More Discussions With LDS Friends

Last Wednesday, I ditched my Linear Algebra class to attend my second class with a group of current and former members of the LDS faith. My first visit to the class was very inspiring, and this time was no different.

John Remy taught the class and based it on the current Sunstone cover story on LDS couples where one spouse has a faith crisis, clearly a very personally relevant topic for more than one person in attendance at the class. The article is based on what John described as "the most attended and downloaded session at Sunstone's 2006 Salt Lake Symposium." Oh, here's the title: For Better, for Worse, for Apostasy? How Faith Issues Affect Couple Relationshps.

The session description states:

How does it affect the stability and foundation of the relationship when one partner in an LDS temple marriage begins to question his or her core religious beliefs? In this session, three couples share their personal experiences with doubt and changes in faith—how they worked through these changes and not only stayed married but also deepened their commitment to each other.

John began by asking what ideas the various people had about marriage based on LDS tradition going into marriage. It was interesting to hear that most of them had been married in their early 20's and had been taught (or just picked up) a vision of successful marriage which focused on actions and activities. "If I have a temple marriage, remain active in the Church, etc., then my spouse and I will be able to handle most issues which come up." Most married couples laughed at the naiveté which this view embodied (their words, not mine!). There was an implied criticism there (lack of focus on communiation?) but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

The discussion moved on to mistaken assumptions, such as exactly what level of activity was implied by "remaining active," and even what each other's family backgrounds and level of orthodoxy was. I don't remember the exact timing on this, but I did have a subsequent conversation with one of the other attenders who implied that the shared cultural heritage makes LDS couples more prone to assuming agreement on most issues, while a couple without that shared heritage might be more prone to explore those issues. A specific couple and specific book of pre-marriage questions was mentioned, neither of which I knew. I was a little shocked that there wasn't a better pre-marriage counseling program within the LDS church to cover those issues. There seems to be so much organization surrounding other activities, that I just assumed that would be one of them.

I think this assumption was based on an episode of KCRW's Speaking of Faith entitled Marriage, Family, and Divorce [-Real Audio-][-transcript-]. The dominant characteristic I've been told about LDS is "pro-family," and I just assumed that something as helpful as Rabbi Dorff's class would be available. By the way, the discussion with Rabbi Dorff makes for really interesting reading/listening, but the unscientific statistic of 8% divorce rate for those who had gone through the Making Marriage Work classes at the University of Judaism really stands out.

...[S]ometimes during the course of the 10-week program, because of the curriculum, which gets them to talk to each other about a variety of different important things, sometimes they decide, "You know, maybe we shouldn't get married." So some of them — which is much better for them to decide beforehand than afterward.

So some of it is that, but a lot of it has to do with the fact that they get skills through these courses in terms of how to interact with each other. I mean, the first — it's 10 sessions. I think the first five deal with communication skills. They come to talk with each other and then in a group about strategies to deal with parents, strategies to deal with friends of one who are not friends of the other, issues of jobs versus children and how to handle them. Well, one really important one is how do you have a fight and still come out married? And part of it has to do also with expectations.

I love Broadway musicals, so the way that I like to put it is this, right? The Hollywood image of marriage is from South Pacific. "Some enchanted evening you will meet a stranger across the crowded room. You'll know even then that somehow you'll meet her again and again." Right?
[..]
And so the image that you get is that marriage is a series of enchanted evenings. And then when you get married and you find out that indeed there are some enchanted evenings, but most of them are sort of ho-hum and some of them are downright unenchanted, you begin to think that — if that was your expectation, you begin to think, "Well, maybe this is not the marriage for me," and you break up. As opposed to Fiddler on the Roof, right? "After 25 years, do you love me?" "Well, for 25 years we've done this, that and that. Now you ask me do I love you? Well, I suppose I do." "And I suppose I love you, too. After 25 years, it doesn't change a thing, but it's nice to know." Right? Now there, I mean, what that piece speaks is I think the traditional Jewish understanding of marriage. That is, you get married primarily because you like each other enough to do the work of family together, that is to grow old together, to have companionship, to have children, to raise those children.

Very interesting espousal of the non-romanticized viewpoint. What I was hearing second-hand from the other attenders of the class shaded more towards idealism (though more about religious idealism than romantic idealism).

Painful to hear that the structure of the LDS Church makes spouses feel in this cases as if their spouse's questioning of their shared faith jeopardizes the salvation of both. I sensed some tension between the attenders over this issue ("But if you read the scripture, you'd see that it's not true!" "But the entire culture and structure makes one feel as if it's true."), but not too heated, as if this was an old, familiar disagreement. The discussion turned very personal at that point, as more than one married couple in attendance had some type of tension they were dealing with, and some shared their processes. I wish I could have heard from them all on this issue, and whether my presence as an outsider kept everyone from being 100% candid. I don't have any personal revelations in this area of my life to share, so perhaps that isn't conducive to candor from some of the more reserved attenders.

The discussions on post-marriage adjustments were also fascinating, though again, were quite personal, and not my stories to share.

The low point of the night for me was when John told me about the "temple recommend" interview. I was shocked to find out that one of the questions was about being up-to-date on tithing. That wasn't the low point. The low point was that I didn't have the emotional control to hide my shock. I think that made everyone uncomfortable and I'm pretty disappointed in myself. My kung-fu is weak.

Not sure when I'll be able to get back, but I find this type of discussion to be incredibly stimulating. I'll have to hunt down a copy of the Sunstone article and get a copy of the symposium session.