Anatomy of a Failure: Divorce, Accountability, Responsibility

[Calm]

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Good question. I suppose what I'm saying is - it's incredibly difficult and nuanced to balance work, family, church. When retirement comes - after the kids and callings, tithing and taxes, commutes and disputes - the idea that either marriage partner would simply agree - as if their own opinion doesn't count or have validity - the ward and stake culture that helps the parents build the family for decades does what - to help senior couples? 

I don’t see much difference before retirement when it comes to major decision making as both should be involved in it, though it may be the company the spouses are working for that are insisting on specifics like location (my brother has had to move five times in about 20 years with his employers).  I wasn’t particularly thrilled about moving to Kansas or back to Utah due to my husband’s job, but it was a joint decision as I saw more benefits than negatives.  Now we will be permanently in Utah after his retirement next January due to family, which I am not thrilled about as it’s harder for me to function 4 months out of the year (I love Utah for its neighbors and so much family; I hate, hate the hot weather, Calgary was great that way, but my husband prefers the milder winter and never complains about the summer electric bill).  But again a joint decision.  Given my daughter’s situation of having limited social life, I would be pushing to follow my son’s family wherever they moved in order to give her that necessary interaction as frequently as possible (assuming they were okay with us following and weren’t looking for some independence time as I found that quite helpful in helping my and my husband’s relationship since before we moved a few years into our marriage, if he got too frustrated he would head off to his family and hang out with his brothers or parents rather than work on it with me).

The ward can provide an instant family wherever they move, provide counseling as always when asked (dependent on approval by bishop, of course).  Senior couples have lots of opportunities to serve, including together through volunteer at local charities as well as missions.  This can give them reasons to grow together as well as giving them a sense of meaningful purpose that they are working towards together, which apparently helps to keep them alive and healthier according to studies.

Edited August 7, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

At the same time - the ministering brothers, sisters, EQP, RS Pres, Bishopric, etc. - were they fulfiling thier callings and the divorce was never mentioned?

You can’t force someone to open up to you, even close friends.

There is a very good chance divorce was never mentioned prior to retirement or the kids leaving as when retirement comes there is a shift of priorities and where they were on the same page before, now it’s different.  His priorities might have always been his work and his connections through that or maybe he chose his work because it allowed him to live on the East Coast, as opposed to interacting with extended family.  Maybe he loves the friends and community he has there and worries he won’t be able to rebuild it in Utah, he doesn’t want his social life (which is now a much bigger portion of his life) to narrow down to family.  Maybe he likes feeling needed in the Church and thinks if he moves to Utah where wards have tons of actives, he won’t be needed. It looks like her top priority is interacting with family.  Supporting her husband in his job by living where it works best for that was likely a nobrainer for her as his income meant benefits for the family.  Now location doesn’t matter for family income and therefore being closer to family moves to the top of her list.  There may therefore have been nothing to see as far as conflict with this couple before because there was no conflict.  They both may have assumed it would always be that way and not worked at making sure their shared priorities were actually shared and not actually different priorities.

Unless you know more of how the conflict developed, I don’t think you should be including the Church culture as part of the problem.  It may have contributed by adding stress or it may have helped by giving them more shared purposes.  There may have been conflict unnoticed by friends and leaders or there may not have been.

Not everyone’s problems are yours to solve.  Insisting you can make a difference in others’ lives is going to lead to big disappointment.  Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help to the best of our ability, to be a big positive, a support, including church culture, but I find the assumption that you or by extension you as part of the Church community could have saved the marriage if only everyone at church did their part the right way is a bit arrogant…unless you know specific details where one is saying there was conflict and they asked for help but no one was listening.

I know divorces that happened out of the blue for the other spouse where there had never been complaints before (she decided she didn’t want the life after all and just walked out, though my guess given the extended family, in at least one case neither spouse was good at talking about their feelings in general and the relationship in specific, but generally avoided negatives).

You have no way of knowing if the previous activity in callings and such helped keep them together where if they hadn’t had a shared purpose (his calling as a bishop, for example) the marriage would have broken up long ago.  As far as tithing goes, money is a big factor in divorce, but it is more management of it in my understanding than absolute amount…if there is conflict in what to spend stuff on, how much to save, etc.

Church culture provides extensive ways for seniors to be involved in most cases.  They may have to be more proactive about it, but it is rare in my experience there is no opportunity.  Depending on the ward, it may lack getting together socially, but many wards have empty nester family home evenings, monthly RS luncheons, group service projects or even monthly block parties (here in Utah).

Edited August 7, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's very ingrained in Mormonism to be thoroughly involved in our personal lives, isn't it?

Not in my experience.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Not in my experience.

I can partially agree with Meadowchik.  I'm very introverted and so when my ministering brothers contact me, it bothers me.  I'd rather not have any ministering brothers.  It does feel like they are trying to be involved in my personal life.  I understand, though, that I'm a little on the extreme and I doubt most members see it that way.

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, webbles said:

I can partially agree with Meadowchik.  I'm very introverted and so when my ministering brothers contact me, it bothers me.  I'd rather not have any ministering brothers.  It does feel like they are trying to be involved in my personal life.  I understand, though, that I'm a little on the extreme and I doubt most members see it that way.

I agree.  I’m often assigned to people with lots of personal problems, but I never share the info I get up the chain.  I think it’s expected that I will.  I won’t. 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, webbles said:

I can partially agree with Meadowchik.  I'm very introverted and so when my ministering brothers contact me, it bothers me.  I'd rather not have any ministering brothers.  It does feel like they are trying to be involved in my personal life.  I understand, though, that I'm a little on the extreme and I doubt most members see it that way.

I am very introverted at times and not so at others.  We rarely have seen our ministers on a regular basis and when we did, they were good friends that didn’t probe beyond offering whenever we needed help. We would be sharing the personal stuff anyway.  I think there is probably a wide variety of experience.   I have never been terribly involved in those I minister to because most of the time I didn’t have a car to visit them or they weren’t active and I was too shy to push myself into their lives.  I babysat kids when it made sense.  That is always something I feel comfortable offering.  Took in a couple of older kids, but in the first case it was just a coincidence it was my assigned sister’s child.
 

There was one person I ministered to where I was intimately involved in her life.  I was trying to protect her kids.  Trigger my mothering instinct and my introversion takes a distant second place.

Edited August 8, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 8/3/2023 at 12:30 PM, CV75 said:

What are the pertinent facts showing that the Church (please include what you mean by "Church") is responsible? 

Many times I think we almost compete to be "good Mormons", especially in leadership, and we tend not to speak about personal problems with those who are exactly those we are trying to impress.

It's all false because EVERY family has its problems, it's just ego and pride defending itself from reality.

It's in the culture itself.  All your peers are seen as "perfect couples" (true or not) and now supposedly you have to speak to THEM about your intimate problems?

It's not the fault of the church, it's just an unusual cultural situation in which one might feel pressured to seek help, and thereby become one of those who are "part of the problem" thus removing ourselves from those who are "part of the solution".

It's a small culture of a few hundred people of which some have been seen as "leaders" trying to keep their illusion of being perfect intact.

It's being human, not much more than that.

Edited August 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Many times I think we almost compete to be "good Mormons", especially in leadership, and we tend not to speak about personal problems with those who are exactly those we are trying to impress.

It's all false because EVERY family has its problems, it's just ego and pride defending itself from reality.

It's in the culture itself.  All your peers are seen as "perfect couples" (true or not) and now supposedly you have to speak to THEM about your intimate problems?

It's not the fault of the church, it's just an unusual cultural situation in which one might feel pressured to seek help, and thereby become one of those who are "part of the problem" thus removing ourselves from those who are "part of the solution".

It's a small culture of a few hundred people of which some have been seen as "leaders" trying to keep their illusion of being perfect intact.

It's being human, not much more than that.

Yes, I was just trying to hear out the OP on what they considered to be unique.

[Meadowchik]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Not in my experience.

Objectively I think it's fair. I know it's a worn out example in some places, but undergarments is a ready example. Then the sheer time commitment is a major aspect, and of course regular questions about our sexual lives is involvement at a fundamental level.

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

I can partially agree with Meadowchik.  I'm very introverted and so when my ministering brothers contact me, it bothers me.  I'd rather not have any ministering brothers.  It does feel like they are trying to be involved in my personal life.  I understand, though, that I'm a little on the extreme and I doubt most members see it that way.

The involvement is a feature, not a bug. Iow the structure is about heavy involvement, though that can vary from unit to unit depending on the inclination and ability to follow suit.

[bluebell]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

The involvement is a feature, not a bug. Iow the structure is about heavy involvement, though that can vary from unit to unit depending on the inclination and ability to follow suit.

Is heavy involvement in the church equal to heavy involvement of the church in our personal lives though?  That's where I think I'm with Cal on this one. 

I'm heavily involved in the church (and so the church is a huge part of my life) but that's me inputting myself into it, and not really the other way around.  I agree that heavy involvement in the church is a feature and not a bug, I think where I'm pushing back is the idea (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you and you didn't mean this at all) that it's a feature of the church to be heavily involved in my personal life.

Most of the time the church has no idea what is going on in my personal life, and the only time they have is when I've gone out of my way to inform them (which normally I don't do because I'm also a solid introvert).  Other than questions about keeping covenants (which I seek out by renewing my temple recommend every two years), the church isn't really set up to be personally involved in it other than on a surface level.  (because to me, never going more in depth than "how are you guys doing" and "let me know if you need anything" from time to time is pretty surface level involvement).

This is why it doesn't surprise me when most wards have no idea that a couple is moving toward divorce until they actually separate or divorce.  Or don't know that a child is really struggling with mental health or addictions until they end up in some kind of crisis situation with attempted suicide or the law enforcement involvement and the family can't keep it to themselves anymore.  Or don't know that a previously active family has been struggling with their testimonies and decided to leave the church until the day they actually leave the church.

Most people don't share their personal struggles with the church, and the church isn't set up to overcome that tendency.  

 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is heavy involvement in the church equal to heavy involvement of the church in our personal lives though?  That's where I think I'm with Cal on this one. 

Yes I do think it is.

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm heavily involved in the church (and so the church is a huge part of my life) but that's me inputting myself into it, and not really the other way around.  I agree that heavy involvement in the church is a feature and not a bug, I think where I'm pushing back is the idea (and maybe I'm misunderstanding you and you didn't mean this at all) that it's a feature of the church to be heavily involved in my personal life.

Most of the time the church has no idea what is going on in my personal life, and the only time they have is when I've gone out of my way to inform them (which normally I don't do because I'm also a solid introvert).  Other than questions about keeping covenants (which I seek out by renewing my temple recommend every two years), the church isn't really set up to be personally involved in it other than on a surface level.  (because to me, never going more in depth than "how are you guys doing" and "let me know if you need anything" from time to time is pretty surface level involvement).

This is why it doesn't surprise me when most wards have no idea that a couple is moving toward divorce until they actually separate or divorce.  Or don't know that a child is really struggling with mental health or addictions until they end up in some kind of crisis situation with attempted suicide or the law enforcement involvement and the family can't keep it to themselves anymore.  Or don't know that a previously active family has been struggling with their testimonies and decided to leave the church until the day they actually leave the church.

Most people don't share their personal struggles with the church, and the church isn't set up to overcome that tendency.  

 

I think the point illustrated here is not that the church does or doesn't get entangled in our personal lives. Rather it is a result of the overarching belief that personal issues will be addressed and solved by church involvement. For example, if both spouses are righteous and keep their temple covenants, then they will find happiness in their marriage. 

In other words, temple worthiness and commitment to the church *is* the pinnacle of our personal/private lives. 

That's a root to why there are attitudes that dismiss personal conflict or incompatibility or unhappiness. If we're righteous, we should be happy. All those issues can be solved by repentance and/or an increase in faith, and enduring to the end.

To be clear there are signs of the church narrative adapting more realistically to what people are really experiencing, but even if that continues and progresses it would take time for that to reshape the church culture and overall beliefs, assuming they could.

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

of course regular questions about our sexual lives is involvement at a fundamental level.

Doesn’t this only occur though premarriage and for teens?  Except for vague temple recommend questions, but even then it is just a question once a year, now every two years.

Quote

Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?

Do you obey the law of chastity?
 

Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend#questions

And if the limit of involvement is instruction you receive on how to wear garments and then you are asked if you wear them according to instruction and any other discussion is to a general audience, that just doesn’t feel like much personal involvement to me which is about personal interaction to me and having an effect on my personal life (which the Church has a massive effect on).

Edited August 8, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Rather it is a result of the overarching belief that personal issues will be addressed and solved by church involvement. For example, if both spouses are righteous and keep their temple covenants, then they will find happiness in their marriage. 

I think labeling it as personal involvement of the Church confuses more than it helps identify what issue you are discussing.  I doubt most people would understand what you mean without you taking the time to define in detail what you mean and then afterwards, would still have to ask if “personal involvement of the Church” came up in the future if you meant this definition this time as well or the one Bluebell and I naturally assumed that you meant.

Maybe “impact of the Church on our personal lives” is a better label than involvement because the involvement is on our end and not the Church’s.

”It's very ingrained in Mormonism to be thoroughly involved in our personal lives, isn't it?” would be better expressed if I understand what you are saying as “it is very ingrained in Mormonism for us to see church involvement as impacting our personal lives thoroughly in a positive way” and thus the logic is if our personal lives are a mess, we are poorly applying church principle….added:  or maybe ‘it is ingrained in Mormonism to have church ideals integrated thoroughly in our personal attitudes’.

An in-depth textbook on personal health is not thoroughly involved in our lives even if we reference it constantly.  Principles and teachings are not actors, iow, whether delivered by a textbook, manual, or across a pulpit.

I agree with the details of your premise, just think the label you gave it is too confusing.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes I do think it is.

I think the point illustrated here is not that the church does or doesn't get entangled in our personal lives. Rather it is a result of the overarching belief that personal issues will be addressed and solved by church involvement. For example, if both spouses are righteous and keep their temple covenants, then they will find happiness in their marriage. 

In other words, temple worthiness and commitment to the church *is* the pinnacle of our personal/private lives. 

That's a root to why there are attitudes that dismiss personal conflict or incompatibility or unhappiness. If we're righteous, we should be happy. All those issues can be solved by repentance and/or an increase in faith, and enduring to the end.

To be clear there are signs of the church narrative adapting more realistically to what people are really experiencing, but even if that continues and progresses it would take time for that to reshape the church culture and overall beliefs, assuming they could.

 

I think Cal post mirrors my own thoughts on this, and that I think it's your definition of "personal involvement" that I find confusing and not in keeping with my understanding of what personal involvement is.

[MustardSeed]

I don’t know guys.  I’ve sat in on enough presidency meetings and heard enough discussion about people’s personal lives to deny the claim that the church gets involved on a level that isn’t necessary.  Not with everyone obviously.  
My latest challenge is my in-laws ward- they are calling us monthly for info about them.  The ministering brother, the ministering sister and the bishop all feel need to be informed.  At this point, hospice is in charge.  We don’t need the ward nor do we want their opinions. 
 

I have clients who often will share that they have involved the bishop in their marital issues.  Porn use is a very common marital issue for which adult people will seek council from their bishop.  

When I was in the YW I was given information regularly about families of girls, sometimes I would claim a non-need-to-know status.  
 

I think our service focus lends itself to info gathering.  

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:49 PM, MustardSeed said:

My in-laws just split after 60plus years.  Yes they are 79 years old

Mine too. 

Almost as if the more liberated we become (in the modern sense), the less we are actually free.

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:54 PM, Meadowchik said:

sometimes divorce is the right choice.

the exception does not disprove the rule 

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/7/2023 at 1:56 PM, MustardSeed said:

Also it sends me to the moon that people believe the church should be so involved in marital issues. Since when are laypeople qualified ? 

Since we sustain them as being called of God to lead a congregation. Said congregations being composed primarily of, you guessed it, families - with two married heterosexual adults. Seems odd to me that this much detail is needed here. 

Such congregational leaders can surely recommend licensed therapist counseling, medication, etc. when prompted by the Spirt to do so.

Or are we just absolving everyone in the Church from accountability for increasing divroce rates, locally and globally?

 

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/7/2023 at 2:28 PM, The Nehor said:

Also who is going to be happy when their ministers suddenly start asking about their marriage?

Perhaps those hoping someone will offer help or guidance - or in any way try to return the service, care, and sacrifice that couple has given to the ward and stake - for decades?

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/7/2023 at 2:44 PM, Meadowchik said:

It's very ingrained in Mormonism to be thoroughly involved in our personal lives, isn't it?

Yes - by design - and does that design exclude the same involvement when things are rough? God forbid.

[nuclearfuels]

On 8/7/2023 at 4:35 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

"We're getting a divorce after 57 years.  Our full spiritually fulfilling schedule of service and marriage building was just too much for us.  If only we weren't surrounded by all the supporting love of ministering sisters, ministering brothers, elder's quorum, Relief Society, bishopric, and other ward and stake friends.   If only we hadn't dated weekly!"  said nobody, ever.

They adapted to a marriage of three partners, husband, wife, and God instrumentalized in the form of the Church. 

THat adaptation was not sustainable

[MustardSeed]

21 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Since we sustain them as being called of God to lead a congregation. Said congregations being composed primarily of, you guessed it, families - with two married heterosexual adults. Seems odd to me that this much detail is needed here. 

Such congregational leaders can surely recommend licensed therapist counseling, medication, etc. when prompted by the Spirt to do so.

Or are we just absolving everyone in the Church from accountability for increasing divroce rates, locally and globally?

 

 

I don’t understand why folks would go to a church leader for marital advice.  We hire lawyers, dentists, chiropractors, plumbers, financial advisors- but we should expect bishops and RS presidents to manage our personal lives? 
IMO spiritual leaders are there to guide spiritual matters and that’s where it ends. 

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Yes - by design - and does that design exclude the same involvement when things are rough? God forbid.

I'm still not understanding what you are saying exactly.  Are you saying that church is designed to be personally involved in people's marriages?

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Since we sustain them as being called of God to lead a congregation. Said congregations being composed primarily of, you guessed it, families - with two married heterosexual adults. Seems odd to me that this much detail is needed here. 

Such congregational leaders can surely recommend licensed therapist counseling, medication, etc. when prompted by the Spirt to do so.

Or are we just absolving everyone in the Church from accountability for increasing divroce rates, locally and globally?

 

 

Where is the accountability for the people in the marriage though?  And I don't mean to work on the marriage but rather the accountability to seek out help when things are falling apart if help is wanted. 

Or are you saying that help was sought and no one in the ward would give any?