I once noticed something strange as the Brethren spoke in general conference. I was curious to see that President Thomas S. Monson identified with the gospel in terms of his interactions with others—the widows of his ward and the other downtrodden sojourners of life. He interweaved into his sermons highly personal stories of his youth, the human dramas of others, and his personal ministry. Others like Elder Bruce R. McConkie identified with the gospel in striking contrast. Elder McConkie taught in cosmic and sweeping doctrinal terms. He rarely told stories and seemed to have a vendetta against using time at the pulpit to tell personal anecdotes. I puzzled at why such wide variations in personality and speaking styles existed among leaders of the Church. And even more to my amazement, and here is the material point, I noticed that they weren't even trying to be alike.

In my youthful mind, I looked at the brethren and compared them to the scriptures that speak of oneness: “If ye are not one, ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). I saw a disparity there. Why was it that these men at the highest levels of the Church had such widely varying temperaments and such distinct personalities? And why did they seem so comfortable with that difference?

What is the answer? The answer is: I was young. Like other youth, I had big ideals, but having little experience, I idealized principles in ways that were not very practical. Many parents can recall a stage where their daughter was interminably bossy, because rules, rules, rules meant everything. Teenagers, in particular, think that because they can understand a concept, they truly know how that concept applies to real life. Then real life hits them. I always got a good laugh from the bumper sticker: “Hire a teenager while he still knows everything.”

As we grow older and gain experience, we begin to make room for the possibility that foreign ways of thinking might be valuable, and we see that our former interpretations of gospel ideals may need some deepening. Along with Joseph Smith we begin to understand that “our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive.” ¹ Life experience, along with all its vicissitudes and trials, is meant to soften and deepen us; former harsh and unyielding views become more generous and inclusive.

The problem is, being human, we often struggle to grow up. We hold on to old dogmas and silly rules, placing cardinal importance on things that matter much less than we think. Latter-day Saints, like the rest of humanity, tend to get entrenched in a cultural thinking that insists that the way that they look at the world, and the way that they do things is the best way. Psychologists have long studied this thinking style in humankind and even have name for it: self-interested bias. This type of thinking skews reality in our favor and hence makes us less understanding of others.

This international Church now includes more cultures, races, and languages than ever before, and hence greater diversity of life experiences than ever before. An expansive way of thinking, especially thinking that transcends the local way of doing things, was never more needed. President Hinckley has said, “I cannot understand those of small vision, who regard this work as limited and provincial. They have no expanding view of it.” Provincial people may struggle to consider unfamiliar things or may feel threatened when their picture of “how things ought to be” is questioned.

Successful LDS Families

I wish to review some research studies that will hopefully transcend our understanding of “how things ought to be” and help us see more of “things as they really are” and of what they can become (Jacob 4:13). Hopefully this review will alleviate some of the fears and worries that plague many Latter-day Saints, who live in a religious community where sometimes an austere, rules-based perfectionism is accidentally encouraged and where variety, creativity, and expansive thinking are unwittingly discouraged.

Researchers William G. Dyer and Philip R. Kunz in their book Effective Mormon Familes: How They See Themselves ² asked stake presidents throughout the Western United States to identify fifteen families that they felt were the “best families” in their stake. Dyer and Kunz then sent detailed questionnaires to the hundreds of families. We might assume these families would be very effective in those practices we call the Sunday school answers—prayer, scripture study, family home evening, and temple attendance. Not so. Only 28 percent of these “best families” always held morning and evening prayer. Less than half of the rest “usually” did. Only 18 percent said they always held weekly family home evening. Over 70 percent of families responded that they “sometimes” or “seldom” conducted family scripture study. 24 percent “always” attended the temple regularly. ³

Although the study showed that these families were very dedicated to God and wished they were doing better, obviously they were less than perfect at doing the daily, mechanical, regimented activities. These families often had older children who worked and were in school. Conflicting schedules made it difficult to coordinate official twice-a-day family devotion. The lesson I see is that the parents were not pharisaical, insisting that every family member go to incredible lengths so they can get 100 percent on their religion stats. The families gave devotion regularly but were reasonable and practical about things. Religion did not happen always, but it did happen usually.

Also, the parents conveyed religion in less formal and more creative ways that do not always show up in the stats. The researchers found that these families were very effective in areas that are harder to measure, areas that beckon innovation and improvisation. These activities are governed by broad, overarching principles rather than tight regulations. The following are just a few:

Talking Your Ear Off

A recurring pattern among these families is how much they talked. Including both the parents and children, talking often took place three to four hours a day. Nearly all parents identified talking as their “most crucial teaching method.” These parents report a very high level of “sitting around and talking” as a family and to individual children on a daily basis. Note the language “sitting around and talking.” Sounds informal, and that is the point. A typical LDS “best family” is one where, if you could walk into their house before any given bedtime, the kids might be sitting on the floor of their parents' bedroom, while everyone jabbers away until the father has to kick them out so mom can get some sleep (which is exactly how one father in the study described some of his family's evenings together). ⁴

Expectations and Rules

These “best” families view themselves as far from perfect, though the children are turning out well, if Church activity and making temple covenants is the measure. What is their secret? “Do they have strict rules? Do they demand obedience to rules? Do they check on and control their children closely? The answer is no to all of these questions,” say Dyer and Kunz. ⁵ Effective LDS parents have very few rules, but they do have high expectations. Children are expected to be and do their best. Excellence in whatever endeavor becomes a family culture. Living to a higher standard is the norm. Working towards missions and temple marriages are part of the natural order of things. But lists of rules rarely exist. A surprising number of effective families, when asked how many family rules they had, responded that they had none.

When I interviewed an LDS family therapist, he told of the countless parents that come in to him and say, “Fix our children.” Upon interviewing the parents, he realizes, yet again, that the parents are the problem—in their zealous pursuit of the successful family they became so heavy-handed as to unknowingly encourage their children in neurotic behaviors.

Religion is a powerful force for good or evil. History shows that high levels of religious devotion, improperly applied, can lead to enormous trouble. Some LDS parents, from what I gathered in my interview, thought that the rules and constraints of the gospel were good enough, regardless of how unattractive they made it for their children. The letter of the law standing alone will suck the air right out of a room; but infuse it with some enthusiasm, liberty, love, and laughter, and the law comes alive.

Be Affectionate

Ninety-four percent of effective parents say hugging and 84 percent say kissing is an important expression of affection in their family. And 81 percent of them say that physical affection in the family occurs daily. The point is clear: effective LDS families give plenty of physical affection. ⁶

Diversity of Operations

Along with physical affection, what other expressions of love did these families give? In looking at the study, love was given in as many different ways as there are families.

Paul says, “ Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all” (1 Cor. 12:4–6). Likewise, when looking at those family bonding activities that edify and develop character, the list that Dyer and Kunz compiled is anything but uniform. Families play musical instruments, take dance classes, build model airplanes, join in debate clubs, have family joke night, take voice lessons, fish and hunt, watch movies, play board games, scrapbook, sew, paint, act in plays, read books together, and on and on. Thousands of activities could be listed that families feel are a crucial aspect of their family identity and culture of love and togetherness. Ironically, these families often expressed guilt that they did not do things “by the book.”

I believe that variety in activity, or as Paul says, “diversity of operations,” is a make-or-break concept that holds the key to creating an effective family. The conduit through which love is administered to family members should be based on individual interest, talent, and creativity. We should not feel guilty in the least just because the next-door neighbors have a family violin ensemble and we just like to hang out together and talk. Love and connection happens best when we are in our element. We should not suppose our gifts and talents are somehow inferior.

Theologians speak of “static perfection” and “dynamic perfection.” The idea of static perfection, I believe, creates society's monolithic tendencies, which narrowly restrict goodness and perfection to the “one right way.” Dynamic perfection says that perfection and goodness have infinite possibilities. When we realize that there is more than one way to be perfect, we can relax and appreciate the gifts we have. You have scientific gifts? Perfect. You are creative and artistic? Perfect. You are good with people? That's perfect, too.

Vital Engagement

The research of a Hungarian-born doctor will show why personal talent, interest, and creativity are at the crux of the matter in creating effective individuals and families. Dr. Csikszentmihalyi (Dr. “cheeks sent me high”) wanted to know what made people happy. ⁷ Studies had been done before, but they were not in real time, meaning subjects only reported what they remembered making them happy. Neuroscientists can easily show that the mechanisms of human memory are often unreliable for an empirical study. So Dr. Csikszentmihalyi and his associates passed out thousands of beepers to thousands of people and beeped them several thousand times a day. When a person heard a beep they recorded what they were doing at that very moment and the level of happiness (or unhappiness) they were experiencing. Subjects reported high levels of happiness when eating. They reported even higher levels of happiness when eating with close friends or family (a point well taken for those wishing to raise effective families).

Dr. Csikszentmihalyi also discovered that people were very happy in a state he called “flow.” We might call it “being in the zone” or “getting lost in our work.” This is a state of effortlessness that comes when someone is very good at a task while still being somewhat challenged by it. Flow happens when the brain receives instant, rewarding feedback. This is why flow often comes in sports, in playing musical instruments, and in dancing. The hot basketball shooter hears swish after sweet swish and expects to hear more; the singer sets up for that high note and nails it; and with every movement the dancer feels a mind-music-body connection that is hard to describe.

Flow can happen in any field or activity. Talkers get lost in a good conversation. Problem solvers find flow in engaging the conundrum before them. Mathematicians skip more than one meal without noticing as they furiously work at their chalkboard, then eight hours later finally step back in awe at the elegance of a full chalkboard and a solved equation.

Dr. Csikszentmihalyi's work was groundbreaking, but he was not satisfied with looking only at short-term bursts of flow. Next he wanted to study those people whose whole lives seemed to be in a flow. He interviewed hundreds of highly successful artists and scientists, those driven souls whom we all admire, who are good at what they do but also love their work deeply. These people have that elusive, magical spark—like the Mother Teresa or the Gandhi of their field. Their work is not just work; it is a mission, a labor of love. The researchers called this state of mind “vital engagement.”

Though these artists and scientists report unique journeys to their vitally engaged lives, most of them start with (1) something naturally interesting and enjoyable, and once they master the activity, it (2) takes on a greater meaning beyond the activity itself. Social relationships, values, and even a whole lifestyle surround the activity.

The Doctrine and Covenants speaks of vital engagement, and the language is eerie in its resemblance to the study: “Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward” (D&C 58:27–28, emphasis added). This passage does not say what our cause should be, except that it should be good. It also implies that we should pick the kind of thing we are naturally “anxious” to do. The research study likewise shows that the crucial key to vital engagement is to begin with something that is naturally enjoyable. Anxious says, “I can hardly wait to get to the task.” Anxious does not need to be forced.

I suppose we could, after much discipline and meditation and willpower, learn to enjoy a life mission where we initially had little interest or talent. But why waste the time? Why not pursue the thing we are best at and love most? From the passage above, it appears that God desires us to do that very thing. Find the activity, vocation, or mission that the soul finds naturally compelling, and go for it. The gift is already within us, and any ennobling activity is potentially “perfect.” Once we find the activity that we enjoy and are truly talented in, we have found our life's work.

But there is a catch.

Vital Engagement and Outside Restraints

What of societal restraints that hold people back from becoming their true, vitally engaged selves? This has been a question of philosophers and illuminati for centuries. The mid- to late-nineteenth-century Romantics were a whole generation of heroic but conflicted souls striving to break free and transcend society's decumbent and confining ways. Latter-day Saints today are conflicted much like the Romantics. They worry that their vital engagement might contradict Church counsel. They yearn to become vitally engaged in their interests, but their duty to church and family demands so much of their time.

The Church's emphasis remains on creating a family as the crowning mission in life. But modern society is not friendly to the family: not socially, culturally, or financially. The boundless opportunities of modernity compete for our attention, and the risk of becoming only vaguely interested in the family is great. Some in the upcoming generation of Latter-day Saints see that taking on family responsibility will act as a roadblock to vital engagement.

The young man or woman who sees Church practice in conflict with their vital interests are less likely to engage the practice, let alone anxiously engage it. This is happening today—overall, fewer Latter-day Saints marry and many more unduly delay it. Others are cynical or fearful about the whole institution itself. Surely such developments have caused no small amount of pacing back and forth, so to speak, in the chambers of today's priesthood councils.

This is where the study of effective LDS families and the study of vital engagement come together. In these two studies we find a secret that turns the gravity of duty into the refreshment of free will. Although it powerfully addresses the fears that so many Saints harbor today, the secret doesn't sound like much on the surface:

Effective individuals apply their personal vital engagements to the family situation and Church duties.

No wonder there is such wide variety and diversity of operations in the families Dyer and Kunz researched. The family's vital engagements found expression at home. Sure, those effective families were faithful and obedient, but they still allowed for vast liberty according to their likes and dislikes, their talents and proclivities, and their peculiar spiritual gifts.

Do you have a guilt complex about your lack of missionary efforts, but you love reading books? Start a book club in your neighborhood and invite non-members. One year later, your friends may discover that the Book of Mormon mysteriously made it on the reading list.

Do you struggle with your chaotic family home evenings, but you love eating? I know a guy who started a tradition called “Learning the Good Word While Eating Good Deep-fried Double-stuff Oreos on Mondays.” Now that's delicious and obedient.

With a little creative thinking, individuals can find infinite possibilities in making family life and Church life fun, engaging, and adventurous—and not in spite of, but because of, obedience to prophetic counsel.

Does Elder McConkie love the scriptures and love to write flowing doctrinal exegesis? Perfect. Does President Monson love musical plays and want to spin a sermon around principles found in the Music Man? That's perfect, too.

For more ideas on family and personal wellness, get the BYU Studies book Eternal Values and Personal Growth by Dr. Allen E. Bergin.

2. See William G. Dyer and Phillip R. Kunz, Effective Mormon Families: How They See Themselves (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986); and Dyer and Kunz, Ten Critical Keys For Highly Effective Mormon Families (Springville: Cedar Fort, 1994).

3. Effective Mormon Families, 17–

4. Effective Mormon Families, 35–38.

5. Effective Mormon Families, 42–44.

6. Effective Mormon Families, 79–82.

7. Dr. Csikszentmihalyi's work is reviewed in Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (New York: Basic Books, 2006), 223–26.

Return to Top of Article