Mos and Marriage

[flotsam]

Had a strange little lesson in priesthood today. The topic was "experiencing happiness in marriage (heterosexual, monogamous marriage, I expect)." All of them thought it would be best to do so. But what was interesting was the way they went about talking about how to go about it.

The comments went something like: "I find that when I'm right with God, being nice to my wife just comes naturally." And, "As long as I'm saying my prayers at night and putting God first, everything else falls into place." And, "When I bring strong priesthood leadership into the home, I find that my wife loves me more." And finally, "I had a friend who thinks that love is when two people are looking at each other and become completely absorbed in each other. But I think that love is when you are looking the same direction. And that direction should be toward God."

I was struck immediately by the fact that every one of these comments (which made up 90 percent of the comments) made monogamous marriage into a three-party relationship: two males and one female.:confused:

This idea confused me until I was engaging in the post-church doctrine digestion with my wife on the way home. I realized that not ONCE did ANYONE say something like, "Well, you know, I like my wife. It's really fun being around her. I take great pleasure in doing nice things for her, just because - well - don't get me wrong here - I like her." Or even, "Man, sometimes it's just so hard to understand her. For example: ... I don't know, have any of you experienced that?"

It seemed that somehow, in a church discussion about marriage, it never came to anyone's mind to talk about an actual relationship with one's wife. The thing to do was talk about a third party relationship, and one that wasn't even with a woman (theoretically).

I don't know, I have some ideas on why this happened. Are these guys somehow more able to conduct a civil relationship when they imagine it being with someone other than their spouse? It is some kind of buffer to keep him from entering that most frightening of places: a relationship with a real person? Is it the Mormon answer to that timeless question so pithily put in My Fair Lady, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" You just make your relationship with a woman into a relationship with a man?

Now, I DO see the good that can come out of such an arrangement. If someone thinks there's an all-powerful, omnipotent being who wants you to act in particular ways, and those ways happen to include being civil with one's spouse, I guess that adds to the general well-being of spouses all across Mormondom. But I wonder how healthy (and healthy here seems to be a relative term) that kind of relationship is. I mean, to base your treatment of other people on metaphysics, rather than on other people themselves.

There must be a term in psychology for this. What is it?

[why me]

Had a strange little lesson in priesthood today. The topic was "experiencing happiness in marriage (heterosexual, monogamous marriage, I expect)." All of them thought it would be best to do so. But what was interesting was the way they went about talking about how to go about it.

The comments went something like: "I find that when I'm right with God, being nice to my wife just comes naturally." And, "As long as I'm saying my prayers at night and putting God first, everything else falls into place." And, "When I bring strong priesthood leadership into the home, I find that my wife loves me more." And finally, "I had a friend who thinks that love is when two people are looking at each other and become completely absorbed in each other. But I think that love is when you are looking the same direction. And that direction should be toward God."

I was struck immediately by the fact that every one of these comments (which made up 90 percent of the comments) made monogamous marriage into a three-party relationship: two males and one female.:confused:

This idea confused me until I was engaging in the post-church doctrine digestion with my wife on the way home. I realized that not ONCE did ANYONE say something like, "Well, you know, I like my wife. It's really fun being around her. I take great pleasure in doing nice things for her, just because - well - don't get me wrong here - I like her." Or even, "Man, sometimes it's just so hard to understand her. For example: ... I don't know, have any of you experienced that?"

It seemed that somehow, in a church discussion about marriage, it never came to anyone's mind to talk about an actual relationship with one's wife. The thing to do was talk about a third party relationship, and one that wasn't even with a woman (theoretically).

I don't know, I have some ideas on why this happened. Are these guys somehow more able to conduct a civil relationship when they imagine it being with someone other than their spouse? It is some kind of buffer to keep him from entering that most frightening of places: a relationship with a real person? Is it the Mormon answer to that timeless question so pithily put in My Fair Lady, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" You just make your relationship with a woman into a relationship with a man?

Now, I DO see the good that can come out of such an arrangement. If someone thinks there's an all-powerful, omnipotent being who wants you to act in particular ways, and those ways happen to include being civil with one's spouse, I guess that adds to the general well-being of spouses all across Mormondom. But I wonder how healthy (and healthy here seems to be a relative term) that kind of relationship is. I mean, to base your treatment of other people on metaphysics, rather than on other people themselves.

There must be a term in psychology for this. What is it?
Flostsom, you need to understand where you were when this discussion took place. You were in priesthood meeting. It is more or less expected to bring god into the picture when discussions happen. I am sure that in a private conversation such talk would most likely happen too but there is more room for a more private viewpoint with the wife taking center stage. I would not go to harshly on the men. In a conversation, people make what they want to make out of it. When it comes to church things, we are all more or less amatures trying to understand where god is in the marriage relationship, especially if you are active lds. So it is no surprise that the conversation stayed around god being at the center of the marriage. But Flotsom the conversation could have taken a different turn if you would have chirped in with your comments. You brought up some good points...hopefully you mentioned them in the meeting. If not, you have only yourself to blame for the meetings outcome and comments. Also if you remained silent...did you do so out of superiority over your 'less knowledgeable' brethern? I had a similiar conversation in sunday school. But I did not remain silent. I brought up my own opinions about marriage ie. celestial marriage since that was the topic in sunday school which caused some decent discussion.
I think that a different opionion which is thought provoking can be a wonderful addition to a meeting as long it is not hostile. Hopefully you made some comments in the meeting since what you wrote was definitely thought provoking...The change in discussion context can begin from the members present...Thanks for the post... :)

[Born Free]

Had a strange little lesson in priesthood today. The topic was "experiencing happiness in marriage (heterosexual, monogamous marriage, I expect)." All of them thought it would be best to do so. But what was interesting was the way they went about talking about how to go about it.

<snip>

There must be a term in psychology for this. What is it?
Flotsam,

Sounds like liberal doses of BS to me. :eek: BS, backed up with Group Think, underpinned with plenty of Post-Pissing. How's that for a psychological term? :rolleyes:

Most men have to work hard to develop an understanding of how women function, and what they can learn from that. Church teaches little to nothing of that, and I would argue actually devalues the 'feminine' in numerous ways. The statistics on the failure of Church marriages speaks loudly of how useful Church teachings are in saving/preserving marriages.

So if you (as a Priesthood holder) are trying with poor tools, and haven't a clue what works, and men get together to talk about the subject, what are you going to do?

Talk out of your arse, that's what!

So rather than 'fess up to your inadequacy and uncertainity, you take to the high ground, and its doesn't get much higher than God, does it? In addition, the 'Me bwana, strong leader, setting the tone in the home' script is evident to my eyes. Sound familiar?

Daryl

PS: I co-developed and facilitate a program on surviving and recovering from separation, with content assembled by a psychologist, and most what the Church teaches is useless drivel. At the very centre of their problem is that they promote a highly unscrutinised model of masculinity, that is heavily based upon stereotypes - the worst foundation one could start from.

[hitchiker]

Had a strange little lesson in priesthood today. The topic was "experiencing happiness in marriage (heterosexual, monogamous marriage, I expect)." All of them thought it would be best to do so. But what was interesting was the way they went about talking about how to go about it.

The comments went something like: "I find that when I'm right with God, being nice to my wife just comes naturally." And, "As long as I'm saying my prayers at night and putting God first, everything else falls into place." And, "When I bring strong priesthood leadership into the home, I find that my wife loves me more." And finally, "I had a friend who thinks that love is when two people are looking at each other and become completely absorbed in each other. But I think that love is when you are looking the same direction. And that direction should be toward God."

I was struck immediately by the fact that every one of these comments (which made up 90 percent of the comments) made monogamous marriage into a three-party relationship: two males and one female.:confused:

This idea confused me until I was engaging in the post-church doctrine digestion with my wife on the way home. I realized that not ONCE did ANYONE say something like, "Well, you know, I like my wife. It's really fun being around her. I take great pleasure in doing nice things for her, just because - well - don't get me wrong here - I like her." Or even, "Man, sometimes it's just so hard to understand her. For example: ... I don't know, have any of you experienced that?"

It seemed that somehow, in a church discussion about marriage, it never came to anyone's mind to talk about an actual relationship with one's wife. The thing to do was talk about a third party relationship, and one that wasn't even with a woman (theoretically).

I don't know, I have some ideas on why this happened. Are these guys somehow more able to conduct a civil relationship when they imagine it being with someone other than their spouse? It is some kind of buffer to keep him from entering that most frightening of places: a relationship with a real person? Is it the Mormon answer to that timeless question so pithily put in My Fair Lady, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" You just make your relationship with a woman into a relationship with a man?

Now, I DO see the good that can come out of such an arrangement. If someone thinks there's an all-powerful, omnipotent being who wants you to act in particular ways, and those ways happen to include being civil with one's spouse, I guess that adds to the general well-being of spouses all across Mormondom. But I wonder how healthy (and healthy here seems to be a relative term) that kind of relationship is. I mean, to base your treatment of other people on metaphysics, rather than on other people themselves.

There must be a term in psychology for this. What is it?Don,t believe all this bullshit , the best way to get close to your woman is to smoke some really nice herbs together , then go somewhere really romantic like the woods or the beach and exsperience beautifull sex , in this place you may truly feel close to god as the third partner of your marriage , the god of nature who is in tune with our sexuality , the unleashing of sacred emotion in the most beautifull way , god loves us when we are in tune with nature , with oursleves and with each other , a paradox where there is no evil , just pure love and belonging , there , isn;t that better advice than all that church crap

[flotsam]

Flostsom, you need to understand where you were when this discussion took place. You were in priesthood meeting. It is more or less expected to bring god into the picture when discussions happen. I am sure that in a private conversation such talk would most likely happen too but there is more room for a more private viewpoint with the wife taking center stage.

That's a good point, and I did try to work it into my thinking about this particular lesson. And it's true that sometimes the old boys in priesthood talk about actual relationships with living, breathing daily tangible people. But for the most part, that Third Party was always mitigating.

So I guess you're right that people tend to talk about God at church. I'll give you that. The thing that I'm trying to figure out is, where else do we talk about everyday relationships hoping to find a way to improve them outside of church? (That's a real question there. Remember that I don't ask rhetorical questions.) Because I can't think of too many outside the psychologist's office. And if that's true then it means that the majority of public discussion Mormon males engage in about husband/wife relationships is in church, where the Third Party is more important than the spouse. And I'm trying to figure out how this might effect a marriage.

I'm not trying to make a judgement call on this. I'm just curious.

But Flotsom the conversation could have taken a different turn if you would have chirped in with your comments. You brought up some good points...hopefully you mentioned them in the meeting. If not, you have only yourself to blame for the meetings outcome and comments. Also if you remained silent...did you do so out of superiority over your 'less knowledgeable' brethern? I had a similiar conversation in sunday school. But I did not remain silent. I brought up my own opinions about marriage ie. celestial marriage since that was the topic in sunday school which caused some decent discussion.
I think that a different opionion which is thought provoking can be a wonderful addition to a meeting as long it is not hostile. Hopefully you made some comments in the meeting since what you wrote was definitely thought provoking...The change in discussion context can begin from the members present...Thanks for the post... :)

You know, I've been thinking about that very thing. Currently I'm unable to put my questions well. It's kind of like here. The questions and observations I posted at the beginning of this thread weren't meant to be denigrating toward Mormons, but it looked that way (at least from the responses I got). The same thing goes on at church. Whenever I try to put in an idea, I usually am met with silence, and sometimes a complaint to the bishop. I'm just not subtle enough yet to pose my questions well.

I got an email from a friend who used to live up here and has recently moved to Idaho. He told me that the discussion at the Idaho church meeting was quite open, and urged me to have hope that somewhere people actually discussed things. He had been in a lesson I recently taught where I tried to get people to talk about what went on inside the temple (on the premise, which they provided themselves, that the temple was important and that we should talk about it more), and no one would touch it.

I thought for a minute after getting his email and realized that the same feeling was coming up in me that comes up when I hear about a church authority or a ward actually making the changes I talk about. It's weird, but I feel annoyed. I start thinking about how they probably did it for stupid reasons, and how the report was probably wrong anyway, etc. Why do I think this way? I can think of two reasons.

One: I'm more interested in maintaining my identity through defining myself against others - which is probably true.

Two: I'm being a thermostat. :Crazy:

See, a thermostat is kinda dumb. All it does is feel the air and when the temperature gets too high, it stops the heat. WHen it gets to low, it turns the heat on. A thermostat is never happy, it's always taking measures to change what is going on.

That's kind of like me. I realized that if I had been in that meeting my friend described, I would have been digging under the surface despite its liberal leanings. I'm ALWAYS trying to bring the conversation to the next level. I'm never satisfied. I look at where things are, and immediately look for a way to dig beneath them so that we can see something new.

So no one is going to make me happy.

A few people in the ward have commented on my lessons. One said the lesson was good, and that people needed to be put off balance from time to time. But it was a good thing we didn't have lessons like that all the time.

So it seems that what I have to offer is an acquired taste, and people don't necessarily want it all the time. They want to feel like they're on solid ground most of the time. And that's something that I just can't offer right now.

[flotsam]

Don,t believe all this bullshit , the best way to get close to your woman is to smoke some really nice herbs together , then go somewhere really romantic like the woods or the beach and exsperience beautifull sex , in this place you may truly feel close to god as the third partner of your marriage , the god of nature who is in tune with our sexuality , the unleashing of sacred emotion in the most beautifull way , god loves us when we are in tune with nature , with oursleves and with each other , a paradox where there is no evil , just pure love and belonging , there , isn;t that better advice than all that church crap

Amen, brother. Now where's the beach?

Oh yeah. I live on the tundra. Crap. :duh

[why me]

Amen, brother. Now where's the beach?

Oh yeah. I live on the tundra. Crap. :duh
Ahhh. flotsom...don't encourage hitchhiker...there is alot of weed in the tundra...or is there.... :confused: Good ol' hitch would smoke the wool off a sheep if he could... :p

[why me]

That's a good point, and I did try to work it into my thinking about this particular lesson. And it's true that sometimes the old boys in priesthood talk about actual relationships with living, breathing daily tangible people. But for the most part, that Third Party was always mitigating.

So I guess you're right that people tend to talk about God at church. I'll give you that. The thing that I'm trying to figure out is, where else do we talk about everyday relationships hoping to find a way to improve them outside of church? (That's a real question there. Remember that I don't ask rhetorical questions.) Because I can't think of too many outside the psychologist's office. And if that's true then it means that the majority of public discussion Mormon males engage in about husband/wife relationships is in church, where the Third Party is more important than the spouse. And I'm trying to figure out how this might effect a marriage.

I'm not trying to make a judgement call on this. I'm just curious.



You know, I've been thinking about that very thing. Currently I'm unable to put my questions well. It's kind of like here. The questions and observations I posted at the beginning of this thread weren't meant to be denigrating toward Mormons, but it looked that way (at least from the responses I got). The same thing goes on at church. Whenever I try to put in an idea, I usually am met with silence, and sometimes a complaint to the bishop. I'm just not subtle enough yet to pose my questions well.

I got an email from a friend who used to live up here and has recently moved to Idaho. He told me that the discussion at the Idaho church meeting was quite open, and urged me to have hope that somewhere people actually discussed things. He had been in a lesson I recently taught where I tried to get people to talk about what went on inside the temple (on the premise, which they provided themselves, that the temple was important and that we should talk about it more), and no one would touch it.

I thought for a minute after getting his email and realized that the same feeling was coming up in me that comes up when I hear about a church authority or a ward actually making the changes I talk about. It's weird, but I feel annoyed. I start thinking about how they probably did it for stupid reasons, and how the report was probably wrong anyway, etc. Why do I think this way? I can think of two reasons.

One: I'm more interested in maintaining my identity through defining myself against others - which is probably true.

Two: I'm being a thermostat. :Crazy:

See, a thermostat is kinda dumb. All it does is feel the air and when the temperature gets too high, it stops the heat. WHen it gets to low, it turns the heat on. A thermostat is never happy, it's always taking measures to change what is going on.

That's kind of like me. I realized that if I had been in that meeting my friend described, I would have been digging under the surface despite its liberal leanings. I'm ALWAYS trying to bring the conversation to the next level. I'm never satisfied. I look at where things are, and immediately look for a way to dig beneath them so that we can see something new.

So no one is going to make me happy.

A few people in the ward have commented on my lessons. One said the lesson was good, and that people needed to be put off balance from time to time. But it was a good thing we didn't have lessons like that all the time.

So it seems that what I have to offer is an acquired taste, and people don't necessarily want it all the time. They want to feel like they're on solid ground most of the time. And that's something that I just can't offer right now.
Thanks for the post...your friend made a good point I think...but I think that I would find hope in your ability to change discussions into practical aspects of life. You certainly have that talent. You just need to find the way. I try to begin with a 'It seems to me'...or with a 'don't you think'....kinda of comment. Or a 'If we put the gospel into practical life...' opening comment. There is a wonderful book that was published in the late 1960's called 'Pedagogy of the Opressed' by Paolo Freire. It is a great book for pedagogical liberation. It has a good emphasis on how a good classroom is where both teacher and students are subjects in the lesson and not Teacher (subject) and student (object). Both share in the learning experience through a relevant real life liberatory pedagogy, (not to lead people away imo) but to allow people to put knowledge into real life practice. Take a look at this book. He wrote many other wonderful books...especially the book 'Pedagogy of the Heart'. Thanks flotsom for being here...I enjoy your posts...Make your comments in the meetings...practice makes perfect as my grandma would say... :)

[aether]

Don,t believe all this bullshit , the best way to get close to your woman is to smoke some really nice herbs together , then go somewhere really romantic like the woods or the beach and exsperience beautifull sex , in this place you may truly feel close to god as the third partner of your marriage , the god of nature who is in tune with our sexuality , the unleashing of sacred emotion in the most beautifull way , god loves us when we are in tune with nature , with oursleves and with each other , a paradox where there is no evil , just pure love and belonging , there , isn;t that better advice than all that church crap

:eek: Amen. AMEN. I'm going to come live in your head for a while.