Rescuing A Wayward Spouse

[canard78]

Meridian's Larry Barkdull recently posted about a man whose wife is not active.

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13050/1/page-1

"...your effort should be to ask God to place opportunities in her path to urge her to use her agency to make better choices...

You might want to think of your wife's situation as having the flu. You certainly wouldn't insist that she attend church or carry her weight in the family during her sickness. You would tenderly care for her until she was well.

From what you are describing, it would seem to me that your wife has the spiritual flu. Only unconditional love and patience will help her to heal. Your loving example will help her, too.

For now, why not set aside church issues and focus on strengthening the relationship? Court her, give her compliments, love her, and validate her feelings without agreeing with her erroneous ideas (a difficult balance). Give her a safe place to be “sick.”

Here's the last thing. I doubt that her issue is the Church. People don't casually discard their beliefs and covenants unless they are dealing with some deep-seated issue that they cannot resolve. Your wife seems to be trying excessively hard to go opposite the gospel, and she is using anti-Mormon literature as her rationale. I would guess that she has been struggling with other non-Church issues for some time."

As an active member of a wonderful wife who stopped believing/attending about 3 years ago I have mixed feelings about this article.

I appreciate the encouragement to love the wife and to improve the relationship. But believing the wife is "spiritually sick" will drive a wedge into the relationship. I'm glad it's an attitude I let go of a long time ago.

Today I don't pray for her to return, but for her to be happy and I pray to love her and accept her. Larry gives the wrong advice.

Edited August 1, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

The disease metaphor is problematic in my view as well. I don't think most spouses will appreciate it for one thing. Comes across as condescending to me.

I think it may have been used to encourage people not to take doubt, etc. personally, making it somehow more 'clinical' by calling it an illness as we wouldn't be offended if someone had the flu. Unfortunately it also removes personal responsibility for one's reaction in my view as one can't help in general how one gets sick, ie. one can't choose the sniffles over vomiting for example.

I think encouraging spouses not to take it personally is a good thing, but even suggesting that one can or should "rescue" one's spouse is going to be problematic, imo.

[Thinking]

I doubt that her issue is the Church. People don't casually discard their beliefs and covenants unless they are dealing with some deep-seated issue that they cannot resolve.

[Duncan]

I was in this spot for two years before we seperated and divorced, not fun at all

[Calm]

I was in this spot for two years before we seperated and divorced, not fun at all

Do you feel this is a helpful attitude or would it be better to use another paradigm?

[Duncan]

Do you feel this is a helpful attitude or would it be better to use another paradigm?

well, every situation is different but I like the idea of love unconditionally and love them regardless of their church affliation, problem is it takes two to make a marriage and if one heart isn't in it then no matter what the other person does or wants then it falls flat

[Calm]

well, every situation is different but I like the idea of love unconditionally and love them regardless of their church affliation, problem is it takes two to make a marriage and if one heart isn't in it then no matter what the other person does or wants then it falls flat

It is very sad when one wants to stay committed and the other doesn't. You cannot force someone to love you, however, nor would most people want that, I suspect. I know I prefer the idea that my husband chooses to love me because he wants to, not because he is forced to by drives or my irresistible looks....

What about doubt as the "spiritual flu"?

[Duncan]

It is very sad when one wants to stay committed and the other doesn't. You cannot force someone to love you, however, nor would most people want that, I suspect. I know I prefer the idea that my husband chooses to love me because he wants to, not because he is forced to by drives or my irresistible looks....

What about doubt as the "spiritual flu"?

true! well, it depends I guess some people's testimonies are weak and any shaking just shatters everything and they don't pick it up and go on they just leave and others are more secure, "grounded, settled" as Elder Maxwell said. But as the furnace of affliction or when the reality of marriage sets in you really meet your spouse as I have found out

[Thinking]

I married my wife in the temple in 1989. Sometime in the early 90's I had a question that was troubling me. I told my wife and made an appointment to talk to my bishop. My conversation with the bishop did not resolve anything but it was only one question so I pressed forward. As I continued to search for the answer, more questions surfaced. Eventually I asked the bishop (new ward, different bishop) to release me from my calling because it was necessary to bear testimony and that was something I could not do. I have read countless stories about marriages that fell apart after one spouse fell away. I was genuinely afraid that mine would fall apart also, but it hasn't. I'm sure that my wife prays for me to believe again, and I am not offended by that because she believes the LDS Church is true.

[omni]

While I appreciate his nice words of encouragement, this idea that one doesn't leave the church over historical or doctrinal reasons has got to go.

When I initially went through my faith crisis my wife asked her dad for advice. He brought up an old friend of his who was addicted to porn, but used intellectual reasons for leaving the church as a cover up for his addiction. This got my wife thinking I must be doing the same thing.

Eventually she realized this wasn't the case and the I was still the same guy she had always loved and that I wasn't going to change. She has since had her own faith crisis and now that we are on the same page I can honestly say our marriage is the strongest It's been in its ten year existence.

Canard, which ever way you both end up, I hope It's on the same page.

Edited August 1, 2013 by omni

[why me]

I am trying to remember what exactly it meant to be inactive or not active years ago. I don't think that it meant what it may mean by canard. To be inactive basically meant that the person was not attending church but not necessarily having issues with church history or believing antimormon literature. I think that inactive meant that one wasn't attending church or attending just one meeting etc. But one still believed.

I know that I am basically inactive because I don't feel like attending all the meetings nor do I want callings. However, this wayward spouse is different. They no longer believe in the church because of what they had read on the internet or in a book by an exmormon. This is different than being inactive unless we broaden the definition to meet the 21st century.

So what to do with a spouse who no longer believes? In this case the advise may be on target in strengthening the marriage and keeping it together. However, usually the spouse who no longer believes attempts to influence the believing the spouse and this creates a more serious problem. How not to become influenced by such a spouse's ideas? Would looking upon this kind of situation as spreading the spiritual flu be on target?

Edited August 1, 2013 by why me

[why me]

Eventually she realized this wasn't the case and the I was still the same guy she had always loved and that I wasn't going to change. She has since had her own faith crisis and now that we are on the same page I can honestly say our marriage is the strongest It's been in its ten year existence.

Did you help her to have a faith crisis by sharing your research with her and attempt to persuade her out of the church? In most cases this would be the case. Of course for the church it would not help to say to a member that if you spouse no longer believes join him or her in unbelief so you will both be on the same page and your marriage will be stronger. Would you consider yourself having a 'spiritual flu' and did you help your wife to catch it? This is just a question to see if the writer of the article is more or less on target with his spiritual flu comparison.

[canard78]

well, every situation is different but I like the idea of love unconditionally and love them regardless of their church affliation, problem is it takes two to make a marriage and if one heart isn't in it then no matter what the other person does or wants then it falls flat

I agree and recognise it's not only the job of the one left active to hold the relationship together. It's a partnership and if either one gives up on it then it must be tough.

[why me]

I agree and recognise it's not only the job of the one left active to hold the relationship together. It's a partnership and if either one gives up on it then it must be tough.

I still think that we need a definition of active and less active. I believe that the church no longer uses the term inactive but tends to lean toward less active. But a less active member means just that: she or he is less active but still believes. A wayward spouse may be a spouse who no longer believes in the church because of certain issues.

Wayward spouses usually attempt to influence the believing spouse to believe in what they do. How to handle this kind of relationship? An inactive spouse just doesn't want to attend church. At least this was the 'definition' several years ago.

[omni]

Did you help her to have a faith crisis by sharing your research with her and attempt to persuade her out of the church? In most cases this would be the case. Of course for the church it would not help to say to a member that if you spouse no longer believes join him or her in unbelief so you will both be on the same page and your marriage will be stronger. Would you consider yourself having a 'spiritual flu' and did you help your wife to catch it? This is just a question to see if the writer of the article is more or less on target with his spiritual flu comparison.

My wife is an emotional person and I'm a logical person. While there are some issues that overlap our primary concerns are quite different. I once tried to tell her about issues with the BoA and it didn't faze her, she never wanted to listen to any critical material I had. Even to this day she won't allow me to tell her about the"issues" because she's been so conditioned to believe the anything critical is anti-Mormon lies. When I was still believing and I would read this board or FAIR she would get upset with me for reading information that even brought up controversial topics. She's much make understanding now.

I never tried to convert her to my side and would have been fine if she had remained a believer as long as she accepted my new belief paradigm. But I do think my crisis caused her to reexamine her beliefs which led to where she is today.

[why me]

Even to this day she won't allow me to tell her about the"issues" because she's been so conditioned to believe the anything critical is anti-Mormon lies.

I never tried to convert her to my side and would have been fine if she had remained a believer as long as she accepted my new belief paradigm. But I do think my crisis caused her to reexamine her beliefs which led to where she is today.

I emboldened something in your previous post because I find it an interesting way to put it. I don't know how a spouse who comes to disbelief because of issues does not communicate those issues to the other spouse. I think that it is only natural that the information is attempted to be shared and discussed. I can also see heated emotional outbursts between the two. If this did not happen in your relationship, you were very lucky.

I am not sure about conditioning.

[canard78]

I still think that we need a definition of active and less active. I believe that the church no longer uses the term inactive but tends to lean toward less active. But a less active member means just that: she or he is less active but still believes. A wayward spouse may be a spouse who no longer believes in the church because of certain issues.

Wayward spouses usually attempt to influence the believing spouse to believe in what they do. How to handle this kind of relationship? An inactive spouse just doesn't want to attend church. At least this was the 'definition' several years ago.

I'm not sure the labels are all that important. I think the phrase "less-active" only has any validity if the person attends occasionally. In-active seems to be no longer PC where I'm from. But someone who hasn't been in 10 years and says "who" when you introduce yourself as their home-teachers is really not 'less' active. Personally I avoid the labels all together. If referring to members not attending I try to say "Bob" or "Wendy." If referring to them collectively would probably say "those who don't attend."

As for "wayward spouse usually attempts to influence the believing spouse" - I'm not sure that's always true. I suppose some might make some attempt to do so. But I don't know where you'd get 'most' from and doubt they would be any more or less likely than the attending spouse to try to influence the other.

[daz2]

I like the advice in this Ensign article better than Meridian's. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/finding-joy-with-my-less-active-spouse?lang=eng The Ensign article doesn't mention whether the inactive spouse no longer believed or not. All of us are in one degree or another active or less active, and believing and nonbelieving.

If it helps the participating spouse to believe the nonparticipating spouse has a "flu", that's okay. In fact, we all have a spiritual "flu" in one degree or another; that is why we have a Savior. If it helps the nonparticipating spouse to believe that the participating spouse has a "flu" because the participating spouse is still a believer, that is okay too. What does not help is if one spouse tells the other spouse that s/he is wrong and sick.

[CV75]

Larry

I think the comparison with having the flu is most effective when taken in terms of how to behave toward the spouse (minimize demands, facilitate rest, provide tender care, show love and patience, etc.), and not in terms of thinking of the spouse as a contagion or the flu itself or someone to avoid, or to condemn the spouse for having the sickness.

[awyatt]

Eventually she realized ... I was still the same guy she had always loved and that I wasn't going to change.

Omni, I don't know you and you don't know me, so it is possible that you might take offense at what I am going to ask. Understand, however, that no offense is intended, but I would sincerely like to know the answer: How can you be the "same guy" if your belief in the spiritual basis for your marriage changed? Further, how can you say "I wasn't going to change" when you did, in fact, change your beliefs?

-Allen

[cinepro]

It's important to remember that Merdian generally represents a very specific mindset held by some members of the Church. At risk of starting another argument over whether such a distinction exists, I will say that it is the best online representation of "Chapel Mormons" that I know of.

So this article is written to a specific audience that holds specific beliefs about the Church. We might wish the article took a broader perspective, or a different approach, but to this audience, that isn't an option.

It's also odd that the article doesn't mention this recent Ensign article.

Finding Joy With My Less-Active Spouse

In my opinion, the approach in the Ensign article is actually much more "healthy" for the relationship than the one promoted by the Meridian article.

Edited August 1, 2013 by cinepro

[why me]

In my opinion, the approach in the Ensign article is actually much more "healthy" for the relationship than the one promoted by the Meridian article.

We are dealing with a different kind of spouse. Inactive is different from being wayward. And that was my point earlier. Someone who no longer believes in the church is more than just inactive.

[why me]

I like the advice in this Ensign article better than Meridian's. http://www.lds.org/e...spouse?lang=eng The Ensign article doesn't mention whether the inactive spouse no longer believed or not. All of us are in one degree or another active or less active, and believing and nonbelieving.

I think that we can safely assume that this spouse still believes but is inactive. This spouse reminds of countless people who were labeled as inactive/less active in the past before the rise of the Internet. People that were inactive just didn't feel like coming to church. It has very little to do with disbelief because of anti literature. And the advice that was given would fit such inactivity.

[bluebell]

I think that we can safely assume that this spouse still believes but is inactive.

I'm not sure what in the article implies this. What evidence are you seeing that makes it likely the husband still has a testimony but just doesn't go to church?

[jim_mason]

I think Larry started with the wrong assumption, he assume deep doctrinal issues are only covered by anti-mormons; does FAIR cover deep doctrinal issues?