Again, my class is over, but I was discussing a concept with a friend and realized I hadn't explained it this way before:
"Stone-walling" is where in a confrontational situation your body get's "flooded." This is what most people see as anger or frustration. Your heart rate goes up, your breathing is faster, your hormones are raging. This is where the fight or flight "instinct" (for lack of a better word) comes into play. Some people choose fight. This can come out in words of criticism, blame, correction, etc. Or people can "flight." This can be physically or mentally running away. In most cases the person who is "flooded" puts up a wall of sorts where the "stones" cannot penetrate. They block out the offender. Though this is a defense mechanism (this is all very understandable that someone would react this way), it actually hurts their partner very much.
Why? All we "stone-wallers" are trying to do is get out of range from the offender's stones and arrows? How could it possibly hurt them? Because this communicates we "stone-wallers" are better off on our own. We would rather not work out a problem with them. We are opting to erase them temporarily. This hurts. See how that could be a problem?
The truth of it is, fight or flight reflects one thing. Resistance. It is natural. But our goal on this earth is to overcome what is natural and choose the higher road. So "stone-wallers", next time, if there is a conflict, stick it out. Even if you end up crying in front of your spouse. It is OK. The point is that it communicates something different to him/her. It communicates that you are committed and love them enough to work it out.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
Reaction vs. Response
K, so I know the semester is over, but I was trying to explain something to my husband the other day and finally figured out how to say it (I hope...). I think it definitely pertains to family interactions.
Sometimes in our family we think in terms of actions and consequences. When a child is about to touch the stove we see touching a hot stove as an action and we see the child getting burned as the natural consequence that will be sure to follow. But if you are the parent about to witness the occurrence, you might try to prevent the pain to your child that would inevitably follow. This would be your response to the original action and you would hope that your response could carry out an alternative consequence. In a diagram this might look something like this:
Child: action>consequence
Parent: observing action>response>alternative consequence
Sometimes even in a marriage, child to child relationship, or even a parent to child relationship, this pattern may also be present. A family member may see a need for interference and may feel an obligation, or even a right to offer some correction. I hope in most cases this is a response to an action and not a reaction. A reaction would entail something antonymous to a response. In the case of the child about to touch the stove, the natural reaction would be to flip out and tell the child that it is a strong "no no" to touch the stove. The parent may even choose to give the child little spanks on the bottom as a good reminder that the stove is off-limits. The response, on the other hand, would be to tell the child that the stove is hot and should not be touched or they will get an "owie." The parent might even tell the child how hard it would be for him/her to see his/her little child get hurt. This display of love instead of fear might make an even longer lasting impression on the child.
The diagram for the reaction would look very similar to the response diagram.
Parent: observing action>reaction>alternative consequence
I recognize that this is a very simple example, but bear with me.
Notice that the reaction and the response could have had the same consequence: (hopefully) the child will no longer try to touch the stove. As both examples met the same end, they did not function the same way. Both courses of action on the parent's part (the response and reaction) were forms of correction, but the overall atmosphere of the incidents were very different. Nor was there an identical spirit about the incidents. The feelings were different. The mother who reacted may have been feeling frustration, stress, anger, impatience, etc. Where the mother who responded may have felt a duty to protect, patience, longsuffering, peace, and gentleness (fruits of the spirit: Galations5:23). Do you think that child can sense the differences in the home and in his/her relationship with his/her parent? Can't you see how a spouse who chooses to react instead of respond could damage his/her relationship with his/her spouse?
There are examples in the Book of Mormon where a whole group of people needed to act in retaliation to an opposing people. I am speaking about the war chapters in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites and Nephites struggled for power and deliverance. I will site two examples where the Nephites battled the Lamanites and won (notice the same end was met by the same course of action), but the their attitudes were very much different.
The first is found in Mosiah 11. King Noah was sending armies out to defend his lands and drive the Lamanites out. The people drove them back for a time but were "lifted up in the pride of their hearts...[and boasted] in their own strength...and did delight in blood, and the shedding of the blood of their brethren..." How awful! They defended their land against their enemies but they LIKED doing it.
Next example. In the struggle between Moroni and Amalickiah, the Nephites took up arms in defense of their wives and children. In the ongoing war it says in Alma 48:23 that "they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all--they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God."
Do you think the two armies behaved differently? You bet. While one boasted in their own strength, the other boasted in God because they knew that "in his strength [they could] do all things; yea behold, many mighty miracles..." (Alma 26:12).
I hope we in our families can be like the second group of people. The actions were the same between the two people: they drove the Lamanites out. But HOW they did it and how the FELT while they were trying to defend themselves was completely different. Which set of people will stand more blameless before God in the world to come?
Even we, when we come across situations where we need to correct a loved one, defend ourselves from persecution, or even settle disagreements, I hope we choose to respond rather than react. I promise our homes will become more of a sanctuary and a place where the spirit can help us. As we seek for the right course of action with humble, responsive attitudes we will be inviting the very being who can help us the most into our homes.
Sometimes in our family we think in terms of actions and consequences. When a child is about to touch the stove we see touching a hot stove as an action and we see the child getting burned as the natural consequence that will be sure to follow. But if you are the parent about to witness the occurrence, you might try to prevent the pain to your child that would inevitably follow. This would be your response to the original action and you would hope that your response could carry out an alternative consequence. In a diagram this might look something like this:
Child: action>consequence
Parent: observing action>response>alternative consequence
Sometimes even in a marriage, child to child relationship, or even a parent to child relationship, this pattern may also be present. A family member may see a need for interference and may feel an obligation, or even a right to offer some correction. I hope in most cases this is a response to an action and not a reaction. A reaction would entail something antonymous to a response. In the case of the child about to touch the stove, the natural reaction would be to flip out and tell the child that it is a strong "no no" to touch the stove. The parent may even choose to give the child little spanks on the bottom as a good reminder that the stove is off-limits. The response, on the other hand, would be to tell the child that the stove is hot and should not be touched or they will get an "owie." The parent might even tell the child how hard it would be for him/her to see his/her little child get hurt. This display of love instead of fear might make an even longer lasting impression on the child.
The diagram for the reaction would look very similar to the response diagram.
Parent: observing action>reaction>alternative consequence
I recognize that this is a very simple example, but bear with me.
Notice that the reaction and the response could have had the same consequence: (hopefully) the child will no longer try to touch the stove. As both examples met the same end, they did not function the same way. Both courses of action on the parent's part (the response and reaction) were forms of correction, but the overall atmosphere of the incidents were very different. Nor was there an identical spirit about the incidents. The feelings were different. The mother who reacted may have been feeling frustration, stress, anger, impatience, etc. Where the mother who responded may have felt a duty to protect, patience, longsuffering, peace, and gentleness (fruits of the spirit: Galations5:23). Do you think that child can sense the differences in the home and in his/her relationship with his/her parent? Can't you see how a spouse who chooses to react instead of respond could damage his/her relationship with his/her spouse?
There are examples in the Book of Mormon where a whole group of people needed to act in retaliation to an opposing people. I am speaking about the war chapters in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites and Nephites struggled for power and deliverance. I will site two examples where the Nephites battled the Lamanites and won (notice the same end was met by the same course of action), but the their attitudes were very much different.
The first is found in Mosiah 11. King Noah was sending armies out to defend his lands and drive the Lamanites out. The people drove them back for a time but were "lifted up in the pride of their hearts...[and boasted] in their own strength...and did delight in blood, and the shedding of the blood of their brethren..." How awful! They defended their land against their enemies but they LIKED doing it.
Next example. In the struggle between Moroni and Amalickiah, the Nephites took up arms in defense of their wives and children. In the ongoing war it says in Alma 48:23 that "they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all--they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God."
Do you think the two armies behaved differently? You bet. While one boasted in their own strength, the other boasted in God because they knew that "in his strength [they could] do all things; yea behold, many mighty miracles..." (Alma 26:12).
I hope we in our families can be like the second group of people. The actions were the same between the two people: they drove the Lamanites out. But HOW they did it and how the FELT while they were trying to defend themselves was completely different. Which set of people will stand more blameless before God in the world to come?
Even we, when we come across situations where we need to correct a loved one, defend ourselves from persecution, or even settle disagreements, I hope we choose to respond rather than react. I promise our homes will become more of a sanctuary and a place where the spirit can help us. As we seek for the right course of action with humble, responsive attitudes we will be inviting the very being who can help us the most into our homes.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Midlife Crisis
This topic was very interesting to learn about because as we talked about the patterns in a person's life and the stages a person goes through, it was humbling to realize that life is short and I want to make the most of each precious moment.
I suppose that this is what someone going through a midlife crisis might be thinking. When people go through their midlife years they tend to consider how much time they have left--not the valuable time that has already past. Their thoughts might be directed at all the things they didn't do instead of all the things they did do. They might remember all the things they thought they wanted to do when they were younger that never became a reality. Now their life seems to be drawing to a close (this realization may be brought on by their children leaving the house, their children marrying or having children, or recognizing the fact that their bodies are aging). In some cases, it is almost like they are making a last-ditch effort to make the most of their life.
This is where the notorious big expenses come into play. The elaborate vacations, the fancy new car, and the house they always wanted may show up at this time in their lives. We may wonder, why can't someone who is going through this just be happy with the life they have lived for so many years? It wouldn't be hard to imagine them just simply living the same way the did before! When looking at the big scheme of things--the eternal perspective, if you will--a midlife crisis may seem foolish.
But one must remember a few details. It is true that when someone starts a family it seems that all resources are poured into the children and the family's well-being. Time, energy, money, and stresses are expended for the success of the family unit. All other personal goals and dreams are placed on the back burner. Once the family seems to be stable, the temptation to return to those past dreams (or new dreams and goals) becomes very potent. And why not? There are several contributing factors to this natural experience. A person in their midlife may be experiencing a sense of loss. They may feel they are losing their sense of self. Their youth! Their health! So much time has elapsed! Where did it go? Wasn't it completely swallowed up in his/her family? But what about them? As the years seem to be depleting, one might experience depression and anxiety. A sense of urgency may arise. "I must make the most of the time that is left," they might reason. A desire to leave a legacy behind or experience those things they may have missed out on, or might miss if they don't act soon, may be instilled.
Whatever the case, the name of the issue is still representational: A midlife crisis is a crisis to be dealt with. It is a hard situation to be in! But this is where priorities must be considered. What is really important? Yes, you may have spent the majority of your life raising a righteous posterity and let other things go, but wasn't that because you valued the sanctity of the family unit more than your personal desires? Didn't you feel joy and rejoicing in your posterity? Isn't that what helped you choose to be your best? Don't grandparents still love to see their grandchildren and children? The gospel and plan of happiness is all about families. Living right and seeing your family live right is REAL happiness.
This is often confused when someone reaches that point in their life where they feel they are missing something. If their family has been their focus for so long and all of a sudden they feel an emptiness in their life, then what else then to conclude that they need to compensate for it using another strategy in his/her quest for happiness (consciously or not)? This becomes a real struggle in someone's life. A real struggle. And very disorienting.
The important thing is to remember the true value of priorities. In being a witness or family member of someone going through this, it is important to remember your love of them and recognize that they may be going through an internal struggle that they will have to come to grips with. Meanwhile, if someone is going through this, the only way out (for complete healing--not a quick fix) is to evaluate what is really important. What is true happiness and what is the true source? How do I go about obtaining it? Once a plan is formulated (yes, make a plan and write it down) follow it in company with constant pleas to your Heavenly Father. He will help you find your way.
I suppose that this is what someone going through a midlife crisis might be thinking. When people go through their midlife years they tend to consider how much time they have left--not the valuable time that has already past. Their thoughts might be directed at all the things they didn't do instead of all the things they did do. They might remember all the things they thought they wanted to do when they were younger that never became a reality. Now their life seems to be drawing to a close (this realization may be brought on by their children leaving the house, their children marrying or having children, or recognizing the fact that their bodies are aging). In some cases, it is almost like they are making a last-ditch effort to make the most of their life.
This is where the notorious big expenses come into play. The elaborate vacations, the fancy new car, and the house they always wanted may show up at this time in their lives. We may wonder, why can't someone who is going through this just be happy with the life they have lived for so many years? It wouldn't be hard to imagine them just simply living the same way the did before! When looking at the big scheme of things--the eternal perspective, if you will--a midlife crisis may seem foolish.
But one must remember a few details. It is true that when someone starts a family it seems that all resources are poured into the children and the family's well-being. Time, energy, money, and stresses are expended for the success of the family unit. All other personal goals and dreams are placed on the back burner. Once the family seems to be stable, the temptation to return to those past dreams (or new dreams and goals) becomes very potent. And why not? There are several contributing factors to this natural experience. A person in their midlife may be experiencing a sense of loss. They may feel they are losing their sense of self. Their youth! Their health! So much time has elapsed! Where did it go? Wasn't it completely swallowed up in his/her family? But what about them? As the years seem to be depleting, one might experience depression and anxiety. A sense of urgency may arise. "I must make the most of the time that is left," they might reason. A desire to leave a legacy behind or experience those things they may have missed out on, or might miss if they don't act soon, may be instilled.
Whatever the case, the name of the issue is still representational: A midlife crisis is a crisis to be dealt with. It is a hard situation to be in! But this is where priorities must be considered. What is really important? Yes, you may have spent the majority of your life raising a righteous posterity and let other things go, but wasn't that because you valued the sanctity of the family unit more than your personal desires? Didn't you feel joy and rejoicing in your posterity? Isn't that what helped you choose to be your best? Don't grandparents still love to see their grandchildren and children? The gospel and plan of happiness is all about families. Living right and seeing your family live right is REAL happiness.
This is often confused when someone reaches that point in their life where they feel they are missing something. If their family has been their focus for so long and all of a sudden they feel an emptiness in their life, then what else then to conclude that they need to compensate for it using another strategy in his/her quest for happiness (consciously or not)? This becomes a real struggle in someone's life. A real struggle. And very disorienting.
The important thing is to remember the true value of priorities. In being a witness or family member of someone going through this, it is important to remember your love of them and recognize that they may be going through an internal struggle that they will have to come to grips with. Meanwhile, if someone is going through this, the only way out (for complete healing--not a quick fix) is to evaluate what is really important. What is true happiness and what is the true source? How do I go about obtaining it? Once a plan is formulated (yes, make a plan and write it down) follow it in company with constant pleas to your Heavenly Father. He will help you find your way.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Parenting
This past week we talked about parenting! Whew! I have taken child development classes and other family classes and I am always amazed at the vast amount of research that has been done on the topic. I've had to conclude time and time again that when we become parents we are just going to have to rely on the Spirit more than anything because there will never be a textbook answer for everything. We definitely could not cover all the bases in one week, let me tell ya. But it did get me thinking about some things.
H. Wallace Goddard in his book, The Frightful and Joyous Journey of Family Life, he talks about how he was sitting in a family and the presenter asked the audience what they would give their children if they could give them anything. Goddard says the presenter offered "self-esteem" as his answer.
I remember going through my tough teenage years and struggling with the concept of self-esteem. As a teenager, it was hard to believe I was of worth when I had my struggles with friends or with members of the ward my age. It was hard to feel valued during the struggle of self-discovery. It is natural to want to feel valued and appreciated. But I finally had to conclude that I shouldn't try to talk myself up to make myself feel better. It simply didn't work! Real value, I decided, was based on something a little more eternal.
I like how Goddard puts it: "We assumed that people with high self-esteem would be happier, kinder, and more productive. But I wondered: What if my son had great self-esteem, but he was a gang leader? What if my daughters had great self-esteem but they were cruel or careless people? I also wondered about many of my heroes who appear to have had poor self-esteem. Abraham Lincoln seemed to be filled with self-doubt, but he still served heroically. Enoch saw himself as powerless and unloved. Jesus did not seem to think about himself at all."
What a powerful statement! Even Christ--the most perfect of all men--gave glory to another. Constantly throughout scripture we hear the Savior giving credit to his Heavenly Father. If anyone had a right to boast (and I'm not saying any of us have) it was the perfect man who saved the world. The only man who will come to save it again.
Goddard says that he concluded that he wanted his children to be strong, yet compassionate. I think that is beautifully said. This is what I finally had to conclude those years ago. How could I really be strong? How could I build a foundation for my life? Certainly it couldn't be me. I knew I couldn't stand alone because "I [could] not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I [knew] that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm" (2 Nephi 4:34). I knew that the one thing I could count on was my Heavenly Father and his eternal truths. So I decided to rely on him. He promised me he would look out for me, and we have had a great relationship ever since. So with Nephi I cry, "O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation" (2 Nephi 4:30).
This is what I want to teach my children firstly. It is important that they recognize their value--for it is great. But I want them to know by what means it is great, how they may obtain their potential, and by what power it is made possible. This will make them stronger than any affirmation I can give them.
H. Wallace Goddard in his book, The Frightful and Joyous Journey of Family Life, he talks about how he was sitting in a family and the presenter asked the audience what they would give their children if they could give them anything. Goddard says the presenter offered "self-esteem" as his answer.
I remember going through my tough teenage years and struggling with the concept of self-esteem. As a teenager, it was hard to believe I was of worth when I had my struggles with friends or with members of the ward my age. It was hard to feel valued during the struggle of self-discovery. It is natural to want to feel valued and appreciated. But I finally had to conclude that I shouldn't try to talk myself up to make myself feel better. It simply didn't work! Real value, I decided, was based on something a little more eternal.
I like how Goddard puts it: "We assumed that people with high self-esteem would be happier, kinder, and more productive. But I wondered: What if my son had great self-esteem, but he was a gang leader? What if my daughters had great self-esteem but they were cruel or careless people? I also wondered about many of my heroes who appear to have had poor self-esteem. Abraham Lincoln seemed to be filled with self-doubt, but he still served heroically. Enoch saw himself as powerless and unloved. Jesus did not seem to think about himself at all."
What a powerful statement! Even Christ--the most perfect of all men--gave glory to another. Constantly throughout scripture we hear the Savior giving credit to his Heavenly Father. If anyone had a right to boast (and I'm not saying any of us have) it was the perfect man who saved the world. The only man who will come to save it again.
Goddard says that he concluded that he wanted his children to be strong, yet compassionate. I think that is beautifully said. This is what I finally had to conclude those years ago. How could I really be strong? How could I build a foundation for my life? Certainly it couldn't be me. I knew I couldn't stand alone because "I [could] not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I [knew] that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm" (2 Nephi 4:34). I knew that the one thing I could count on was my Heavenly Father and his eternal truths. So I decided to rely on him. He promised me he would look out for me, and we have had a great relationship ever since. So with Nephi I cry, "O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation" (2 Nephi 4:30).
This is what I want to teach my children firstly. It is important that they recognize their value--for it is great. But I want them to know by what means it is great, how they may obtain their potential, and by what power it is made possible. This will make them stronger than any affirmation I can give them.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Mothers in the Home
This week we talked about mothers int he home. (I know I have already touched on this, but it is really important!) Since the women's equal rights movement more and more women are leaving the home to enter the work force. The number of women with children is increasing as well as the number of women with young children under preschool age. The effects on our society have been really interesting to observe.
First, a little history lesson (watered down). Prior to the industrial revolution women and men worked side by side in making their home prosper. "Industries" were a market of kind. It seems the whole family was collaborating together to make their home function in their work. True, women learned skills that were conducive to their nature, as did the men. But soon "work" became a matter of monetary value instead of an effort to keep their home functioning. Women were left at home to continue in their homemaking skills, where the men were forced to do labor to provide for the family.
In my opinion, because the definition of "work" changed, women felt their role was somehow less significant than the men's. This may have spurred the desire for "equality." I might have already quoted this once in here, but President Thomas S. Monson has said, "Equality of rights does not imply identity of functions." Today the Egalitarian philosophy demands that men and women demonstrate their equality by doing the exact same jobs. The agreement seems to be, "You put in 50% and I'll put in 50%." We both will work the same amount away from the home, and in the home, we will work the same amount.
Though this may be the desired approach. It simply is not the case. Because mothers are naturally more nurturing and more attentive to detail, the mothers end up doing most of the work in the home anyway! Despite the "agreement!" This can put a lot of wear and tear on a mother. If she has a full time job and is still doing most of the house work and child care, you can imagine the stress she may go through.
In fact, studies have shown that women who work extensively seem to show signs of depression, anxiety, and worse health overall compared to mothers who stay at home. Also their children show aggressive behavior in school that may last up to the 6th grade.
Interestingly, studies show that women who work part-time, but are still there for their children, are more likely to feel more satisfied with life and have better health overall than mothers who work full time or mothers that stay at home throughout the day.
This could be attributed to the fact that they feel more accomplished, and in so doing, feel more confident. They may get to do something they love and feel like they are contributing to the world. I believe we could call this, "being anxiously engaged in a good cause" (D&C 58:27). Though I do not condemn a part-time job that is reasonable and conducive to the family's needs, I think this need (I do believe it is a need. I think it is healthy to cultivate our talents and virtues. I personally hope I never stop learning and growing in areas I have a passion for.) can be fulfilled in many capacities. Mothers can broaden their horizons with church callings, participation in community events, volunteering, and other activities. Clearly a job is not the sole solution for the "need to get out."
What a full time mother can give to a home is irreplaceable. She is a nurturer to her family. Though a father's role is very essential in the family, there are moments that only a mother can experience with her child that creates an intimate bond. It establishes trust between parent and child in which moments of teachings life's most precious principles may occur. This can only happen when the mother is present.
Is it any wonder that the adversary wants to thwart these efforts? Is it any wonder that our society keeps changing in the final chapters of its existence? Just when teaching our children the Plan of Happiness is most crucial in order to be able to fight temptations that seem to swarm mankind? Spencer W. Kimball said, "To be a righteous woman is a glorious thing in any age. To be a righteous woman during the winding up scenes on this earth, before the second coming of our Savior, is an especially noble calling. The righteous woman's strength and influence today can be tenfold what is might be in more tranquil times. She has been placed here to help to enrich, to protect, and to guard the home--which is society's basic and most noble institution."
First, a little history lesson (watered down). Prior to the industrial revolution women and men worked side by side in making their home prosper. "Industries" were a market of kind. It seems the whole family was collaborating together to make their home function in their work. True, women learned skills that were conducive to their nature, as did the men. But soon "work" became a matter of monetary value instead of an effort to keep their home functioning. Women were left at home to continue in their homemaking skills, where the men were forced to do labor to provide for the family.
In my opinion, because the definition of "work" changed, women felt their role was somehow less significant than the men's. This may have spurred the desire for "equality." I might have already quoted this once in here, but President Thomas S. Monson has said, "Equality of rights does not imply identity of functions." Today the Egalitarian philosophy demands that men and women demonstrate their equality by doing the exact same jobs. The agreement seems to be, "You put in 50% and I'll put in 50%." We both will work the same amount away from the home, and in the home, we will work the same amount.
Though this may be the desired approach. It simply is not the case. Because mothers are naturally more nurturing and more attentive to detail, the mothers end up doing most of the work in the home anyway! Despite the "agreement!" This can put a lot of wear and tear on a mother. If she has a full time job and is still doing most of the house work and child care, you can imagine the stress she may go through.
In fact, studies have shown that women who work extensively seem to show signs of depression, anxiety, and worse health overall compared to mothers who stay at home. Also their children show aggressive behavior in school that may last up to the 6th grade.
Interestingly, studies show that women who work part-time, but are still there for their children, are more likely to feel more satisfied with life and have better health overall than mothers who work full time or mothers that stay at home throughout the day.
This could be attributed to the fact that they feel more accomplished, and in so doing, feel more confident. They may get to do something they love and feel like they are contributing to the world. I believe we could call this, "being anxiously engaged in a good cause" (D&C 58:27). Though I do not condemn a part-time job that is reasonable and conducive to the family's needs, I think this need (I do believe it is a need. I think it is healthy to cultivate our talents and virtues. I personally hope I never stop learning and growing in areas I have a passion for.) can be fulfilled in many capacities. Mothers can broaden their horizons with church callings, participation in community events, volunteering, and other activities. Clearly a job is not the sole solution for the "need to get out."
What a full time mother can give to a home is irreplaceable. She is a nurturer to her family. Though a father's role is very essential in the family, there are moments that only a mother can experience with her child that creates an intimate bond. It establishes trust between parent and child in which moments of teachings life's most precious principles may occur. This can only happen when the mother is present.
Is it any wonder that the adversary wants to thwart these efforts? Is it any wonder that our society keeps changing in the final chapters of its existence? Just when teaching our children the Plan of Happiness is most crucial in order to be able to fight temptations that seem to swarm mankind? Spencer W. Kimball said, "To be a righteous woman is a glorious thing in any age. To be a righteous woman during the winding up scenes on this earth, before the second coming of our Savior, is an especially noble calling. The righteous woman's strength and influence today can be tenfold what is might be in more tranquil times. She has been placed here to help to enrich, to protect, and to guard the home--which is society's basic and most noble institution."
It may seem unfair that a father is to provide entirely and singlehandedly for the temporal needs of his family. It may be especially difficult when the mother in the family can work just as well or easier. But in fact, Ezra Taft Benson strongly encouraged men to be the providers for their family so they can encourage their wives to stay in the home and nurture their children. There was once a man who was asked to take the garbage out by his wife. His demeaning response was, “I’ll take the trash out when you get a full-time job.” A good provider understands that the nurturing powers of women are priceless. With all the money in the world—no matter how much they will ever make, they could never buy what a mother can do for her children. It is a sacred role that deserves respect and support. Of course,there are circumstances that necessitate added income. Even the Proclamation to the World, addresses that "individual adaptation" may be necessary. However, the principle still stands. Mothers have and will always be meant to nurture their children primarily.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Communication
What do most couples go in for counseling? COMMUNICATION!!! I am a strong believer that most problems arise out of a lack of communication in a way that you can be open with your spouse. If a couple can honestly and effectively communicate with each other, they will be more likely to understand one another and each others needs (ok, that sounds like common sense, but bear with me).
There are different ways to communicate. One is to verbally communicate and the other is to non-verbally communicate. Both may be misleading and hurtful. For example:
A husband wants to watch a movie with his wife one night and asks her if she would like to watch the movie with him. She feels like she just got the kids in bed and she finally can have some time to herself. But she doesn't want to be selfish either because she knows he has had a long day and wants to unwind, so she decides to test the water to see if there can be some compromise. She sighs as she answers, "Ummm...maybe, if you want to." Now the husband may not know it, but he is in a predicament. She just agreed to watch the movie verbally, but non-verbally, she is communicating something different. He could take the initiative and put the movie in without any additional inquiries, and by so doing indicate (with nonverbal cues) that he did not pick up on her nonverbal cues (her sigh). She then might wonder if he really cares about her needs. Does he not care that she is tired and apprehensive about watching the movie? Or he could ask her if she really wanted to watch the movie. He could indicate that he wants to know if something else is more pressing, or if she would rather do something else.
As you can see, a lot of what we say is dependent on the way we communicate them. The tone of voice, the body's posture, the position of the head, eye contact, etc. It doesn't always matter what we say, but how we say it. This is why some marriages get in trouble.
Now, I do not blame women for ineffective communication, but can I submit that women are too good at communicating? Women are really good at identifying nonverbal cues. (I personally think that this is why we are so good at nurturing children.) Two women can have a whole conversation by not saying anything at all! But they are also very quick to pick up on someone's feelings. We don't necessarily know how or why, but the fact still remains (although I could give some pretty good guesses relating to the Plan of Salvation). This presents a problem because women expect that men interpret cues the same way! When we give nonverbal cues that another woman would pick up on, and a man is unresponsive, we can pass him off as inconsiderate and rude. But that simply may not be the case. Men may just simply have a harder time understanding.
This is only one reason why communication may fail in a marriage. There are other reasons that communication is impeded, but this is one that I think is prevalent in many marriages.
Active listening is a useful way to combat these difficulties. Active listening in a marriage is where someone will repeat back to their spouse the impression they have of what they think their spouse is trying to say. Using the same example, after hearing his wife's response to the idea of a movie, the husband might say, "What I understand is that you are a little reluctant to watch the movie. Is that right?" This opens up an opportunity for the couple to discuss the matter honestly. This way, mixed signals won't get interpreted the wrong way. The couple is free to speak honestly and frankly with one another, of course, in love.
Not only can nonverbal communication be fruitless, but verbal communication can damage a marriage. I've already written about his in my other blog some time back, but John M. Gottman identifies what he calls the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. In his experience, these qualities can ruin a marriage. They are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. I feel the first three are self-explanatory, so I will explain the fourth. Stonewalling is very characteristic of men. This usually happens when a conflict arises and the man becomes flooded. My interpretation of this is when emotions run too high and the frontal lobes of the brain take a defensive stance to avoid being overwhelmed. When this happens, the brain cannot even think clearly or logically. It just wants out. A woman's response to flooding might be to release her emotion (crying, venting, etc.). This is altogether healthy, if it doesn't involve the other horsemen because it involves an expression of one's feelings. But a man's response is a a little more dangerous. He might throw up a wall. Stonewalling is treacherous in a marriage because
There are different ways to communicate. One is to verbally communicate and the other is to non-verbally communicate. Both may be misleading and hurtful. For example:
A husband wants to watch a movie with his wife one night and asks her if she would like to watch the movie with him. She feels like she just got the kids in bed and she finally can have some time to herself. But she doesn't want to be selfish either because she knows he has had a long day and wants to unwind, so she decides to test the water to see if there can be some compromise. She sighs as she answers, "Ummm...maybe, if you want to." Now the husband may not know it, but he is in a predicament. She just agreed to watch the movie verbally, but non-verbally, she is communicating something different. He could take the initiative and put the movie in without any additional inquiries, and by so doing indicate (with nonverbal cues) that he did not pick up on her nonverbal cues (her sigh). She then might wonder if he really cares about her needs. Does he not care that she is tired and apprehensive about watching the movie? Or he could ask her if she really wanted to watch the movie. He could indicate that he wants to know if something else is more pressing, or if she would rather do something else.
As you can see, a lot of what we say is dependent on the way we communicate them. The tone of voice, the body's posture, the position of the head, eye contact, etc. It doesn't always matter what we say, but how we say it. This is why some marriages get in trouble.
Now, I do not blame women for ineffective communication, but can I submit that women are too good at communicating? Women are really good at identifying nonverbal cues. (I personally think that this is why we are so good at nurturing children.) Two women can have a whole conversation by not saying anything at all! But they are also very quick to pick up on someone's feelings. We don't necessarily know how or why, but the fact still remains (although I could give some pretty good guesses relating to the Plan of Salvation). This presents a problem because women expect that men interpret cues the same way! When we give nonverbal cues that another woman would pick up on, and a man is unresponsive, we can pass him off as inconsiderate and rude. But that simply may not be the case. Men may just simply have a harder time understanding.
This is only one reason why communication may fail in a marriage. There are other reasons that communication is impeded, but this is one that I think is prevalent in many marriages.
Active listening is a useful way to combat these difficulties. Active listening in a marriage is where someone will repeat back to their spouse the impression they have of what they think their spouse is trying to say. Using the same example, after hearing his wife's response to the idea of a movie, the husband might say, "What I understand is that you are a little reluctant to watch the movie. Is that right?" This opens up an opportunity for the couple to discuss the matter honestly. This way, mixed signals won't get interpreted the wrong way. The couple is free to speak honestly and frankly with one another, of course, in love.
Not only can nonverbal communication be fruitless, but verbal communication can damage a marriage. I've already written about his in my other blog some time back, but John M. Gottman identifies what he calls the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. In his experience, these qualities can ruin a marriage. They are criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. I feel the first three are self-explanatory, so I will explain the fourth. Stonewalling is very characteristic of men. This usually happens when a conflict arises and the man becomes flooded. My interpretation of this is when emotions run too high and the frontal lobes of the brain take a defensive stance to avoid being overwhelmed. When this happens, the brain cannot even think clearly or logically. It just wants out. A woman's response to flooding might be to release her emotion (crying, venting, etc.). This is altogether healthy, if it doesn't involve the other horsemen because it involves an expression of one's feelings. But a man's response is a a little more dangerous. He might throw up a wall. Stonewalling is treacherous in a marriage because
it blocks off all communication. Though a man may be just trying to regain his composure, this may result in completely ignoring his wife and her concerns. This causes even more frustration for both parties when the woman accuses him of “not caring” about her or the problem.
We can avoid most of these problems by heeding the council in James chapter four. James says, “Speak not evil one of another, brathern. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge” (James 4:11). James recognized that evil speaking of one other, and might I add to one another, was damaging to the spirit. He knew this was a problem among members and described the tongue as thus:
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God” (James 3:6-9).
Isn’t it so true that we can give such praises, kind and affirmative words, while at the same time, we can turn around and deliver criticisms, insults, and accusations. “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing[s] and cursing[s]. My brethren [and sisters], these things ought not so to be” (James 3:10). These things ought not to be! Can you see how we may contradict ourselves in deed when we may tell our loved one we love them, and in the same breath complain of their imperfections, when in reality, it is ourselves that need to change? This ought not be. We should “let no corrupt communication procced out of [our] mouth[s], but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers” (Ephiesians 4:29).
So why should we speak? For the use of edifying and ministering grace. In other words, we communicate out of love—for the benefit of the hearer. Not to demean or to outsmart our spouse. Not to manipulate. Not to secure our dominant status. To love and to benefit. C.S. Lewis said:
“When I come to my evening prayers and try to reckon up the sins of the day, nine times out of ten the most obvious one is some sin against charity; I have sulked or snapped or sneered or snubbed or stormed. And the excuse that immediately springs to my mind is that the provocation was so sudden and unexpected: I was caught off my guard…[Yet] surely what a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of man he is. Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth. If there are rats in the cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: it oly prevents them from hiding. In the same way the suddenness of the provocation does not make me an ill-tempered man: it only shows me what an ill-tempered man I am. The rats are always there in the cellar but if you go in shouting and noisily they will have taken cover before you switch on the light. Apparently the rats of resentment and vindictiveness are always there in the cellar of my soul.”
The root of good communication is a good heart. If our hearts are pure and single to the glory of God, how much better we will be to our families and spouse. If we cultivate a loving atmosphere, so much that it becomes a part of us, we are likely to avoid the Four Horsemen and meet the needs of our spouse out of love. Though active listening and other important skills facilitate communication, it is not the solve all. We need our hearts to be knit as one in love to effectively communicate.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Family Crisis
This week was on family crises. We studied how families can react in a crisis and family members' different functions in the crisis. I noticed that a lot of reactions to a crisis were very similar among various groups of people. There is a tendency to push blame on other people, there is a tendency to deny the crisis's existence, and there is a tendency to avoid the crisis all together. All are very natural reactions.
But my friends, we are here on earth to transcend what is natural to do, for the natural man is an enemy of God and has been from the fall of Adam (Mosiah 3:19). What best helps families in a crisis is when the family forms a structure in which they can lean on each other. I think of this as a teepee formation. The family can lean on one another, but they must also be strong enough to be reliable. There is a delicate balance of being aware of the needs of family members, but also an attendance to one's self. One has to be reliant in order to extend their help to family members.
I think the most impact in a family crisis was the families interpretation of the crisis. In a crisis there are certain elements that contributes to the stress levels in a crisis. First, three is the event. This could be a divorce, death, illness, etc. The second factor is the families resources and available to the family. Then one must consider the plan of action executed by the family. And finally, how the family looks at the crisis. If the family defines the event as a crisis, their way of coping may be ineffective. But if the family looks at it in a different light, their experience will be valuable. They may find themselves learning from their experiences and seeing the benefits of their trials. Remember, all things can be for our learning and good (D&C 122:7). Also, if families look at the event with an eternal perspective, they will know that in time, they may look back on the crisis as something that was actually trivial down the road. The memories of the stress and pain will not remain as potent, but they will be able to look at their experience more objectively. Why not try to do so now? Easier said than done. But if we try to keep things in perspective, we will be able to avoid unwanted and unneeded stress.
But my friends, we are here on earth to transcend what is natural to do, for the natural man is an enemy of God and has been from the fall of Adam (Mosiah 3:19). What best helps families in a crisis is when the family forms a structure in which they can lean on each other. I think of this as a teepee formation. The family can lean on one another, but they must also be strong enough to be reliable. There is a delicate balance of being aware of the needs of family members, but also an attendance to one's self. One has to be reliant in order to extend their help to family members.
I think the most impact in a family crisis was the families interpretation of the crisis. In a crisis there are certain elements that contributes to the stress levels in a crisis. First, three is the event. This could be a divorce, death, illness, etc. The second factor is the families resources and available to the family. Then one must consider the plan of action executed by the family. And finally, how the family looks at the crisis. If the family defines the event as a crisis, their way of coping may be ineffective. But if the family looks at it in a different light, their experience will be valuable. They may find themselves learning from their experiences and seeing the benefits of their trials. Remember, all things can be for our learning and good (D&C 122:7). Also, if families look at the event with an eternal perspective, they will know that in time, they may look back on the crisis as something that was actually trivial down the road. The memories of the stress and pain will not remain as potent, but they will be able to look at their experience more objectively. Why not try to do so now? Easier said than done. But if we try to keep things in perspective, we will be able to avoid unwanted and unneeded stress.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)