Overcoming the Natural Man

As I continue to read the books I mentioned in last week’s post, I have had the opportunity to do some soul searching and self reflection about my own marriage based on what I am learning.

This week in “Drawing Heaven into Your Marriage” by H. Wallace Goddard, PhD, the chapter I read focused on sacrifice in marriage, and submitting our will to the Lord. There are some profoundly beautiful and thought provoking passages in this book! One particular passage provided me the opportunity to examine my expectations. It’s fairly long, but worth the read!

“In every relationship, there is an inevitable tension. It is often worse in marriage than in other relationships, in part because we share so much-money, time, food, space-even our own bodies. Marriage is not only intense but can also last for decades. As we are challenged to form our own little Zion, the natural man resists. ‘For the natural [spouse] is an enemy to God [and partner], and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever…’ (Mosiah 3:19)

Our untamed, uncivilized, unconquered, unchanged natures are ill suited for Zion. We have limited choices: to chafe and struggle in unsatisfying relationships, or put our natures on the altar for God to change, or we can depart Zion, disenchanted. Those are the options. Man remains forever enemies to God and marriage-unless we yield ‘to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father’ (Mosiah 3:19).”

As I took inventory of my “natural man” tendencies within my own marriage, I thought about how many times I have made the choice to “chafe and struggle” rather than submit to the Lord’s will for my marriage. Loving and serving my husband shouldn’t be based on whether I think he has loved and served me enough. Rather, it should be based on my desire to create a Zion home where commitment to covenants and commitment to the Lord are the focus.

As I thought about serving my husband and sacrificing for his needs, I was reminded of a touching video about sacrifice and true love in a marriage. I dare you not to cry when you watch it!

Goddard points out that making the choice to submit is not something we can do once and forget it. It takes a new commitment each day to choose the Savior or the natural man. As we practice choosing Christ, the choice becomes easier. I need to see my husband as the Savior sees him: full of goodness and potential. I have often reflected how much easier it is to see the best in our children than our spouses. This week, I am committed to extending the same grace to my husband as I do to my children. Want to join me?

Marital Bliss- Fact or Fiction?

What is the best way to improve your marriage? I just started reading two books about marriage that appear to take different approaches to answering this question.

In the book “Drawing Heaven into Your Marriage”, H. Wallace Goddard sites the parable of the Good Samaritan and suggests that in our marriages, the answers to our problems can be found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ-practicing compassion and empathy toward our spouse and elevating ourselves above our mortal weaknesses. One of my favorite quotes so far:

“Jesus’ infinite grace and goodness can conquer our smallness, selfishness, and peevishness. There is no arena of life where this conquest is more needed than in the scuffing and irritations of marriage. Marriage is perfectly designed to provoke us to desperation. It will sometimes leave us injured and half-dead. Priests and Levites, or therapists and advisors-will not ultimately rescue us. They may give us helpful pointers, but they cannot change our souls.”

How profound! I was just remarking to my niece this week as she expressed some frustration with some differences that she was having with her husband that our spouses are the main source of our refinement here on earth. I'm reminded once again of my total dependence on my Savior, and of His power to redeem me from fault finding and score keeping in my marriage. I am excited to continue reading this book, and working hard to invite Christ into my marriage.

The other book, “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work” by John M. Gottman, uses specific behaviors and skills to improve relationships, and relies heavily on the theory that good marriages are based on strong friendships. Dr. Gottman states:

“At the heart of the Seven Principles approach is the simple truth that happy marriages are based on a deep friendship. By this I mean a mutual respect for and enjoyment of each other’s company. These couples tend to know each other intimately-they are well versed in each other’s likes, dislikes, personality quirks, hopes and dreams. They have an abiding regard for each other and express this fondness not just in the big ways but through small gestures day in and day out.”

The author has done extensive research and has concluded that there are certain behaviors that doom a marriage and certain behaviors that enhance a marriage. He claims to be able to predict divorce with a high percentage of accuracy by observing a couple for a short time. Reading the example interactions he included to illustrate which couples he predicted would succeed, and which couples would divorce made me wonder what he would say to my husband and me if he watched us trying to solve a problem. As I pondered that, it occurred to me that maybe some people are naturally able to develop and continue to nurture that strong friendship that Gottman refers to, and maybe others that Gottman would doom to defeat actually succeed because they partner with the Savior.

In thinking about the two different approaches, I have to conclude (based on my own experiences in marriage) that both improving basic character and acquiring specific skills are needed in combination to have the most success. There have been times when I have seen someone practicing a specific skill, but lacking the emotional connection that makes the skill effective. Without underlying Christlike attributes, behaviors can seem hollow and lack meaning. That's not to say that we shouldn't start somewhere! Sometimes we have to practice showing more charity toward our spouse without having the real desire behind it. They may see through it at first, but as we continue to try, those feelings of charity will come. The Lord won't let us down!

Contracts and Covenants

This week I did some reading on what it takes to have a covenant marriage. In our modern society, many marriages fail because the relationship is based more on a contract than on a covenant. In a contract relationship, each party is expected to give 50% so all things are fair and equitable. In a covenant relationship, each party gives 100% and places the needs of their partner above their own.

I was particularly impressed with a talk by Bruce C. Hafen about covenant marriage. He described three wolves that threaten every marriage. I pondered how each of these wolves applied to my own marriage.

I thought about the first wolf of natural adversity. Some of the recent trials that we have faced include the stress of caring for my aging parents in our home, and some unexpected injuries and illnesses that have taxed our finances. I thought about how difficult it is not to allow resentment to enter into our relationship when one of us perceives that the other is not pulling his weight, or blames the other for unfortunate incidents that cause hardship for our family.

Reflecting on the second wolf of our own imperfections led me to some profound thoughts and realizations about myself and about my husband. I became more aware of how I overlook my own weaknesses at times, and yet cannot resist shining a spotlight on my husband’s. We all have need of improvement in one way or another, and sometimes when we see our own flaws in another person, we are more harsh than we should be. I was reminded of the power of encouragement, and want to be better at making my husband feel valued instead of criticized.

The third wolf of excessive individualism is difficult to overcome when we are constantly bombarded with the ideas of the world that tell us that we need to look out for ourselves, and that we should not be dependent on anyone. I have found that when I feel determined to exert my independence, there is more distance between me and my husband. We need to need each other- it binds us together. I loved Elder Hafen’s quote at the end of his talk:

“May we restore the concept of marriage as a covenant, even the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. And when the wolf comes, may we be as shepherds, not hirelings, willing to lay down our lives, a day at a time, for the sheep of our covenant. Then, like Adam and Eve, we will have joy.”

The Definition of Marriage

Last summer, my family found ourselves in a unique setting. We had planned a family trip to San Francisco, and unknowingly ended up walking down Castro Street (the center of a neighborhood known for it's rainbow crosswalks and gay population) on Friday, June 26th. We were completely unaware that the Supreme Court had announced their landmark ruling on same sex marriage just moments earlier. The remainder of the weekend was filled with celebrations (none of which seemed family friendly, so we had to alter our originally planned destinations...) It was a stark contrast to years earlier when, after months of door to door petitioning, waving signs on the street, and attending rallies as requested by the leaders of our church we celebrated the victory of Proposition 8 in California, which officially defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

After the effort that we obediently gave in support of Proposition 8, we couldn't help but feel like it was wasted now that the supreme court had overruled the will of the people. I am embarrassed to say that until this week, I had never invested the time to read the official supreme court ruling. I have, at times, felt torn by my devotion to the standard of the traditional family, and my compassion for those with same sex attraction who have a desire to experience a committed relationship. Reading the official ruling has given me intelligent reasons, separate from my moral beliefs, to oppose this particular action by the supreme court. If you haven't read it, I would certainly encourage you to. It is worth wading through the legalese and investing the time.

I wanted to share a few quotes from the dissenting judges that helped shape my perspective on the ruling. I hope they will give you new insights as well, and give you more confidence to discuss your opposition to the ruling. I hope you are inspired to read the entire document, and better comprehend its significance.

Justice Roberts:
But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description— and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone.  What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.


Justice Scalia:
Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Justice Thomas:
Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petitioners from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney. Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized. To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the founding, such conduct was understood to predate government, not to flow from it. As Locke had explained many years earlier, “The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children.”