A recent discussion at By Common Consent about the role of public affairs, and whether church members are permitted to disagree with the Newsroom [1] led to the following comment by Nate Oman:
I do, however, think that the Bloggernacle at times mistakes arrogance, cynicism, and posturing for intellectual insight, moral nuance, and righteous indignation. That happens at T&S, it happens at BCC, and elsewhere it happens with even greater frequency. I think that our covenant relationship with the Church is like a marriage. It rests in very large part on habits of affection and loyalty, habits that can be eroded by mental and conversational habits in which we dissect the beloved’s shortcomings with others. I assume that it would be dangerous for my marriage if I was to spend a lot of time kibitzing online with my friends about my wife’s failings. Now, I think that marriage is ONLY an analogy to the covenant relationship with the Church, and hence I think that there are lots of conversations about the Church and its failings that are quite appropriate and would be harmful in the context of a marriage. Still, I think that it is ridiculous to suppose that our public discussions of Mormonism have no impact on our emotional and spiritual habits, or that such habits are not very close to the heart of what it means to faithfully keep our covenants.
This is an analogy that has been used a lot with regard to how people handle church. Some view the church as a flawed but ultimately supportive partner, while others see the church as an abusive spouse. Jesus referred to the church as his bride, also pointing to a covenant relationship. Either way, the analogy bears more scrutiny, and like many parables, yields the most valuable insight when we look at our own behavior rather than that of others. Nate’s version of the analogy is worth exploring, particularly in that it is consistent with E. Oaks’ remarks on criticism.
I think he’s right in part. I love his choice of phrase “habits of affection & loyalty.” Certainly if we spend the majority of our time focusing on our partner’s flaws, we will ultimately feel cheated and entitled to a better relationship. For example, if I go to my kitchen and see my husband’s dishes not done, just left out on the table, as if a servant is going to take them to the sink and wash them, I may feel a twinge of resentment. I can wash the dish. I can express my discontent. I can leave it there. I can be passive-aggressive and stew over it. I can humbly remember that although he didn’t wash his dish, he did spend an hour fixing the leaky air conditioner in the hot attic without any help from me. Marriages are full of give and take, and when I take a broad view, we each contribute plenty.
According to studies, there are 4 things that predict divorce, and maybe there’s a church counterpart to these:
- Contempt. This goes beyond negativity and criticism to seeing yourself as superior. In a marriage, this might be thinking “I could have done better,” or “I can do better.” In one’s relationship with the church, it might be when a person feels morally superior to the church, feeling smarter than, better than or more sensitive than the church. The reason this is bad is because you quit contributing and being sensitive to the needs of your partner when you think they are inferior.
- Criticism. This goes beyond observing someone’s flaws and turning that into a statement on their character. What kind of person doesn’t wash his own dish? A slob. What kind of person doesn’t help repair the air conditioner? A selfish person.
- Defensiveness. This relates to one’s willingness to shoulder any of the blame in the relationship. Do you frequently see yourself as the powerless victim or do you consider how your actions and reactions have contributed to the relationship?
- Stonewalling. This is refusing to engage in a dialogue about issues. There are many who would say the church does this by not brooking any criticism, and yet, the church does seem to be engaging with criticism in some of the topics that are being addressed. It’s difficult to draw a comparison to church
First of all, it seems this goes both ways. If the church criticizes and shows contempt for gay people or stonewalls legitimate concerns of women, that’s also a predictor of “divorce.” I was also reminded of the old adage that you should enter marriage with both eyes open and after that keep them only half-open.
But here’s where the marriage analogy falls apart for me a little bit. There seems to be a difference between the institutional church and one’s local ward. If so, it seems that the local ward experience trumps the institutional church, for good or bad. If my ward is like my spouse, then maybe the institutional church is more like my in-laws or my spouse’s friends. If my local ward is mostly welcoming and empathetic, full of friendly faces, mingled with occasional idiotic Fox News comments, but really there for me consistently when it matters, then just maybe that outweighs the institutional church which is more theoretical and less a lived experience. I can take this pragmatic view since I don’t work for the church or attend a church school.
Going back to the four predictors, if I evaluate my own perspective, here’s where I feel I shake out.
- Contempt. I’m probably 50/50 on this one. On a bad day, it’s easy to feel superior when I hear some of the incredibly stupid things people say and believe. On a good day, I see that there is also a lot of good heartedness mingled with the idiotic, and we go to church to explore how to live our Christianity, not to hear smart people say wise things. I can watch TED Talks for that.
- Criticism. I do a bit better on this one, in particular within my own ward. These are people truly worth admiring. They care about us and our kids. They are good neighbors as well as being good examples. Church leaders in the highest ranks, who knows? I don’t know any of them well enough to form a negative opinion on their character, although I do see flaws in things that are said. I assume that like most people of their generation, they are slightly racist, homophobic and sexist. I don’t expect them to rise above their entire generation. I’m sure future generations will see me as a product of my time also.
- Defensiveness. I do pretty well at avoiding this one, mostly because I really hate “victim” talk.
- Stonewalling. Generally speaking, this one doesn’t seem to fit as blogging isn’t a two-way dialogue. Nobody asked me. Ultimately, nobody cares what I think. That’s the nature of the beast. Que sera, sera.
Let me ask each of you the same questions about your habits of affection & loyalty with the church, locally and institutionally.
[poll id=”517″]
[poll id=”518″]
[poll id=”519″]
[poll id=”520″]
[poll id=”521″]
Discuss.
[1] According to the Newsroom, no.
Wheat & Tares 
The marriage analogy doesn’t sit well with me at all, institutionally or locally. Unlike my actual marriage, my relationship to the church is nothing even approaching an equal partnership. The relationship between me and my wife is complementary; where one of us has a weakness, usually the other has a strength, so we recognize this and work together and accomplish great things. When either of us fails, we pick each other up. Over the years, we have come to fully rely on each other.
The power differential between me and the church is anything but complementary. I contribute substantial amounts of time, energy and money, and get very little in return. I have almost no connection to the institutional church (their idea, not mine), and my bishop is usually to busy to listen to my concerns, or else has no power himself to change anything.
While I “depend” on the church to be the delivery mechanism of the gospel and the broker of my salvation, I am confident the church would be able move forward just fine without me. Church policies and practices make it abundantly clear that members are expendable and replaceable. If I were to treat my wife that way, that would be the end of my marriage.
The most accurate term for describing my relationship with the church: it’s complicated.
Marriages require flexibility to happily endure. The LDS church thinks its projected inflexibility is one of its greatest strengths, a sign of its divinity.
The marriage analogy has some parallels but falls far short of being a healthy example. It is a dysfunctional one down marriage with a controlling superior partner in which you are subjugated to (often blind and rote) obedience and where credit for everything good that happens to you is accrued to your obedience to this controlling partner who pretends to be representing (a non-controlling) Jesus Christ!
The church is an authoritative institution. My marriage (fortunately) operates on different principles.
I just simply reflect on it this way (without poll questions or studies, but my own experiences)
The world is made up of all kinds of people, each unique in the eyes of God. the ones I see at Church are doing their best, for the most part, to live the life they understand the Savior desires of them. But they are not perfect, so they mess up.
When I first joined the Church, I thought people were unanimously united in a common set of beliefs. For the most part, that is true. But people also hold differing views on a wide range of areas based on a variety of factors. I came to understand this. And while I may not agree, I try not to condemn them for it.
The Church (as in the corporate Church) is an institution and as such, is subject to all of the positives and negatives that are part of most institutions. Because the people who run them are imperfect, even the leaders. While one hopes not to find the out and out politics, greediness and backstabbing that goes on in commercial institutions, there are negatives within the corporate Church, even down to the local level.
I try to be charitable and give folks the benefit of the doubt because, for the most part, their motives are honorable, even when their words and actions are not.
The rest I ignore.
I had a hard time being able to answer any of the questions; for me everything is a mixed bag both institutional church and local Rexburg members in my life. There are some parts of both that I need and love, and some parts of both that reject me for who I am.
I don’t foresee myself ever leaving the church – the worst I see happening is that everything about my care and love for the church dies inside so I can continue to zombie my way through it. That scares me, but has already started happening to a point–I’ve created emotional distance between me and the church to protect myself. It’s a tool I use to access the Gospel of Jesus Christ. full stop.
Seeing that I’m still new to my ward <a year I'm sure there are parts I'll love and despise. Sigh, im always in the middle trying to give both sides a little forgiveness – but push a little for better; just like I do of myself.
If I didn’t feel criticized by the Church, I wouldn’t think it was doing its job.
While I sometimes may object to the tone, I have found that almost without exception, the explicit positions of the General Authorities in General Conference conform to my understanding of the scriptures.
In seventy-one years, I have had one major disagreement with a Stake President, one major disagreement with a Bishop, and one major disagreement with a Temple Matron. In all three cases, within two weeks, the General Authorities issued a public clarification that took my side. (In one case, the very next day.) I had not asked for one.
How my local ward treats me is pretty much irrelevant, but then I am awfully thick-skinned, and a terrible misanthropist.
I think the marriage analogy worked better in Jesus’ time. Marriage was a different animal back then with the bride being seen as not a separate person once the marriage has happened. At this point they are wholly subsumed by and completely dependent on the bridegroom. That is not the way I view marriage so it’s hard for me to see the value in the analogy.
I see my relationship with the church as more parent/ child. It starts out with a blind trust in the church that has always taken care of me. This is often followed by a rebellious phase on the part of the child once they realize the parent isn’t perfect. Then, in a healthy parent/child relationship, the child comes to terms with the parents’ imperfections and still loves them and takes care of them but no longer blindly obeys. Instead the child takes the parents advice as wise counsel from someone with more life experience but not someone who can do no wrong.
It’s well to identify the negative behavioral traits that contribute to the destruction of a marriage and see how they might relate as well to a member’s feelings towards the Church. Trouble is, the analogy seriously breaks down due to the distinct difference: a marriage is SUPPOSED to be one-on-one (indeed, where others get involved the marriage itself is in serious trouble), whereas an individual member relates on two types of levels: (1) with his/her fellow Saints, and (2) the Church as a corporate entity. The latter (no pun intended) most members have a rather nebulous part in save they’re either in a high calling (Bishop on up) or are employed by the Church.
Seeing the Church as a RESOURCE rather than a human, corporate analogue might actually be easier for many. Works for me, as what gets my name on the rolls of the ‘organization’ that REALLY matters, the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev 13:8) is mine own personal relationship with the Savior…and that cannot be imposed by mere membership or ostensible participation in the LDS Church.
The only way the marriage analogy works is if it is an abusive one.
Maybe it’s a polygynous marriage? One where the man holds all the authority and controls all the resources, and the wives are dependent/submissive. If a wife chooses to leave, no biggie. Plenty of others to take her place. The man needs nothing from the wives, as he is their lord and savior (e.g. Brigham Young). They are liabilities, not assets.
The word “abuse” is a much abused word. Maybe ancient leaders used the bride/groom marriage analogy because it does evoke such powerful emotions. However, even the Lord uses the marriage analogy throughout the scriptures. I trust His analogy more than I do others being bandied about. I think the church’s relationship to its members is pretty straightforward. From Handbook 2, see 1.1.5 and 1.4. I think we make this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Marriage is a give-and-take relationship, and in the LDS Church, the power flows only one way. The Church(tm) and the members are not “equal partners” That’s why it’s called the “Kingdom of God.”
We don’t elect the King. We don’t get to choose the laws of the Kingdom. We can enjoy the benefits provided by the King and his administrators, or we can leave.
In today’s modern world, monarchy isn’t seen as cool or enlightened, but it’s the best analogy there is, IMO.
#12 (IDIAT) wrote: “The word “abuse” is a much abused word”.
NO KIDDING. I even see it as a common complaint on some of these ‘escaping polygamy’ or similar shows. Might their allegations of abuse and cruelty be true? Certainly, but in the forum presented, they’re not making any pretense of giving ‘both sides’ a fair argument. I’d rather see harder evidence, like divorce and/or child custody proceedings (much of the latter is thankfully kept private) or police reports and criminal court records. Those I give more credence than some aggrieved ex-spouse’s complaints.
I take a similar view of “ex”-LDS who rag on the Church and its members. Evidence, not anecdotes, is what sways this old sailor.
Marriage is not exactly equal. Women covenant to defer to men’s judgment, so long as it is in alignment with God. Men are to care for and protect their wives. That arrangement has fallen out of fashion, but it is still the model upon which the analogy is built.
There is a great deal to be learned from that about our relationship with the Church, and Christ’s with us. I tend to try to mine analogies for value, rather than find the inevitable points where they break down.
SilverRain: That language is unfamiliar to me. However, among other things, women do covenant to counsel with their husbands in righteousness, and to obey the “Law of the Lord”.
One of men’s responsibilities is described in this way:
“Every man who is obliged to provide for his own family, let him provide… and let him labor in the church.” — Doctrine & Covenants 76:28
The article by Bruce Hafen in the Ensign says the ideal relationship between women, and society (men) was achieved about 1960. At that time police considered rape, and violence within marriage to be private and none of their business. Sexual abuse in the workplace and world were not dealt with except to blame the victim.
This is in the official magazine of the church. This is more like the relationship I have had with the church recently.
#15 – SilverRain wrote: “Marriage is not exactly equal”. IDK what would satisfy your definition of ‘equality’, Rain. Methinks it’s sort of like what our fellow poster, VinzClotho, would say about “Gozer the Gazerian”…e.g., “it’s whatever it wants to be”. That is, the husband and wife, even with all the ‘guidelines’ (as the Pirate Hector Barbosa would define), will fairly much negotiate between themselves what works. As long as they are freely negotiating, no problem. Wherein does a problem often come in? Enough that the Prophet expressed the lament about unrighteous dominion in D&C 121:39, and ‘sad experience’ shows that all too many PH holders were unrighteous in their ‘authority, as they supposed’. Doesn’t make it what the Savior intended, though.
The best way to analogize Christ and the Church as His “bride’ is that He gave His very Life for it. By paying the price for the sins of all that would repent and come unto him (D&C 19:16-19), He’s paid for the ‘marriage’ with His blood. Is any man willing to make a similar sacrifice, not simply of his literal blood, but to LIVE to serve his wife and family, to protect them and provide to the best of his abilities? That’s where I feel that the analogy is best applied.
Geoff, that’s horrifying. Unfortunately, the fact checkers seem to be Fox News shills lately.
Speaking of fact checks, you might want Geoff-Aus to provide the quote by Hafen in the Ensign, giving its full context. Hafen’s article in the August 2015 Ensign doesn’t come close to approaching the claim he made in his comment.
I’ll take IDIAT at his word. To wit, here are some excerpts from Hafen’s article:
“Beginning in the 1960s, the civil rights movement spawned new legal theories about equality, individual rights, and liberation. These ideas helped the United States begin to overcome its embarrassing history of racial discrimination. They also helped the country reduce discrimination against women. These protections from discrimination are part of each citizen’s individual interests.” He is acknowledging that legislation to protect women and minorities is valuable.
“Historically, laws maintained a workable balance between social interests and individual interests because each element plays an important role in a healthy society. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, U.S. courts began to interpret family laws in ways that gave individual interests a much higher priority than social interests, which knocked the legal and social system off balance.” He is hinting that the protection of individual freedoms at the expense of pro-social policies went too far.
“For example, no-fault divorce was first adopted in California in 1968 and then spread across the United States. No-fault significantly changed the way people thought about marriage. Under the old divorce laws, married people couldn’t just choose to end their marriage; rather, they had to prove spousal misconduct, like adultery or abuse. In those days only a judge representing society’s interests could determine when a divorce was justified enough to outweigh the social interest in marital continuity.” So he sees no-fault divorce as going too far. Stephanie Coontz demonstrated in her book on marriage that when abuse was required to get a divorce, couples would meet the minimum standard to be able to get a judge to sign off. When no-fault divorce was legalized, abuse went down.
“In other words, when people see man-woman marriage as just a matter of personal preference rather than as society’s key social institution, it’s little wonder that many would now say of same-sex marriage that individuals should be free to marry as they choose. That’s what can happen when we lose track of society’s interest in marriage and children.” Actually, Coontz would basically agree with this. Love ruined marriage in terms of a social institution. But as Hafen already pointed out, that began in the 1960s, so the horse is basically out of the barn. This is a one way street, folks, like it or not. Once personal freedoms become legal rights over social contract (as they absolutely have in our country, beginning before I was even born – and I’m no spring chicken), then the rest of this comes in. And while it constitutes social experimentation (hard to argue that it doesn’t) it’s not a foregone conclusion that all social change is bad for society. It’s an unknown.
It always strikes me as a contradictory that conservatives who adore the free market, absolutely hate affording individuals freedoms in people’s personal lives (with regard to family life and reproduction) the way they afford freedoms in the marketplace. And one could certainly argue that private gun ownership is not pro-social or for the good of society and families, and yet that’s a bastion of conservative thought in US politics. Again, very contradictory.
Hawk, thank you for the in-depth analysis of the Hafen article. As I was reading it, it seemed to gradually descend from being a thoughtfully constructed opinion piece from a respected attorney and former GA, into a diatribe from an angry old man, reflecting his own bias and privilege. Sort of a “get off my lawn” speech.
#21 – (Hawk) wrote: “And one could certainly argue that private gun ownership is not pro-social or for the good of society and families, and yet that’s a bastion of conservative thought in US politics. Again, very contradictory.” One could ALSO argue that PRIVATE firearm ownership IAW the US Constitution (e.g. the Second Amendment) has served societal and familial good, in affording persons the ability to defend themselves against extreme violence, especially women.
Conservatives argue for Government regulation of the private behavior of adults for ‘societal good’ much the same that Liberals argue for varying forms of income theft and redistribution (e.g, ‘social justice’), but the key to them all is the application of FORCE under the color of law. A Libertarian like myself, though sharing Bro. Hafen’s lament about societal values changing markedly since 1960 (some 55 y.o.), would see that Government would be utterly ineffectual in upholding morals (example, having to once beg a judge that abuse, adultery, or abandonment existed to obtain a divorce) if the majority of folks wouldn’t uphold it for themselves. Hence why I’d rather see the Government on all levels utterly get out of the business of marriage altogether and let it revert to the religious and/or social institution that it was long before it was necessary to get a marriage license in order to get hitched.