Jealousy And Social Media
Anonymous Question Series:
Q: My husband gets jealous about Facebook likes, emojis, and comments I get from other men who are just friends. How do you recommend dealing with such situations?
A: The quick answer: Recognize your husband’s jealousy is rooted in fears and insecurities and avoid taking responsibility for his emotions.
Jealousy is a toxic form of control and is never a healthy or appropriate response. While it is important to respect and love your spouse, to hear out their concerns, you never should take responsibility for his emotional immaturity — his jealousy. What I mean by this last comment is that you should never feel you have to change because your spouse guilts you, scares you, or uses logic to convince you to change. Even in the case of emotional or physical infidelity, jealously is toxic and not healthy.
It is natural to experience hurt, pain, sadness, maybe even a little jealousy, but jealousy is a manifestation of other serious emotional issues. Gwendolyn Seidman, Ph.D., addressed these mental health issues well in her article "What's Really Behind Jealousy, and What to Do About It".
Research has linked several traits to jealousy:
Low self-esteem
Neuroticism: a general tendency to be moody, anxious and emotionally unstable
Feelings of insecurity and possessiveness
Dependence on your partner (Codependency)
Feelings of inadequacy in your relationship
An anxious attachment style
Take courage in your integrity. You get to be you! Some married individuals require or expect their spouses to "unfriend" old friends of the opposite sex and past boyfriends/girlfriends and share social media and emails. This is inappropriate. Some people agree to do this because it seems to make logical sense, and they see it as a form of "honoring" their spouse. So, they agree to go along with it. Sure, absolutely, if you personally decide it's best for you to avoid interacting with others of the opposite sex, you get to make that decision. But it is not loving nor healthy of your spouse to make you feel obligated to comply.
Elder Holland made it clear that this immature jealousy and tantrum is not appropriate (refer to my post: Marital Myth of Communication):
"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." —Jeffery R. Holland, How Do I Love Thee?
Respond with love and boundaries, don't lose who you are, have fun and be you. It's not easy, but he needs to learn how to be an adult and a loving companion. You can't force him, but you can take comfort in knowing you get to be you.
One final thought. If he is making such an issue over "likes" that you feel it had to be addressed with me, I am going to assume this behavior is not limited to social media. I would encourage you to read and become familiar with emotional blackmail.
Additional Resources:
Here is a summary of the book: "Emotional Blackmail" patterns
Find the full book here: Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You
Emotional Blackmail website: Out of the F.O.G.
Self-Assessment of Emotional Abuse: Emotional Abuse
You Are Probably A Mormon Fundamentalist
Have you ever said something like, "I believe all the words of the Prophet." Or, "No matter what the Prophet says, I will do it or I will believe it." Or have you dismissed uncomfortable ideas or unfamiliar concepts from sound, faithful scholarship and defaulted to a comment similar to, "The Prophet is silent on this; therefore, I don't need to know." Or even made a general statement of, "Always side with the Prophet in intellectual and spiritual matters."
If you have, you are most-likely a Mormon Fundamentalist. Interestingly, by making comments or believing this way you are in fact NOT believing the words of the Prophet. Elder Harold B. Lee in quoting Brigham Young said the following:
“‘I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are being led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders if they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus Christ that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the way the Lord dictates or not.’
To me, there is a tremendous truth. It is not alone sufficient for us as Latter-day Saints to follow our leaders and to accept their counsel, but we have the greater obligation to gain for ourselves the unshakable testimony of [1] the divine appointment of these men and [2] the witness that what they have told us is the will of our Heavenly Father.” —Quoted by Elder Harold B. Lee of the Quorum of the Twelve in Teachings of the Living Prophets (p. 47; Conference Report, Oct. 1950, pp. 129-130)
I've seen this happen too many times: men and women of profound faith attacked, condemned, judged and called to repentance for solid scholarship and sincere questions. Although I don't consider myself a scholar, I have also been on the receiving end of those who've been rebuked for doctrinal exploration. But I have also repeatedly seen brilliant individuals who are established scholars — whom the apostles refer to on their specialties — called out and condemned by Mormon fundamentalists. (Take for example Daniel A. Petersen, who was rebuked for not following the manual, of which he was the author/contributor.)
Because the scholars’ perspectives don't fit within narrow fundamentalist views, the fundamentalists feel they have to proclaim the prophetic view, as opposed to faithfully seeking out truth.
What prompted this post was this exact exchange with one such scholar on Facebook:
Today's encounter with unthinking LDS (non-polygamous) fundamentalism, directed at me.
"Wow. I cannot believe they are letting you teach the youth. Brother ---, all I can say to you is I wish you well. I will believe the words that come out of the Prophet's mouth. I am one who would wear purple socks every Thursday if that is what he says to do. You can cite non-LDS sources. I'll stick to the church approved. My salvation isn't worth dabbling in the philosophies of men. Have a great life."
FWIW, I wasn't citing non-LDS sources or doing any of these other things, but this kind of worldview is very fragile and easily threatened.
In his insightful, faith-saving/-strengthening book "Shaken Faith Syndrome," Michael Ash addresses this rigid perspective of fundamentalism:
"Having interacted — for over two decades — with people whose testimonies have been weakened or destroyed by something they have ‘discovered’ about the Church, I have generally found that those who are prone to fundamentalist ideology about certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical events, are more likely to apostatize when they encounter challenging issues.
I use the term 'fundamentalist' in a way that may differ from other usages of the term. In LDS circles, for instance, the term 'fundamentalist' commonly denotes those who still practice polygamy. This is not how the term is used in this book.
Among many Christians, the term generally refers to conservative evangelicals who actively affirm what they see as fundamental Christian beliefs such as an inerrant Bible, which is literally interpreted and historically accurate despite any conflicting claims from science and modern scholarship. By association, the term 'fundamentalist' is also used to describe all those (of various religious beliefs) who take a very ridged, dogmatic, uncompromising, and unchanging approach to their ideologies (or belief systems). This definition more accurately depicts the way the term is used ..." (pg. 5)
Elder Hugh B. Brown in his book, “An Abundant Life” said the following:
“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should of course respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression … This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences. We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it.
With respect to people feeling that whatever the brethren say is gospel, this tends to undermine the proposition of freedom of speech and thought. As members of the church we are bound to sustain and support the brethren in the positions they occupy so long as their conduct entitles them to that. But we also have only to defend those doctrines of the church contained in the four standard works — the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Anything beyond that by anyone is his or her own opinion and not scripture. Although there are certain statements that whatever the brethren say becomes the word of God, this is a dangerous practice to apply to all leaders and all cases. The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted to the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church.
I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis — perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation — of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people.
And while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within." —Hugh B. Brown, A Final Testimony
Furthermore, Michael Ash points out the logical fallacy in clinging to prophet’s words.
"And why should we follow their counsel if they might be wrong?
The truth is that we already pick and choose when we follow the words of the prophets. We also pick and choose the counsel we follow from the scriptures, our boss, the law, health professionals, our parents, spouses, etc. Since we are not perfect and not robots, it always comes down to personal choice ..." (pg. 33)
We are commanded to seek further truth, to study from all good books, to even question concepts, traditions and doctrines. It is the very purpose of our agency; it is what builds our faith and testimony. Not questioning/exploring is a lack of faith.
One scholar, Ben Spackman, has posted these insightful words to his social media of Eugene England, quoting B.H. Roberts:
"I believe 'Mormonism' affords opportunity … for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development ... The disciples of ‘Mormonism,’ growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; cooperating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truths received a more forceful expression, and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of its development.”
England then comments,
"President Roberts, of course, is not suggesting that the intellectual's task is to create new doctrine, but rather to take revealed doctrine and give it new formulations that will relate to the changing world we live in, that will enable us, for instance, to more effectively criticize our flawed social, political, artistic and intellectual environment by using the great germ-truths of the gospel." Dialogue 9:4 (Winter 1974), 47
I encourage you to seek out truth from all sources, to engage in meaningful dialog, to apply faith in your curiosity versus running to "safety" under a Prophetic blanket. We need more Saints who are well informed and can, as it says in Peter, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear [faith]." (1 Peter 3:15)
__________________________
Additional Supporting Quotes:
Encouraging all to read, study, research and learn, apostle Charles W. Penrose (who would later serve as counselor to President Smith) declared,
“President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)
“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God … would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593–95)
Brigham Young said:
“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)
“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)
“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied …Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)
“Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the nfluences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will NEVER be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, [Gordon] or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory,immortality, and eternal lives; never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)
“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: ‘If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing … the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.’] … said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves …” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)
George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone.” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in GospelTruth, 1:319)
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.
“Thank You” Doesn't Quite Do It
"Building a celestial marriage. The scriptures give an occasional glimpse into societies in which people “were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them” (Moses 7:18), where “there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” (4 Ne. 1:15.)" —Spencer J. Condie, And We Did Liken the Scriptures unto Our Marriage
“Thank you” doesn't communicate the profound appreciation I have for my wife. It seems too trite. In no way does it express the joy, all-accepting love and adoration I feel from my wife and what she has provided for me. Nor does it fully express the appreciation I have for her Christ-like example and courageous endurance, with which she not only accepted, but full-heartedly committed to supporting me in my Master’s program. To convey even slightly the miracle and blessing this has been, I must share briefly how we got to this point.
When I was thirteen I knew what I wanted to do for the rest of my life, I wanted to be a psychotherapist. It’s an unusual story—after all, what kid knows they want to be a therapist? A firefighter, astronaut, race car driver, a professional skateboarder, surfer, sure. But a therapist? I felt I might have been the only one ever, in the history of the world. Although I didn’t know such a career existed or the vocabulary to describe my passion at the time, I was fascinated by human behavior. My stargazing was people watching. I got just as much awe and sense of magnificence from viewing the human experience as looking into a clear star-filled night. It wasn’t until I found an “Intro to Psychology” college textbook a couple years later that I realized it was a career and entire field of study. I took that textbook everywhere and devoured it. When in high school I was reading Jung, Fraud, Maslow and Rodgers. I was bored with fiction and thought it was a waste of time. I wanted more; I wanted to understand why people do what they do, what made them tick, both the emotional and logical.
I couldn't wait to get out of high school; it felt like a wasteful distraction. Finally in college, I took as many classes as possible in the field of psychology. It came naturally and with little effort. I remember Dr. Mark Chamberlain’s (an individual I greatly admire) occasional surprised look when I would respond in class. One such experience came when in the first week of class he was addressing various topics that were going to be covered in the coming months. He began to briefly address the issue with cancer patients and their aversion to food during chemo. I asked if he was referring to the “Garcia Effect.” His look was both of surprise and joy to hear his new freshman’s passion for the topic.
Ironically, my very passion and joy in understanding human relationships was most challenged in my first marriage. My dear bride, my love, my friend, struggled with my decision to become a therapist. Additionally, she had put her education on hold to get married. It wasn't clear to me at the time why there was such an opposition to my career choice. Nonetheless, I desired to be one with her and support her in her education. I made the very difficult decision to postpone indefinitely, my therapist career path.
The next thirteen years were filled with great memories and equally difficult memories. In no way do I regret or resent those thirteen years. If anything, I learned more about human relationships than any class would have provided. I learned how to love unconditionally, forgive, be forgiven, have courage, trust, and how to be an individual in a marriage. I also learned how to see the heart of another who is struggling — see them not as their pain or struggle but for who they are as a person, a human, a child of God. The marriage ended, but some time later, I met Julie.
On June 8, 2012, we married in storybook fashion. If anyone tells you there is no such thing, stop them with a dramatic pause and confidently assure them that is not true and show them this video. (I must add, after the events in the video, she climbed up on the roof at 11 p.m. and shouted from the rooftop that she was getting married.) Storybook marriages are real. Period.
It was Julie’s loving prompting that encouraged me back onto the path to becoming a therapist. This was not a rash decision; it was thought about long and hard. You see, it wasn't just a dream come true marriage between to people. This blessing included five children, three daughters from her and two sons from me — in addition to two ex-spouses. Adjusting to a "normal" life would have been difficult enough. But going to school again would require me to be absent from home for long periods of time. With a full-time job, full-time schooling and eventually a full load of clients, it was rare for me to be home. In the last year of the 2.5 years schooling, we were routinely waking up at 4:30 a.m. and retiring at 10 or 11 p.m. at night. We often joked that we saw each other more during our courtship when she lived in Utah and I in California.
Now after almost three years of marriage, I have finished my Master’s in Marriage and Family Therapy. Her love and support wasn't limited to encouraging me to achieve my dreams; she made them her own, too. It became our dream. This was not my goal. It was ours. She would sometimes even say, “We are getting our master’s degree.” This was not just getting through a difficult time; it was becoming one with each other. Loving the process as Elder Maxwell has said, one is not only to endure, but to endure well and gracefully those things which the Lord “seeth fit to inflict upon [us].”
We read in Mosiah about how the Lord simultaneously tries the patience of His people even as He tries their faith (Mosiah 23:21). One is not only to endure, but to endure well and gracefully those things which the Lord “seeth fit to inflict upon [us]” (Mosiah 3:19), just as did a group of ancient American saints who were bearing unusual burdens but who submitted “cheerfully and with patience to all the will of the Lord” (Mosiah 24:15). —Elder Maxwell, Patience
Julie, my love exemplifies the meaning of Elder Maxwell's words.
Additionally, in these three years she has sent two daughters off to college, one on a mission, put two boys through the Cub Scout program, remodeled our home, started a new career, and jumped feet-first into a new business venture. She found daily ways to bring our family closer to Christ. We valued our 5 a.m. "dates" at the gym, long hours of editing papers, and many insightful heart-to-heart conversations.
In every way, she has been that best friend, completely adoring partner in life. We are deeper and more in love now than ever before. This is my feeble attempt at expressing my deep and ever-grateful love and gratitude for all you have done. Thank you.
![A [Not So] Better Way To Say Sorry](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5b33ba61da02bc1d5aa1f1ea/1612982754794-SA0X1JLFAJ3NYQN1FYVC/image-asset.jpeg)
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.
#ShareGoodness
"We have been and are blessed in so many ways; and where much is given, much is required. As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I invoke this blessing upon you: that you may come to understand more fully the spiritual significance and blessing of living in the dispensation of the fulness of times, that you may have eyes to see clearly both the possibilities and the pitfalls of the remarkable technologies that are available to us today, that you may increase in your capacity to use these inspired tools appropriately, and that you may receive inspiration and guidance about the role you should play in helping to sweep the earth as with a flood of truth and righteousness. As you press forward in this holy work, I promise you will be blessed in mortality in the individual, specific, and necessary ways that will prepare you for eternity. I so bless you." —Elder David A. Bednar
#ShareGoodness
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.