"Find the Bad Guy" Dance

Because I do a lot of work with couples in my marriage and family therapy practice, I often see something known as “Find the Bad Guy.”  It is the dynamic that occurs when both partners are supposedly trying to protect themselves from the other, but really it is mutual attacking, accusation or blame.  I see this dynamic repeatedly.  My intention is to shine a light on it by helping people to understand it and to how to escape from it. 

This “dance” begins when one partner or the other is hurt or feels vulnerable, and one or both feel out of control.  Emotional safety begins to disappear.  The negativity continues as one or both say anything in an attempt to regain control through defining the partner in a negative way.  The receiving partner then reacts angrily.  Soon one or both feels cornered and actually are flooded with fear.  They perceive that something hurtful has been done to them, and do not usually see the impact of their responses on the other.  They forget about what is good in their partnership; they only see that “that you just stepped on my toes.”

Once this negative dance pattern occurs over and over again, a partner will come to expect it, watch for it, and react even quicker in the future when they perceive it is coming.  Subsequently, this reinforces the pattern.  By watching for and anticipating the perceived hurt, we close off all the ways out of this dead-end dance.  The partners find it hard to relax with one another, to let down their guard.  It becomes harder to emotionally connect with the other in a positive way.  The range of responses becomes more restricted as the “Find the Bad Guy” dance becomes more deeply entrenched in their interactions.

When a partner is attacking or counterattacking, they try to put their feelings aside.  After repeated occurrences, positive feelings get completely lost and the couple itself becomes lost.  The relationship becomes more unsatisfying and unsafe as partners begin viewing the other as uncaring or even defective.  Soon this pattern becomes habitual and deeply rooted, and the dance becomes almost automatic, and starts going in a “circle”:  the more one attacks, the more dangerous they appear to the other, and the more the other partner watches for the attack, the harder they hit back.  Round and round they go. 

This negative pattern is caustic and can destroy a marriage.  The only way to stop the dance and to restore safety and trust is to recognize that no one has to be the villain, to be the bad guy.  It doesn’t matter who started the dance or who is right or which details are true.  The pattern needs to be recognized as “The Bad Guy,” not the couple.  The dance is the villain and the partners are the victims.

If a couple really wants to say “enough,” they must recognize the pattern.  They both must be weary of the bickering and the drama.  They need to:

• ·         Attempt to stay in the present and focus on what is happening in the “here and now”
• ·         Attempt to not use past behaviors to justify present perceptions
• ·         Try to break the pattern of mind-reading, blaming, or assuming motives of the partner
• ·         Look at the pattern or the dance as a circular dance, fed by criticism and even contempt, realizing that there is no true “start” to a circle
• ·         Consider the alternative of continuing to do the “Find the Bad Guy” dance

I hope that this posting helps some couple out there.  Partners don’t need to do this dance anymore.

Sorry, Your Family & Friends Can’t Come to Your Mormon Wedding

Los Angeles LDS Temple

When I was the bishop, the ecclesiatical leader, of a single adult congregation of the LDS Church in Glendale, California, I was asked to do a "ring ceremony" for a couple that were married earlier in the day in the Los Angeles LDS Temple.  It consisted of the newlyweds and their bridal party entering the chapel area of an LDS Sunday meeting house, as bridal parties usually do to the music of the Lohengrin Wedding March, I welcoming the guests, I being kind of a master of ceremonies and offering very brief advice to the couple, overseeing the vows each offered to their new partner, and overseeing the exchange of rings.

For many Californian members of the LDS Church, this serves as kind of a "consolation gift" to family members and loved ones who are not members of the Church, or who are members but who voluntarily do not enter into the Temple because of worthiness issues, or who are too young.

Besides the honor of being asked to participate with this particular bride and groom on their special day, my excitement was tempered by the knowledge that non-member family could not be present at the real wedding ceremony.  It seemed a shame to me.  I had heard stories about, and had personally witnessed, how challenging it was to not allow loved ones, particularly parents who were not members of the Church and were attempting to accept their child becoming a member of it, to be excluded on this momentous day. Now I was in the middle of this dilemma.  It seemed so exclusionary, so off-putting to non-members at a time when the Church hungered for acceptance and pushed for missionary work among family and friends.  

However, I simply never questioned the issue; I simply relegated it to the shelf of "that's just the way things are."  

I also didn't question the idea that if a couple decided to not get married in the temple; they needed to wait a year before doing so. That too went on that shelf. 

I embraced the belief, and still do today, that if one or both spouses were newly baptized, it was a prudent practice to have them wait a year before making the sacred promises or covenants that I believe in that are made in the Temple.  But in some cases, the bride and groom are not new members, but must still wait a year. 

Also, there is a definite stigma associated with choosing not to originally marry in the Temple.  It is widely thought in most congregations that if a couple do not at first marry there and are long-time members, they have engaged in pre-marital sex and as such are not worthy to enter.   Ironically, not every worthy couple chooses to be married in the Temple because they may want to have their non-member loved ones participate in the ceremony. But they likely will be gossiped about in the congregation by unknowing, uncaring members.  And they still must wait a year...BUT NOT EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD!

It seems very ironic that Church policy on this issue differs in different parts of the world.  In the US, Canada and South Africa, where the governments have empowered Church members with civic powers to marry people, couples who choose to not marry originally in the Temple must wait a year.  They are compelled to make a choice of whether to have only members at the ceremony or not be married in the Temple.

But in the United Kingdom, for example, where the government does not empower church members to marry, LDS couples are required to be married civically outside of the Temple, a marriage in which all loved ones can participate.  The couple then enter the Temple later in the day where they are able to "be sealed for time and eternity" and which is attended only by members.  Such temples in the UK will even go so far as to make the temple available as late as 10 p.m. to accomodate the two services.

Micah Nickolaisen, a professional LDS photographer in the Phoenix area, has observed how painful these matters often are for young Mormon couples. He stated recently, “If that pain is justified, if that’s what God wants, if there’s some doctrinal or theological reason that it has to be that way, then maybe that’s the price we have to pay, but it seems so pointless. What are we accomplishing except creating distance from us and the people we’re trying to influence and put on a good impression for?”

Consequently, some faithful Mormons are asking leaders to reconsider the policy of forcing couples wherever possible to wait a year for the sealing if they also have a civil ceremony. A new website, Family First Weddings, collects statements about the policy and encourages members to write respectful letters to the church hierarchy explaining how the policy hurts them and their relationships. I went to the website and copied their mission statement, which is found below:

Our mission is to raise awareness of a current policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that discourages couples from having a civil marriage prior to a temple sealing. This policy makes a temple sealing unavailable for one year to any couple that decides to have a civil wedding first. We want to see this policy changed.

Our goal is to urge people to carefully ponder this policy with open hearts and determine whether or not they would support a change. We invite all who would like to see a change to join us by writing a letter or by sharing your wedding story.  We are collecting emails, stories, and letters to help format a letter that will be sent, through official channels, to our leaders in Salt Lake City. We will be also passing along the letters and stories that will be part of a packet that will accompany the letter.

Subsequent to my research on this matter as well as looking into my heart, I am choosing to support a change in policy, at least for the US, Canada and South Africa, promoted by Family First Weddings.  I will ask the leadership of the Church along with others to embrace a Church-wide policy (I believe this issue is not doctrinal in any way) similar to what now exists in the UK, to allow there to be a choice for LDS couples.  I would like non-LDS family and friends to not be excluded on this very special day, and would like for them to walk away from the events of the day without any possible negative feelings about the Church.  In the doctrine of the Church, families are always first.  Family issues can even trump meeting attendance and acceptance of responsibilities, for ecample.  Why not promote the family first concept on this day when new families are first begun?

This marks a definite transition in my thoughts and feelings on this matter.  I hope that a change is forthcoming.

My Siblings - Comparison and Contrast

I am the youngest of the three children of Albert Earl Davis and Bess Davis. (Yes, my mother was a Davis before her marriage to my father)  My siblings are visiting Southern California to spend time with my wife Ann and with me and to attend the New Year’s Day Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena.   I thought that it would be interesting to do a blog entry in which I “compare and contrast” myself with my siblings.  I want the world to know about them and the wonderful people they are.

I will write mostly about my siblings only and not their spouses in this blog post.  I acknowledge that much of who my siblings are today is the result of their long term relationships with them.  But I want to focus on just my siblings.  (I have written about Tom’s wife, Janeen, in a March 2012 posting.)  For the record, Tom and Janeen have been married for 56 years.   Darlene has been married to Bill, my brother-in-law, for 52 years.  I love both of my in-laws, and appreciate their love for Tom and Darlene.  Interestingly, between the three sibling couples, there are 142 years of marriage—with no divorce in sight!

My brother, Thomas Charles Davis, was born on May 6, 1937, in Salt Lake City.  He is the first born and displays many characteristics of a first born child.  More about that later.  He was raised in Salt Lake City and a couple of other towns in World War II times (one was in San Francisco, on Haight Street one block from Ashbury) by newly married, young parents.  Our parents were raised by blue collar parents, descended from blue collar people, two being immigrants from Denmark and Wales.  As such, Tom, and for that matter, Darlene, were raised in an era of modest income and living.  For most of Tom’s formative years, my parents were not active in the LDS Church.

Tom made a decision to not serve a mission for the Church but to marry Janeen, his high school sweetheart.  In high school, he had begun to show “first born” leadership characteristics, and served as the president of the Boys/Men’s organization of West High.  He attended two quarters at the University of Utah but opted to pursue a business career.  It was during a time in which post-high school education was not necessary to earn a meaningful living, and Tom was blessed with a strong sense of who he was as well as his blossoming leadership abilities which served him well even at a tender age. 

For example, in his late 20s and early 30s, he was given great responsibilities in companies.  He and Janeen and three of their eventual six children were sent to Peru to be in charge of operations for a mining and drilling company when he was but 27 or 28 years old.  He also was responsible for sales in a multi-state region in the eastern United States soon thereafter.  Tom believed in and was respected for his abilities and confidently went about using his talents in the business world.  He provided a comfortable living for his family, a white collar lifestyle unknown to generations before.

His abilities only increased the older he became.  He and two others started a large modular home construction business and generated considerable wealth.  Because of his abilities, he was called to several leadership positions in the Church.  He was confident of who he was and was blessed with wisdom.  It was his kind and loving wisdom and direction, in fact, that directed me in some major decisions of my life—choosing to attend Brigham Young University rather than the University of Utah, and to marry Ann.

He has lived in the same split entry home for over 40 years and has successfully launched his six children: Caren, Ann, Leslie, Tom Jr., Steve and David.  He has served two LDS missions with Janeen in his retirement years and is always willing to serve in whatever lay positions he is assigned.  He lives a contented life.  He still loves his sweetheart (and she is a sweetheart!) after so many years.

Darlene Davis was born March 29, 1942, in the middle of World War II, in Salt Lake City.  Like my brother, she was raised by young, blue collar parents who had the energy to interact with her.  She had my brother to socialize with, and although there were five years between them, they lived in the same house and interacted.   Unlike my brother, she evolved to become in some ways the “anti-Tom.”  I believe that occurred because of who she was as a person and because of a poor relationship with our father.  It might also be that Tom was perceived as the achieving, obedient child and set the bar very high for her.  It could be said that in her formative years she displayed rebellious “second child” tendencies.  Not that she was a party girl or got involved with the wrong crowd, but life was not pleasant for her, especially with our father, and she got married to Bill right out of high school.  

She and Bill eked out a living in their early married years.  She chose to be a stay-at-home mother with their six children: Jeff, Natalie, Tamra, Mark, Jill and Mike.  They had to live modestly, but she became a great homemaker, always making her home comfortable and attractive, even when she didn’t have a lot of money to work with.  One of my early childhood memories was riding my bicycle to her tiny apartment (located next to the home in which my mother was raised) parking it in the back behind it, and seeing Darlene as I attended 7^th grade at Jackson Junior High School, spending a little time in that little attractive apartment.  She always treated her little brother in a loving, kind way. 

In my early dating years, we kept in touch.  Upon my graduation from high school, she threw a great party for me in the back yard of her modest home.   Her house always felt comfortable and I felt accepted there.  She seemed to take pride in her home and it seemed to have fervor as a homemaker.

She kept the home fires burning while Bill worked long hours.  He worked as a journeyman glazier for many years and then formed a partnership with his brother to create Mollerup Glass Company   He worked hard at building this business with Darlene’s support, and the business flourished.  Meanwhile, she attempted to be a good mother and to serve well in lay callings in the LDS Church.  Like Tom, she has a flair for creativity and art and has used that through the years to enhance her home and her Church callings. 

After a number of hard-working years, Bill sold his business for a good sum which has afforded him and Darlene to live a comfortable, white collar lifestyle.  They have stayed in their lovely home for many years as well.  It is wonderfully decorated inside and out.  She has continued serving in Church callings and loves being a grandmother and now a great grandmother.  Like Tom, she has aches and pains and challenges of advancing years, but like Tom, does not act her age.

My upbringing was very different from my sibling’s upbringings.  The parents of my youth acted old.  As best I can remember, there was very little of the interaction with me that my siblings speak of receiving from our parents.  I recall wanting to do fun things with them but that rarely occurred.  Since Tom had married when I wasn’t quite three (I was in his wedding reception line!) and Darlene had married when I was still five, I had no siblings to play or interact with, or to develop my social skills.  In this environment, I was left on my own and in my head.  A quiet and obedient boy, I didn’t talk much, and while I had a few neighborhood friends, much of my youthful years were spent alone.  

I believe that out of a lack of sibling and parental interaction, I had limited awareness of who I was and what my strengths were.  I always felt “less than,” and while I knew I had some abilities and talents, I always felt unsure of myself, perhaps from the lack of feedback.  But I was a pleaser and always tried to be the obedient boy.  I was always grateful for the interactions that I had with my much older brother and sister.

Education was not stressed at all growing up, other than getting some money for As and Bs.  I just knew that I needed to continue my education after high school.  At length, with the help of my “brother/father,” I enrolled at BYU, and continued there for some two years, until I did something that neither my brother nor any of my male progenitors had done: I served an LDS mission.  Upon my return from two years’ service, I continued my studies at university.  Sadly, not really knowing who I was or what I wanted in life, I never felt passion for a major, and opted to give myself options after graduation to utilize the Spanish language skill I had acquired by majoring in Spanish and minoring in Teaching English as a Second Language.  Again, this was done in a vacuum; no direction, no real passion, no real understanding of who I was.

Upon returning from living in Japan as an English Teacher (living in Japan was a daring move to be sure that afforded me experience in achieving and becoming), my mother encouraged me to become involved with my father doing what he had done for 34 years—selling rags.   Being obedient, and not really knowing what else I could do to support my family at the time, I became a rag man.  I still am a rag man.  I was somewhat enthused about the rag business for the first 10 years or so, but always was looking for something to excite me and to use the talents I was beginning to see in myself.  I think that I settled into a line of work that provided modestly for my growing family, but which did not really evoke passion.

I accepted callings in the Church along the way but it was not until well into middle age that I received responsibilities requiring leadership.   I always tried to be obedient, both to God and to my parents.

Financially, my married life for the most part has been one of having “sufficient for our needs” but not much more.  While I have been in white collar jobs for most of my adult life, our finances have barely been white collar.  It was only after Ann went back to school, got her Master’s Degree, and was hired as a Community College math professor, that we have had more than sufficient.  Because of our age disparity, both Tom and Darlene are retired and both have financially comfortable retirements.   Obviously, Ann and I aren’t quite there yet and continue in our late-blooming careers.  I must admit to having felt envy to some extent in my middle age at the comfort both of my siblings and their spouses had worked so hard to obtain.  But we are doing well now—it was just a matter of timing.

In 1994, Ann, I and the kids, left the cocoon of the Salt Lake Valley and moved to the Los Angeles area where we have lived to the present.  This represents another deviation from the Davis sibling norm in my journey.   It has been a challenge to live apart from them, both for my children and for us, to physically be away from those face-to-face family gatherings and connections.  

Ann obtained her Doctorate from UCLA and I received my Master’s Degree in Psychology in 2009, representing further educational deviations from my sibling norm (not Ann’s family’s norm).   Finally finding my passion in doing psychotherapy, I am doing something vocationally that is quite different from my siblings, although Tom has done much pastoral counseling in his leadership roles.  I am finally passionate about something, and it is something that is making a difference in the lives of people.

My sense is that I am quite different from my siblings in many ways.  On the other hand, I do believe that we have many similarities because of parallels in our upbringings.   And while the miles and our ages separate us, I feel very connected with them.  I love and care deeply for them, and I sense that those feelings are reciprocal.  I feel accepted by them and their spouses.  

I am really looking forward to spending time with the four of them—on my turf.  I feel blessed to have them here this weekend, and in my life.

Election Day 2012

           Today is the long awaited day—at least by people who have paid attention to Elections 2012.  I count myself as one of those people.  I have blogged a little about it, specifically about the notion of having a Mormon President of the United States.  I have read and listened much. This morning I voted, and must admit that, feeling a little philosophical as to the implications of what I was doing, I felt tears welling up.  I was a little surprised to feel that emotion, but then, I am all about feeling my emotions these days.

            Living in California, I am keenly aware of being LDS, and how I am regarded differently.  I know I am different.  I am keenly aware that my religious forefathers were persecuted, imprisoned, and even murdered for their beliefs, being ignored by the government that should have protected them.  The sweet irony is that there is a distinct possibility that a Mormon—one of my people-- might be elected to lead that government and to become the most powerful person in my country and indeed in the world.

            Whether or not the reader votes or doesn’t vote for Mitt Romney, I would propose that this man is the embodiment of a “good” man.  I would propose that this good man has been married to the same woman for over 40 years, and while longevity in marriage is not necessarily an indicator of marital bliss, having listened to him talk about her and her talk about him, there can be little doubt that their relationship remains sweet.  When I watch them talk to one another, I see the sparkle in their eyes that belies their profound feelings for each other.

            This good man has raised five sons to be responsible, civic, and religious citizens, no small accomplishment in the 21^st Century.  He has spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours serving those around him as an ecclesiastical leader.  As a former leader myself, I am very aware of the caring and love involved as you counsel with folks who struggle physically, emotionally, and spiritually, for no pay.  Because he has been blessed with wealth which came to him as a result of using God-given talents, he has donated truly significant amounts of money to the Church and toward its humanitarian purposes.

            He loves and very much respects his parents.  He appreciates their challenges and the challenges of grandparents and beyond.  Even though Mitt was born into wealth, he, like so many, was raised by parents who knew the value of money and hard work.  He has attempted to instill these important values in his children, knowing of the importance of such values.

There is no doubt in my mind that he loves this country and cares deeply about its future.  Like me, he believes that the United States is an exceptional country, founded by men who were inspired and raised up for that very purpose.  It perhaps would have been easy for him to sit back and enjoy his wealth and let others steer the ship, but he cares so deeply about my country that he has put himself in the fray—to battle for the freedom, liberty and other values that made this country great.

So today I voted for this good man.  I realize I have a deep connection with him.  He is everything good my religious belief system embodies.  On an even more intimate level, he is me, and on some level, I am him.  …So my tears are welling up again….