We have often heard that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Much more interesting to me was what Spencer W. Kimball taught our branch in Newfoundland when he stopped there around 1962, when the world, and the church, were both much smaller.
I’m not sure how he ended up at the United States Air Force Base. As for the base, they were more interested in getting the protocol straight than anything else. But he met individually with branch members who wanted counsel. The advice he gave, that the Church existed to support families, families did not exist to support the church, made the strongest impact on my dad of all the advice Elder Kimball gave.
We had two different members who wanted Elder Kimball’s help at that time as to how they could force their spouses to do the right thing, repent and return to the Church. As an apostle he told both to instead focus instead on patiently loving their spouse. They were told to put family first and the love between them before everything else, even if it meant not attending meetings. They were told to put love first over pushing their spouses to improve.
The advice made a big impression on my dad who was in the branch presidency and who had expected something very different. What really struck my dad was that Elder Kimball gave the same advice, taking time and patience to lay it out, to both people who asked for his help, inspiration and blessing on that point.
As for the couples that Elder Kimball had advised, years later my dad encountered both, one of the couples in the temple. Both the couples had been completely transformed by unconditional love.
Obviously I do not expect that sort of thing to happen for everyone, or for even most people. But if families are forever, I think that what we should do with those we love is focus on loving and supporting each other, in patience and kindness. And if the Church really exists to help us and our families, rather than our families existing to fuel the Church, it only makes sense that the apostle who at the time was seen as the most hardline of the general authorities would minister with that message.
Worth thinking about in this day and age.
Questions:
What do you think of Elder Kimball’s advice?
Have you heard of Church leader’s recently offering different or contrary advice.
Do you think this advice is still the church’s approach? Why or why not?
Do you see people taking this approach?
Does this differ from “waiting out” your spouse or trying to convince them or trying to be an example to them?
Is unconditional love even possible for humans to accomplish?
What gets in our way to prevent unconditional love?
Do you think of Elder Kimball’s advice was right for the time he gave it?
Right as a general rule or just for specific cases?
Wheat & Tares 
My thanks to my co-bloggers for their help and advice on this post.
Basically I think then Elder Kimball’s advice is still sound today, and I think that is the message that the leaders of the church are trying to get through to us right on.
As afar as unconditional love, I do believe that it is possible for man and woman to achieve, but it is not easy. It is easy to love when the object of our love is performing within the boundaries which we wish and expect. But once they step out of that box, things get tougher, and that is when we find out if our love is unconditional. The results are not always positive, but the results of conditional love never are, in my experience.
Glenn
I don’t seem to be hearing this anything like I think I used to. I hear more things like Elder Bednar recently saying in effect, “Children not staying in the church is because Sunday worship was not done well enough.” I do see some people doing this though and some that are not.
I don’t think you can be a “missionary” to your spouse. It just does not work like that and the spouse will feel it.
I think Pres. Kimball’s advice is spot on. As much as I have struggled with staying in the church, one of the few things I still believe is that love is the most important thing.
He gave the exact same advice in our area. It was excellent advice for many folks. However, a few women stayed in abusive marriages too long because they assumed they were supposed to love their husbands unconditionally. That would be my only caveat.
That is an important caveat, Chris. And a good one.
You have to first realize there are some mental issues or abusive situations that need to be always be considered and realize they are real and not to be dismissed lightly.
If those are found not to be the case, then the relationship might be able to be defined in ways like Pres Kimball was discussing, as having realistic chances to work with those approaches.
But because there are caveats…unconditional love as a blanket statement is not, in my mind, realistic or even a good thing to put out there for people. There should be conditions…healthy ones.
As an example, the spouse regularly takes thousands of dollars, and disappears for days at a time, returning and wanting to change, but continues to repeat this behavior, creating a financial stress where risk of losing a home is inevitable. Is that to be allowed unconditionally? Just keep loving them and hoping in time it will get better?
I don’t think so. Because to create an atmosphere of no conditions whatsoever will lead to enabling the behavior. It is not the most loving thing to do to ignore behavior, enable behavior, or eliminate accountability for behaviors that are destructive to the person. You’re not helping them be better by allowing some things, and you’re not helping your own self worth.
I don’t think you approach it by trying to change the other person. You approach it with boundaries and contracts of what you can accept with the other person, and if they are unwilling to work for the relationship, then there are reasonable consequences. Perhaps inspiration and professional counselors can help establish what are realistic boundaries…but to suggest no boundaries and always promote unconditional love is not even smart.
It is easy for a church leader with no experience with mental or behavioral disorders in a relationship to assume their experience of working through “normal” relationship issues will apply to others. Pres Kimball’s advice is right for certain circumstances only. It is not right as a rule for all. I think leaders who gain experience and wisdom start to realize they are unqualified to give real marital counseling…but more helpful advice to try, and if it gets serious, they are there to support only, not to give rules for others’ lives. The inexperienced leader thinks they have access to godly power that makes them special for all. It just doesn’t work that way. It didn’t in my life. God allows choice and agency in others. We have to choose what we will do in those situations.
And sometimes, like Nephi taking his family to move away from brothers that were toxic to him, sometimes you just have to leave to save yourself.
Some wrongly look at divorce as the problem in society. Divorce is just a choice, a last option, when problems are unsolvable. Boundaries and conditions are necessary.
I don’t know if this is applicable to Stephen’s article, but I was reminded of a talk given by Elder Poelman in 1984 General Conf which was revised and retaped by the Church. Elder Poelman made the point of differentiating between the Gospel and the Church.
Here is a link between showing the differing versions of Elder Poelman’s talk:
Click to access 079-50-53.pdf
Interesting how this fits into the science:
Chris and Heber — you make good points.
Everything needs nuance and caveats. The world is not black and white.
Lois, I’m not sure how it fits into the topic directly, but the church exists to serve the gospel. Poleman’s talk was used to support fundamentalists who were pushing a very hard iron rod and edited to reject that. Funny how the group it was being used to bash liked the original form the most.
Though that does bring us to unforeseen consequences and limits –the point Chris and Heber were trying to make.
I think it’s one of the most radical concepts I’ve come across,and marriages can’t work without it. Whether it’s membership or other issues, I think there comes a time when we are all challenged to develop radical compassion and acceptance in our marriages or families, and we stand or fall on this. It’s a ‘more excellent way’ as Paul describes charity, and I have seen many families where this works inspiringly. I’ve had a few experiences of it myself from my husband, and it is very freeing to let go of being right and work towards greater curiosity and acceptance of this unique human being who is in our care as a spouse.
I think we mostly still operate on an Old Tesatament framework and we have yet to begin to embrace the scope of God’s love for us as shown in His Son. I’m hoping that the Spirit will be patent enough with me to enable me to develop further in this, but I think this love is available to be developed by both member and non-member alike.I’m a happier person when I can hold onto this practice, and so is our home.
I like that Wayfarer.
Wayfarer, I love your comment.
Realistically, all a leader can do is give abbreviated counsel or advice when he’s given a Dear Abby synopsis of what’s going on. Without visiting with someone at length, knowing their history, history of the marriage, the personality of the other spouse, and so forth, SWK’s advice can only be a sound bite to echo the general admonition found in the scripture: Love your spouse. He didn’t say love your spouse even though he/she is abusive, through thick and thin, at all costs. Absent some indicia of abuse, it’s the first advice that ought to be given, and would apply to errant children, difficulties with other family members, even difficulties with neighbors and friends. (The Second Great Commandment kind of thing.) I think SWK had enough life experience to know not to get in the middle of a marriage just because one of them thinks the other ought to repent.
When it comes to loving one’s spouse unconditionally, I’m not sure what that means. Clearly, there are lines a spouse’s behavior can cross that only a delusional or unwise person would fail to react to. While you can certainly love someone you must protect yourself from, you cannot feel as close to them if you cannot allow yourself to be too vulnerable. Choosing “radical compassion” or “radical forgiveness” seems like a big gamble. If your spouse does eventually change, you’re a saint. If he/she doesn’t, you’re a fool, and you (and perhaps your kids) pay a huge price.
Obviously, the lines are drawn that a person must not cross can vary from person to person, but if you accept the idea that there are lines at all, it seems like you’re rejecting the idea of unconditional love.
Or maybe not. I just don’t know what that term means.
I do think that loving people where they are rather than just loving them for what you think they can become can help relationships, and I do think SWK’s advice is good.
Like Martin, I’m iffy on what unconditional love really looks like, but having said that, I can certainly recognize how limited conditional love is. Too many marriages hinge on trying to change the other person or imagining them to be different than they are, and then being angry or disillusioned when they shatter the fantasy. Too many spouses impose boundaries on their ability to love that are convenient and make life easy for them.
I haven’t left the church, I haven’t even gone inactive. I’m a tithe-paying, calling-serving, TR-holding heterodox believer. It turns out that in my marriage, that’s not good enough. I think SWK would agree with what I have finally come to understand: that you can’t hate or yell or bully someone into loving the church. If it doesn’t work on prospective converts, it probably won’t work on non-traditional believers that you are trying to ‘fix,’ either.
Joni, I’m so sorry.
Was glad to find this in response to a discussion that was going on.
“what I have finally come to understand: that you can’t hate or yell or bully someone into loving the church. If it doesn’t work on prospective converts, it probably won’t work on non-traditional believers that you are trying to ‘fix,’ either.”
The goal should be to love and care for them, not “fix” them. The whole point is to quit trying to fix them.