I was talking to a friend the other day about the church. She is a church convert and participates actively. Somehow we got onto the topic of church members who get divorced, and she mentioned a particular couple she knows in the church who recently got divorced. Everyone was perplexed over how they got divorced because both of them were active, and from all appearances worthy, obedient, church members, both before and after the split.
Many might wonder why anyone would be perplexed over a couple divorcing. That happens all the time, right? True, but in the Mormon church, people are taught that as long as spouses are faithful to their church covenants and follow the church's rules, then they will have happy and successful marriages.
I told my friend that I didn't find the divorce surprising or perplexing in the slightest. My own parents got divorced even though they were always faithful and compliant with the church's rules, and they remain so today in their new marriages. (However, now they are both much happier, being married to spouses respectively far more compatible with each of them.) Many other divorced couples can undoubtedly attest to similar experiences. Clearly, then, the church's prescription for marital bliss isn't that reliable. It's kind of like advising someone that as long as they exercise at least five days a week, they will be successful in their chosen career. Without a doubt, such frequent exercise would bestow numerous benefits, but it would not necessarily result in career success. And if it did contribute to career success, the contribution would be merely indirect (unless, of course, you're a fitness instructor or something similar). The church's prescription for marital success is only effective to the extent it results in the parties doing things together or maintaining similar attitudes regarding various social/moral issues. That kind of forced compatibility could also be produced if the couple became equally involved in a political party, fitness club, or community organization. Except that in those scenarios, the parties will most likely have affiliated voluntarily, and not as a result of simply being raised in a particular religion.
The church's prescription ignores many other material relationship issues that could contribute to divorce. It does nothing for sexual incompatibility, personality differences, financial stress, communication failures, inequality, or being unprepared for the marital commitment in the first place, all of which can create the type of tension that leads to divorce. Sometimes people just aren't good together, and there is no amount of obedience to arbitrary rules and guidelines that will change that. It also doesn't help that many church members base their decision of whom and when to marry on a highly subjective "good" feeling they either get or don't get while praying on the subject. It hardly needs to be stated that such a decision-making method is an even more useless recipe for marital bliss than that of "just follow the commandments."
The things that make for a happy, successful relationship are many, and I don't pretend to know what they all are. What seems clear, however, is that the church promise of marital happiness as long as both parties are faithfully living the commandments does not encapsulate all, or perhaps even most, of such issues. Admittedly, I have never been married or divorced, so a lot of this is just idle pontification on my part. Feel free to chime in and disagree. :)
For miscellaneous reasons (because we want to hurry up and get to the sex, because we've relied on prayer or "feeling the Spirit," i.e. indicators that are very subjective to present and volatile emotions, etc.), religion encourages people to marry very young. Late teens, early 20s. But you learn so much about yourself as you go through your 20s, and your brain does not even stop developing until your late 20s. It is a recipe for problems.
ReplyDeleteHe was 22 and I was 21 when we married. Of course I recognized that he was at least somewhat immature, but I figured so was I, and we were young, and we would mature together. The boyish immaturity that was sort of charming when we were young was grating and unbearable as we hit our 30s and I realized it wasn't going anywhere.
As it turns out, my husband did not really discover who he was until his early 30s, and it doesn't matter what his Mormon upbringing dictates. He is not a family man. Sure, he's willing to pay his child support and do visitation with his kids. But what he really enjoys is being Out every Saturday and Sunday night (he works Friday nights), with someone glamorous on his arm, surrounded by responsibility-phobic people who are every bit as self-indulgent as he is. He just lacks the maturity to break his cognitive dissonance and admit that Mormonism isn't particularly conducive to the lifestyle he desires. There is always a good reason (in his head) for why he cannot "get active."
I also learned a lot about who I am as I went through my 20s, things that (for the most part) would have surprised my 20 year-old self. I always had feminist leanings, but learned what activism really is. I learned that I am a really good mom, that I enjoy a lot of traditionally "domestic" things, that I want a family life. It doesn't mean I have to be a stay-at-home parent. It just means that I need someone who can be supportive of a family life with a side of activism and publishing, the kind of person whom my husband most emphatically is not.
I've read that the groups that have the most successful and stable marriages are the atheists, the educated, the financially stable, and those who marry older (late 20s, early 30s). I can believe it. I don't accept all of the solutions that this group has offered to enable this system. All I know is, a successful marriage definitely takes more than "pray and obey" or "let the Spirit guide you."
I'm sorry to hear that your parents divorced. I hope you are well.