. My wife can have a bad day, yell, get upset, feel disappointment, need time alone, and I am not negatively affected. Having this self-worth and not being negatively affected allows me to speak her language, naturally and sincerely.

Your Writing Sucks

I attract grammar Nazis like moths to a fire. I have been accused of abusing my positions in the church to publicize my ideas, I have been accused of misleading others from the prophets, I have been accused teaching false doctrine, and I have been criticized for my desire to write a book on marriage. People have been hurt and offended at what I have written.

I suck at writing. But I love it. I am not looking for sympathy, complaining or giving any excuses. I have a love hate relationship with writing. I have never pretended to be a great writer. I recognize that my struggles with writing often get in the way of what I am communicating. I leave words out of sentences, I abuse grammar and I almost never punctuate, at least correctly. At a very early age I was diagnosed with a pretty significant case of dyslexia (and probably and undiagnosed case of ADHD), reading and writing hurt my head. Reading was confusing. I remember clearly, as early as first grade when fellow students would share from our reading assignments. The information they gleaned was so different from what I read. I couldn’t identify emotions in reading, connect inferences and would read a page over and over and over again and get nothing from it. It was like alphabet soup. It was so bad; I had a third grade teacher question me why I was reading a Hardy Boy book? Instead of encouraging it, she said I was unable to read it. I remember her actually saying I was too stupid to read that book. But that seemed so harsh I often wonder if that is what I felt, not what she said. Surprisingly, throughout my schooling I got similar responses and criticisms from teachers. Maybe because they didn’t understand or they thought I was a goof-off. To their credit, I was a goof-off, it was a coping mechanism.

One of the constant criticisms and reprimands I got was, “if you only proof read what you wrote you wouldn’t have any mistakes”. This was so painful to hear was because I did proof read multiple times, often 10 times or more. It made me feel stupid, after all that work to be told I didn’t do it. I learned quickly to not say, “but I did proof read”, because I would be accused of lying and being flippant. Another criticism I got when I misspelled words was, “why didn’t you just look up the word?” There are at least three problems with this statement. One, this was before the time of spell check. There was no handy dandy red or green line under the words to indicated misspellings and grammar issues. I could not identify misspelled words, no matter how many times I proof read. I understand this is difficult for many of you to understand. I read what I was thinking something said, not what was actually written. Second, even if I knew a word was misspelled, how would I look it up? It didn’t exist in the dictionary. Remember, this is in the days before google! If I thought cat was spelled kat. How exactly would one go about looking that up in a dictionary? I spent hours looking for words that didn’t exist, never realizing I was in the completely wrong section of the dictionary. Third, to spell check my work; because I couldn’t identify which words were misspelled, I literally checked every word. That was painful.

Even today, with google, spell-check and all the technology we have to help improve writing. I still struggle, it’s not about the technology, it’s about what’s in my head. This is not for a lack of trying. As you might be able to imagine, because of my weakness in writing, it is one of the most vulnerable things for me to do. I am confident at speaking but when it comes to writing my thoughts, I am fully aware of my inability to effectively and accurately express my thoughts. Interestingly though, it is very cathartic for me. I learn best when I write out my thoughts. It helps me see things as they really are, see my flaws in thinking and strengthen my understanding in those things that are accurate. I am willing to put this weakness on the altar and make it stronger. With this vulnerability, I welcome others thoughts, I willingly open myself to questioning and whether it makes sense to others or not. This is my process for learning. Nonetheless, I have been a little surprised at the feedback I have gotten from my readers. I attract grammar Nazis like moths to a fire. I have been accused of abusing my positions in the church to publicize my ideas, I have been accused of misleading others from the prophets, I have been accused teaching false doctrine, and I have been criticized for my desire to write a book on marriage. People have been hurt and offended at what I have written.

I guess the negative feedback was expected. But I was surprised at who provided the negative feedback, which has made it most difficult. Those who have known me for most of my life or who are more than just casual friends. Those who, I would have hoped knew that I have an unshakable testimony of Jesus Christ and have no desire to mislead anyone. But have an overwhelming desire to bring my readers closer to their Father in Heaven. I never desire to offend anyone. I love the gospel with a profound commitment and desire to follow Christ. Often I feel like Peter in my sincere desire to honor my Savior, I might naively refuses a foot washing but eagerly receive correction and request to be washed all over. It’s hard enough when strangers accuse you of misdeeds and personally attack; it’s another when those you respect do it. It is always surprising to me; those who profess optimism and kindness are those who seem to first attack. If it’s not an attack it’s an assumption that you are intending to mislead. They don’t seek clarification; they accuse, assume and judge. There is NO edifying of one another. But prompt defensiveness to just “agree to disagree”.

Why do I write? In 9th grade I received an odd compliment from a teacher who taught me how to see things as they really are. On two separate occasions with two different teachers and assignments, I had written a fictional story. Both teachers spoke with me personally and passionately and told me what a profoundly imaginative and vivid story teller I was. They both said these two separate stories were “brilliant!” One even said he was confident I would be a published author one day. They both also, informed me that I had much to work on in the way of cleaning up my writing skills. It wasn’t threating and it wasn’t embarrassing. They were honest and sincere. They saw my potential and they were not put off by the weakness. They desired to edify. They help me realize I enjoy writing and I didn’t have to be discouraged. I began to write, I wrote a lot. Kept a journal, wrote poems, songs and stories. But I never shared them. I didn’t have the courage to share them.

Even now that I have the courage to share, it’s still difficult. My wife is very encouraging and supportive; she smiles and says, “you just need a good editor.” She has spent many hours out of her busy schedule refining my writings. Nonetheless, there are times she is not available or I think its “good enough”. But even when my writings are cleaned up, I am opening myself to criticism over the content. I don’t get offended when I hear the criticisms but I respect those who reach out and seek clarification. They trust my intent and even asked to help. One such person did this recently; she was like those teachers in 9th grade. She reached out, “I love reading your blog posts, so I hope you take what I’m about to offer in the spirit in which I intend it and that is that I’d like to see your writings reach and affect more people and that you become a successful blogger and writer. With that, I’d like to offer my editing help…” Wow! What a difference, what a wonderful reprieve from the short sided offense unforgiving readers take. An opportunity to lift, edify and understand.

I value good written language and admire those who are capable of articulating their thoughts well in writing. But until I have mastered this weakness I encourage others to seek the heart of the message, seek clarification and edification. I am quick to correct errors when the spirit has identified it’s as such. Reflect on your own response, is it driven by fear, duty or love?

• Perfect love casteth out fear:Moro. 8:16; ( 1 Jn. 4:18; )

• Love qualifies men for God’s work:D&C 4:5; ( D&C 12:8; )

• Show an increase of love to those whom you correct or reprove:D&C 121:43;

P.S. errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation, incomplete thoughts and sentences were intentionally not edited out. 

Repost On Modesty

“[Modesty] is a condition of the heart. It is an outward manifestation of an inner knowledge and commitment. It is an expression that we understand our identity as daughters of God.” —Elaine S. Dalton (Young Women General President, 2008-2013)

The "For Strength of Youth" pamphlet that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has provided is an excellent resource and provides guidelines for dress and conduct. However, as a church member, I have wondered about how we teach these guidelines and our interpretations of them. As I do in my life with everything I read, I trust in the words of James 1:5. I ask, "But what does that really mean?" What was the intent and meaning? And what is God’s desire for us to learn from His teachings? Therefore, I have been asking myself for awhile now about the meaning of and teaching of modesty.

I have been discovering insights over the last few months, and today I came across a scriptural-based article that perfectly pulled my thoughts together on modesty. I was so impressed with a recent article by Rachel Held Evans that any addition to the topic I believe would dilute her points. Modesty is a topic I have been researching for some time now and desired to provide a scripture-guided context to the subject. But Rachel Held Evans in "Modesty: I Don't Think it Means What You Think it Means" did a much better job than I could; therefore, I provide you with some of my favorite comments from the article and a link back to her original post. The entire article is brilliant, and I struggle to choose my favorite comment. The following four quotes, I believe, give a good synopsis of the message.

1. "In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, the apostle Paul writes “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.” The Greek word translated “modesty” here is kosmios. Derived from kosmos (the universe), it signifies orderliness, self-control and appropriateness. It appears only twice in the New Testament, and interestingly, its second usage refers specifically to men (1 Timothy 3:2). In fact, nearly all of the Bible’s instructions regarding modest clothing refer not to sexuality, but rather materialism (Isaiah 3:16-23, 1 Timothy 2:9-12, 1 Peter 3:3). Writers in both the Old Testament and New Testament express grave concern when the people of God flaunt their wealth by buying expensive clothes and jewelry while many of their neighbors suffered in poverty. (Ironically, I’ve heard dozens of sermons about keeping my legs and my cleavage out of sight, but not one about ensuring my jewelry was not acquired through unjust or exploitative trade practices—which would be much more in keeping with biblical teachings on modesty."

2. "And so biblical modesty isn’t about managing the sexual impulses of other people; it’s about cultivating humility, propriety and deference within ourselves"

3. "Notice Jesus doesn’t say, “everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart, so ladies, be sure to dress more modestly.” Instead he says to the men, “if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away”! The IVP New Testament Commentary notes that at the time, “Jewish men expected married Jewish women to wear head coverings to prevent lust. Jewish writers often warned of women as dangerous because they could invite lust (as in Sirach 25:21; Ps. Sol. 16:7-8), but Jesus placed the responsibility for lust on the person doing the lusting.”

4. "But our bodies are not something to be overcome; they are not dirty or shameful or inherently tempting. They are a beautiful part of what it means to be created in the image of God. These are the bodies that allow us to be the hands and feet of Jesus in the world, the bodies that feel sun on our skin and sand between our toes, the bodies that nurse babies and cry with friends, the bodies that emerge from the waters of baptism and feast on the bread of communion. They are beautiful, and they are good."

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.