Our Fading Civility: The Art of Dialogue, part 1

All told, yesterday was a good day. Seasonal symbolism carried directly over into my life, for it felt something like emerging from a long winter. Even as I’m enjoying the first vacation over which I’ve had my own say in probably five years, the message seemed to be, “You have your freedom. It’s a beautiful day. The future is yours.”

I had the opportunity to do one of my favorite things, which is emerge from the temple and stand gazing at both flag and temple. That led, naturally, to this reflection:

And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory.
Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full.
Therefore, care not for the body, neither the life of the body; but care for the soul, and for the life of the soul.
And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience ye may possess your souls, and ye shall have eternal life. (D&C 101:35-38)

I think of “the mistake men make in picturing to themselves happiness as the realization of their desires” (Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, trans. Constance Garnett [Norwalk, Connecticut: The Easton Press, 1975], 537), when happiness lies in the realization of God’s desires. Somehow I think He knows what’s best for us and everyone else! It is also very mistaken to suppose that we must realize fulness of joy in a state and place where it is transitory at best, as explained above. When we are told that “spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy” (D&C 93:33), it is with reference to receiving due glory. Merely having body and spirit in this world will hardly bring more than aches, except we should learn how to give heed to the Spirit of God. How can we answer the questions in Alma 5? Now there’s a good measure of happiness!

Turning now to dialogue, I was thinking yesterday of President Hinckley’s call for stronger marriages. In particular, I pondered this, not that I remembered it verbatim:

I hear so many complaints from men and women that they cannot communicate with one another. Perhaps I am naive, but I do not understand this. Communication is essentially a matter of conversation. They must have communicated when they were courting. Can they not continue to speak together after marriage? Can they not discuss with one another in an open and frank and candid and happy way their interests, their problems, their challenges, their desires? It seems to me that communication is largely a matter of talking with one another.

But let that talk be quiet, for quiet talk is the language of love. It is the language of peace. It is the language of God. . . . The voice of heaven is a still small voice. The voice of peace in the home is a quiet voice. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 324)

It is here that I feel I’ve regained my freedom. Deprivation of freedom of speech is essentially deprivation of freedom of action. I spent a very long time with someone with a very different home background. My family could sometimes err on the side of wounding feelings, it’s true, but we very much believed in everyone getting their chance to speak. Hers, on the other hand, was ruled by some sort of alpha female concept, which could not be challenged. (It is not good gospel to refuse to ever give the soapbox to the one in the family most earnestly wishing to follow Heavenly Father, whoever that may be.) I remember well the day—some months into dating—that I brought up a gospel concept in which I absolutely believed; oh, what a lament she put up, accusing me of “hiding behind prophets,” and then saying that her mother had permitted me to date her because she thought I would support such and such a view instead.

The worst part was when she later alleged full conversion to that concept, of her own accord. I did not recognize the pattern at the time, but how I wish I had. What if that premarital communication of which President Hinckley spoke is built on a false foundation? What if only one of the parties is honest with themselves and, consequently, the other? What if one’s partner doesn’t genuinely assess their beliefs and thought processes, but merely mirrors what they’ve come to learn the other wants? This is a tricky path to travel, inasmuch as “the girl you marry will take a terrible chance on you” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, May 1998, 49), but marriage cannot be undertaken solely on the basis of promises. False promises are among the deadliest things in the universe.

I’ve long maintained that there are all kinds of people, and they deserve—for weal or woe—to be married to their own type. There are some distinctions even within Mormonism almost as varied at times as those between us and the world. As one who knows that life extends straight into the eternities, I feel pity for those trapped with others who don't want the same things that they do. (And that works both ways, guys and girls.) Even the realization that one is "unequally yoked together" cannot qualify for a proper divorce; that takes far more, once the deed is done.

If I reach, as I did during engagement, the point where I solemnly tap my fingers, hem, haw, and finally tell a woman that “I’m not sure we’re on the same page spiritually,” it’s intended as a favor . . . to both of us! The response is not, as it was, to throw a fit and unthinkingly reply, “I believe in everything you do.” Nor was it for her bishop to tell me that she seemed to him to have a testimony, as if to throw it back in my teeth, “You big cad; what are you, spiritually abusive? Who do you think you are to have personal standards?” This is why, when my father told me not long ago, “Kris, you act like there’s a golden standard,” I told him that there probably was, and letting others talk me out of it sure hadn’t helped anything. If we really know ourselves and know what our relationship is with God, there shouldn’t be as much difficulty approaching what we seek with confidence.

While I don't exactly know what the statement "I'm a Molly Mormon" would mean, the honestly maintained stance "I'm no Molly" is very informative. (Ladies, what a time-saving thing that is for both you and me.) And, believe me, I've even heard the promise that someone would be a Molly Mormon, so I suppose one can't take the statement by itself.

A far happier ending, surprising as it sounds, is this (not that I claim total doctrinal accuracy for Machen):

On her part she indicated an interest in these things, but evidently it was stimulated more by the desire to please Machen than by an earnest agitation of spirit. At any rate her mind was set awhirl as she read some of the books and she was forced to come to the conclusion that, judged by his views as set forth for example in Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923, if she was a Christian at all, she was a pretty feeble one. How tragic an ending to Machen’s one real romance or approach to it! (Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1977], 320)

As early as December 2002, I understood something better than I applied it. I drew from one of President Kimball’s classic recommendations:

First, there must be the proper approach toward marriage, which contemplates the selection of a spouse who reaches as nearly as possible the pinnacle of perfection in all the matters which are of importance to the individuals. And then those two parties must come to the altar in the temple realizing that they must work hard toward this successful joint living. (TSWK, 306)

To which I commented, concerning the additional prophetic counsel to not expect perfection from others: “These mark out the extremes for us to avoid in selection: relax on material issues, but never grow lax on gospel ones—and strive to make gospel-related desires what are most important to you in every circumstance.”

I cannot omit a little more of President Kimball’s text:

Before marriage, each individual is quite free to go and come as he pleases, to organize and plan his life as it seems best, to make all decisions with self as the central point. Sweethearts should realize before they take the vows that each must accept literally and fully that the good of the little new family must always be superior to the good of either spouse. Each party must eliminate the “I” and the “my” and substitute therefor “we” and “our.” Every decision must take into consideration that there are two or more affected by it. As she approaches major decisions now, the wife will be concerned as to the effect they will have upon the parents, the children, the home, and their spiritual lives. His choice of occupation, his social life, his friends, his every interest must now be considered in the light that he is only a part of a family, that the totalness of the group must be considered. (TSWK, 306-307)

My best friend fasted and prayed before meeting the woman to whom I refer. It’s curious what he chose to tell her. He commented on the shortness of this life, the duration of eternity, and my need to have someone who would stand by me forever through anything, even “the heat of battle.” Which is not what she offered, but we won't degenerate into that kind of musing. When, after a long time of being browbeaten that “trouble in paradise” discussion was not permitted, I finally stirred myself to voice a single concern, she ran off to complain to her parents about me. This turned out to be a good development. I learned all sorts of enlightening things, including that my 13-hour Sundays (something she would not support) were matched by her waning interest in even attending Relief Society.

My wish would be for everyone on this earth to act as their best selves and to discerningly marry people at a roughly correspondent plane. Dialogue may not be the perfect way to tell this, but it’s certainly the starting point. Conduct your dialogues properly.

The exalted view of marriage as held by this Church is given expressively in five words found in the 49th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. “Marriage is ordained of God.” . . .

Truly no higher ideal regarding marriage can be cherished by young people than to look upon it as a divine institution. In the minds of the young such a standard is a protection to them in courtship, an ever present influence inducing them to refrain from doing anything which may prevent their going to the Temple to have their love consummated in an enduring and eternal union. It will lead them to seek divine guidance in the selecting of their companions, upon the wise choice of whom their life’s happiness here and hereafter is largely dependent. . . .

Choose your mate not alone for physical attraction, but for congenial and spiritual companionship. (David O. McKay, CR, Apr. 1935, 110-111, 115)

The love of husband and wife is an eternal bond, not sealed lightly in frivolity or passion but entered into by premeditation, careful observation, sacred association and prayer. (David O. McKay, CR, Apr. 1930, 82)

So if he or she won't even allow you to take any time away from them in order to fast and pray about your relationship, consider it off! Run for your life!

Much of this was prompted by the fact that there's one line of questioning I evidently can't even escape in the temple. More than a year after events all went their separate ways, I had a temple worker smilingly ask me, "How's married life?" Interestingly, this seems to be the only question in existence to which my natural reaction is almost evasive, but at least it's only socially painful to answer now.

So as not to descend into over-somberness during a positively happy and exciting time, I will leave off this portion of discussion about dialogue, and defer to another time what promises to be a rollickingly humorous sequel. The quest continues to find someone who inspires my noblest thoughts (as Pres. Benson highly recommended)--for now, I’ll have to try holding them on my own!!!!