Rescuing A Wayward Spouse

[ALarson]

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.

You keep stating this, why me, and I understand where you are coming from, but I have to tell you that the active members and leaders in your ward most likely view you just the same as anyone else who no longer attends. I'd imagine that most think that if your testimony were stronger, you'd be attending and participating. You may feel you still have a strong testimony (and you seem to from what you post on here), but your reasons for not attending are most likely no different in their eyes than the spouse's in this article.

[WmLaw]

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.

From the Ensign article: "I know how heartbreaking it can be to have someone you deeply love reject the gospel.

To me this sounds like more than not attending meetings...

[rpn]

I objected to the article's title, as that is not how the disbelieving spouse describes themselves. Faithful members often have to figure out for themselves what is doctrine, and what is the tradition of the church which need not be hung onto at all costs, so they can pick their battles. The analysis is not inappropriate for all members since we do lots of things within our communities because of the traditions of our fathers, and some of them neither perfect us, nor further the mission of the church anymore, if they ever did.

It is true that the first time a disbelieving person says anything to a spouse or parent is highly likely not to be the first time they have thought it, read about it, discussed it with others. But that can be that larger something that the article suggests has to be sinning or something sinister and unworthy.

I wish the author had said that the most important part of the journey for a faithful spouse would be to be the best example of Christ in all their family and business and entertainment they can find a way to be. The one good thing that people with disbelieving spouses and wayward children get that others who have lots of typical things fall into place often miss is to learn why agency matters and what unconditional love ---- the stuff that only God does perfectly--- is and can be, and to become what we become when we finally find a way to really do that.

Edited August 1, 2013 by rpn

[cinepro]

Here's a radical idea. Why not find some people who are either currently "wayward", or wayward-reformed, and ask them what would be most helpful to preserve or strengthen their marriages?

After all, you wouldn't go to a Chevy dealership to learn about Fords, so why would you go to Larry Barkdull to learn about the feelings of wayward LDS?

[why me]

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?

The advice. This advice has not changed in years. I should know since I am inactive. However, if I were to be out of the faith mentally and married, and began to become a missionary for disbelieving the church, with book recommendations etc, the advice in the article would be different. Wayward spouses very rarely keep it to themselves in the home. They are usually nagging the believer with sentences such as: How can you believe that crap? Did you know that JS married teenagers and other men's wives...obviously he was a perv. Have you read Quinns' book or Compton's? Etc. It is relentless.

[omni]

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

No offense taken. There's a common misconception among many members that when one stops believing or leaves the church that they will change and usually for the worse.

As I said earlier, when I first told my wife about my doubts she was so scared I'd change, she was scared I'd have an affair or secretly go to bars or strip clubs because I'd no longer have the moral anchor of the church to steady me. It's been about a year and I haven't come close to doing any of those and have no desire to do so in the future. I have to admit, I used to wonder myself if I'd be some drunk bum on the street without the church even though I'd never touched alcohol before.

I feel I'm still the same person, my wife feels the same and not one person has told me something's different. The only thing that's changed is our marriage has gotten better. We still attend church most weeks and try or best to have weekly FHE, but tailor our lessons around more universal values.

Edited August 1, 2013 by omni

[Senator]

Wayward spouses very rarely keep it to themselves in the home. They are usually nagging the believer with sentences such as: How can you believe that crap? Did you know that JS married teenagers and other men's wives...obviously he was a perv. Have you read Quinns' book or Compton's? Etc. It is relentless.

You have some special knowledge what goes on between spouses in marriages? That's kind of creepy! Are you married Why me?

[Questing Beast]

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

http://www.ldsmag.co.../13050/1/page-1

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.

"Spiritual flu" is condescending, even insulting.

You pray for the the right thing, imho. It's what I pray for my children too. If you are happy, what else is missing? Isn't happiness, Joy, what religion is supposed to guide you into? That's what religion is for....

[ALarson]

"Spiritual flu" is condescending, even insulting.

I completely agree. Attending church and being spiritual are not the same thing.

One can definitely NOT be spiritual and still physically attend church every single week.

Some of the most spiritual people I know are not members of an organized religion and do not attend church. Spiritual does not equal religion.

Edited August 1, 2013 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Wayward spouses very rarely keep it to themselves in the home. They are usually nagging the believer with sentences such as: How can you believe that crap? Did you know that JS married teenagers and other men's wives...obviously he was a perv. Have you read Quinns' book or Compton's? Etc. It is relentless.

And, you know this how?

If you read personal experiences by those who have actually lived this, most of them definitely do not do what you described above. They value their marriage and their spouse over "nagging" them to leave the church. Many of them continue attending church for this very reason. I have members of my own family who are doing this.

[Duncan]

And, you know this how?

If you read personal experiences by those who have actually lived this, most of them definitely do not do what you described above. They value their marriage and their spouse over "nagging" them to leave the church. Many of them continue attending church for this very reason. I have members of my own family who are doing this.

again it depends on the person and situation, some "wayward" spouses aren't remotely interested in the history of the Church and quit going or whatever for other reasons, some people don't value their marriage and want out

[Bernard Gui]

There is the Lehi/Sariah approach, and there is the Alma approach.

Lehi/Sariah tried the finger pointing, lecturing, using the other kids as

examples, calling to repentance approach. It failed. Alma tried the

"let go, and let God" approach and it worked.

[canard78]

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

This was another thing I think is important. We should love a personality and a character - that's what defines the person. It's true that certain behaviors change. It's true that certain principles the marriage was created on are different. But many things don't change.

[canard78]

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.

I really don't understand why you think there's a distinction. The word "wayward" is actually pretty offensive:

- following one's own capricious, wanton, or depraved inclinations

- following no clear principle or law

Just because someone no longer believes in Mormonism doesn't mean they will become depraved. It also doesn't they lack any clear principles. That is a fear when for many when their spouse stops believing/attending. I was pleasantly surprised when neither of those happened.

The article in the Ensign doesn't define 'less-active' - that's just the politically correct term for any member of records who doesn't attend. For any reason.

Let's replace the word "less-active" in the article for "not-believing:"

Many men and women in the Church have a spouse who is (not-believing), and I know how heartbreaking it can be to have someone you deeply love reject the gospel. But we don’t have to be unhappy. It took me a while, but by applying the following ideas, I have changed my perspective and found tremendous peace.

1. Choose to be happy.

2. Don’t compare yourself with others.

3. Don’t nag, needle, threaten, or belittle your spouse.

4. Balance church life with family life.

5. Have faith that God loves you.

What part of that article doesn't apply to someone whose spouse is now a non-attending non-believing person having previously been otherwise?

[canard78]

The advice. This advice has not changed in years. I should know since I am inactive. However, if I were to be out of the faith mentally and married, and began to become a missionary for disbelieving the church, with book recommendations etc, the advice in the article would be different.

Really?? What advice would you give to someone like me then whose wife does not believe in the teachings of Mormonism? I think the advice of the LDS article is just as relevant to me.

Wayward spouses very rarely keep it to themselves in the home. They are usually nagging the believer with sentences such as: How can you believe that crap? Did you know that JS married teenagers and other men's wives...obviously he was a perv. Have you read Quinns' book or Compton's? Etc. It is relentless.

As a generalisation, this is nonsense.

Given you also present it as a statement of fact: CFR

[canard78]

There is the Lehi/Sariah approach, and there is the Alma approach.

Lehi/Sariah tried the finger pointing, lecturing, using the other kids as

examples, calling to repentance approach. It failed. Alma tried the

"let go, and let God" approach and it worked.

Wow - I'd never thought of it in this way. Excellent example. Thanks.

[Calm]

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.

The problem, however, is even if unspoken the attitude will lead to behaviour which can affect the relationship.

Better in my opinion to have an opinion about your spouse that is presented in a positive way (while we all fall short, they are attempting to do something right in their life, they are trying to learn, they are trying to improve, they are trying to find out how to live authentically, etc.) rather than a negative one (there is something wrong with them)

[Calm]

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.

Or that there is something wrong with them as opposed to viewing it as simply an experience that they are going through that has some potentially painful aspects to it.

[Calm]

People that were inactive just didn't feel like coming to church. It has very little to do with disbelief because of anti literature.

The way inactivity was used around where I lived was to include all reasons for not attending and that included disbelief, lack of commitment, lack of desire, health, etc.

[Calm]

No offense taken. There's a common misconception among many members that when one stops believing or leaves the church that they will change and usually for the worse.

However, we act based on our beliefs/cognitions as well as emotions. And while one's beliefs in one area may not be enough to create massive behavioural change, if we as a being are defined by a combination of our belief/cognitions, behaviour and affect (emotion), then any change in any of the three will lead to a change in the self....a change in cognition may not be seen as significant in changing behaviour or affect in other areas such as a marital relationship, but it still seems like if the cognition change itself is seen as significant, surely there must be significant changes in other areas of the self as though we talk about these aspects as if they are separate entities in our self, how it functions is that we are a blending of the three, they don't exist independently of each other...even more than that we are really simply talking about three different ways of describing/measuring the same thing. Just as one can measure the height, width and length of something and talk about one of the aspects as if it exists independently of the other and yet they are all describing the physical nature of the object or whatever we are measuring.

This was another thing I think is important. We should love a personality and a character - that's what defines the person. It's true that certain behaviors change. It's true that certain principles the marriage was created on are different. But many things don't change.

Personality and character are defined through cognition, behaviour and affect...denying that a significant change in one area has not lead to significant changes in other areas and in the self overall seems most likely to imply that the change in cognition wasn't as significant as one thought and if it was, then perhaps one simply hasn't allowed oneself yet to see the significant changes because they are subtle or influenced by some of our assumptions we haven't been paying attention to that still influence us to a huge degree in our lives.

People often assume they have compartmentalized their lives to a much greater degree than they've actually achieved. I think it is actually impossible to do so if we are mentally and emotionally healthy individuals...kind of like the butterfly effect on an individual basis.

Change isn't a bad thing. If I ever get to a point where I think either myself or my husband has stopped changing, I will be very disappointed. Change is fundamental to the principle of eternal progression...if we are afraid of change, how will we progress?

Edited August 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[sdc999]

Here's a radical idea. Why not find some people who are either currently "wayward", or wayward-reformed, and ask them what would be most helpful to preserve or strengthen their marriages?

After all, you wouldn't go to a Chevy dealership to learn about Fords, so why would you go to Larry Barkdull to learn about the feelings of wayward LDS?

Not wanting to derail the topic but I've never heard the Chevy dealership say, Our cars are great and you should buy one, but let me tell you about a few of our own shortcomings before you make your decision. The Ford house will be glad to tell you of the flaws of the Chevy and Chevy about the Ford. I have found it best to research Both and then make an education decision.

So going to those people would be a good idea because they usually can tell you what went wrong from their own perspective but you should get both sides as I'm sure they could vary somewhat.

[awyatt]

This was another thing I think is important. We should love a personality and a character - that's what defines the person. It's true that certain behaviors change. It's true that certain principles the marriage was created on are different. But many things don't change.

Many don't change, I agree. But if the spiritual basis of the marriage changes, what is a person to do?

Here's an admittedly weak analogy that I actually experienced: I used to have a checking account with a small, local bank. Before opening the account, I investigated all the banks in the area and even some online banks. I tried a couple of them, but found them not to my liking. When I opened the account, I was pleased with the fees, the service, and (most of all) the personal relationship offered by the bank. We went along swimmingly for over a year.

Then everything changed--the bank was bought by a much larger bank in the area in a consolidation wave. Letters went out and an advertising campaign ensued, assuring me and all customers that nothing would change--except the name--and we would enjoy the same benefits and level of service as before. I was skeptical, as I know how business paradigm shifts work. (You buy the business, and the bought business generally has to adapt to the paradigm and practices of the buyer.) The larger bank was even one I had tried before, and I had left them in favor of the small local.

Long story short: After several months I discovered it wasn't just the name that had changed. Charges and fees were changed to be in line with the buyer's fees. Service hours changed. And those with whom I'd had a relationship changed the relationship because they were operating under new and different internal rules.

In this situation, most everything upon which I had based the original decision to form a business relationship had changed. It was the values of the original institution that attracted me and the implementation of those values that satisfied me as a customer. The solution here was simple; I started searching for and eventually found a different bank more in line with my original expectations.

Again, the analogy is weak as a marriage is not a business. (Well, for most people it isn't.) But if you marry a person with a particular set of expectations--including an understood, common set of values that guide your life--what is one to do when the person throws out those values or says "I no longer believe in those values"?

Understand, please, that I'm not talking here about values such as honesty, integrity, courage, or kindness. Those may not change. I am talking about values like belief in prophets, continuing revelation, God, the atonement, priesthood authority, life after life, and eternal marriage. When a person changes their beliefs in the gospel, it is these beliefs, once foundational to the marriage, that are changed.

This is the intractable problem that a still-believing spouse faces. Some say "that's it; I'm outta here!" and leave the marriage. (And those people are roundly condemned--unjustly so, in my opinion--by others who don't understand.) Some say "I'll stay," but it often requires a "retooling" of the very foundations of the marriage, which is quite difficult. Such retooling often means that the gospel is no longer the center of the home life (it is probably relegated to the periphery), which can be continually wrenching for the believing spouse.

Despite the Beatles' assertion to the contrary, you need more than love. You need a common, shared framework in which to organize your lives and teach your children. (Were this not the case, you wouldn't see so many RfM types asking about ways to pull their believing spouses into their new framework or subtle ways to teach their children that the Church isn't true.)

I'm glad I've never found myself in that situation. I pray I never do. And my heart goes out to those who experience it.

-Allen

[why me]

The way inactivity was used around where I lived was to include all reasons for not attending and that included disbelief, lack of commitment, lack of desire, health, etc.

For most spouses with an inactive spouse, disbelief was very rare, especially before the Internet. I never heard of an inactive person disbelieving and attempting to impose that disbelief on the spouse. Today it is rather common. But I wouldn't call these people inactive. They may be antimormon, exmormon and hyper-critical of the lds church.

[kassie]

I think one problem is that often when one spouse loses their testimony and becomes "inactive" or "less active" or leaves the Church completely it is not necessarily because they are being influenced by "anti-Mormon" literature and this is often assumed to be the case by other ward members. Some leave because they get into Church history itself and find it incompatible with their current belief system. They can't reconcile teachings from the past that have been changed in the present. Or a host of other numerous reasons.

After her temple marriage several years ago, within the next month, my sister-in-law confided in me that it was the temple rituals themselves that started her quest out of the church. She felt the temple was a "creepy" experience and nothing like the way it was presented to her in her temple prep class. This is tragic to me, that on her first time to the temple (other than doing baptisms as a young teen) she began to have doubts. She said it was one of the "most miserable and devastating days of her life." This is a woman who was BIC and descended from a long line of pioneers and a strong Church family.

She certainly had not been reading any anti-Mormon literature before her wedding. But after this experience THEN she began to delve into Church history and felt that she had been "lied to" her entire life. She left the Church within a year. My brother was devastated by this change of events. He didn't know how to cope with the changes this meant and especially in a new marriage. They have been married now for almost 5 years. He loves her very much and I know she loves him. He prays constantly she will come home to the Church.as does the rest of the family. They have two children who she is allowing to be raised in the Church but says they will get the "truth" from her when they are older.

These situations of a "wayward spouse" are all different. My temple marriage in 1978 was probably the highlight of my life. I certainly didn't think the endowment or my sealing were "creepy." I thought it was holy. A lot is perspective.

I pray that for those of you in this situation will deal with their spouse in a loving manner. If anything they need it more than ever.

[kassie]

I think one problem is that often when one spouse loses their testimony and becomes "inactive" or "less active" or leaves the Church completely it is not necessarily because they are being influenced by "anti-Mormon" literature and this is often assumed to be the case by other ward members. Some leave because they get into Church history itself and find it incompatible with their current belief system. They can't reconcile teachings from the past that have been changed in the present. Or a host of other numerous reasons.

After her temple marriage several years ago, within the next month, my sister-in-law confided in me that it was the temple rituals themselves that started her quest out of the church. She felt the temple was a "creepy" experience and nothing like the way it was presented to her in her temple prep class. This is tragic to me, that on her first time to the temple (other than doing baptisms as a young teen) she began to have doubts. She said it was one of the "most miserable and devastating days of her life." This is a woman who was BIC and descended from a long line of pioneers and a strong Church family.

She certainly had not been reading any anti-Mormon literature before her wedding. But after this experience THEN she began to delve into Church history and felt that she had been "lied to" her entire life. She left the Church within a year. My brother was devastated by this change of events. He didn't know how to cope with the changes this meant and especially in a new marriage. They have been married now for almost 5 years. He loves her very much and I know she loves him. He prays constantly she will come home to the Church.as does the rest of the family. They have two children who she is allowing to be raised in the Church but says they will get the "truth" from her when they are older.

These situations of a "wayward spouse" are all different. My temple marriage in 1978 was probably the highlight of my life. I certainly didn't think the endowment or my sealing were "creepy." I thought it was holy. A lot is perspective.

I pray that for those of you in this situation will deal with their spouse in a loving manner. If anything they need it more than ever.