It Is Better to Be Godly than to Be Merely Religious

I think one of the central messages of the New Testament is that it's better to be godly (spiritual, in the best sense) than to be religious, if it has to be one or the other. I think the ideal is both, but the foundation needs to be the condition of one's soul, not just the actions of one's body. Without the spiritual foundation, what we do is nothing more than "dead works".

I also think this is reflected in the emphasis in the LDS Church on "becoming" over "doing" over the last decade or so.

How Do You Remain United in the Body of Christ When A Leader Abuses Power?

I have a good friend who was hurt quite badly by a pastor who initiated a harmful program and insisted that my friend help him administer it.  When my friend refused, he faced serious consequences at the practical level within his church community.

That friend asked me, after the fact, the following - and my response follows his question, with a nod to Mormon-speak for this blog:

The reality is that church leaders are just regular people. As such, sometimes they abuse their power in their leadership positions. Generally this is minimal or not a problem - however sometimes it can be extreme and even abusive.

How do you deal with this? How do you reconcile it with the command to be united in the body of Christ?

1) by recognizing and admitting exactly what you just said. There's nothing "magical", in and of itself, that changes someone who is in a position of leadership in a church - man or woman. The only thing that changes automatically is the power and influence they are able to wield - the scope of their potential unrighteous dominion.

2) by recognizing that increased responsibility pushes "the natural (wo)man" toward increased unrighteous dominion. It pushes "the unnatural (wo)man" forward to greater at-one-ment. It pushes most people who live somewhere between those extremes either or both ways.

3) by defining "unity in the body of Christ" as "doing my best to help the entire community" - and realizing that sometimes the best help I can provide is a different perspective - or a simple refusal to do something.

4) by not being a jerk about it or refusing to do anything for the person but continuing to do everything I feel I can do in good conscience and balance.

5) by going above the person's head in extreme situations, if possible - always calmly and meekly and humbly, but clearly and precisely (and pointing out that I take my commitment to sustain God and the overall church community above my commitment to any one person).

Within the structure of my own religion, if I were to go to a Stake President, for example, about a Bishop, High Priest Group Leader, EQ President, etc., I would make it crystal clear that I am doing so out of genuine concern for the Stake President, the other person and the LDS Church itself - that I believe the problem I am trying to address is serious enough to be talking with the Stake President AFTER I've tried to talk with the other person. Again, as I say a lot, tone, attitude and appearance mean a lot in situations like this. I won't contribute to someone being stomped on, but I'm not doing any stomping on or punch throwing at any point in the process.

We Shouldn't Judge Ourselves or Others for the Thorns of Our Flesh

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.  (2 Corinthians 12:7) 

The assertion that “wanting to repent of it” is all that is required to be able to change one's weaknesses and repent fully is problematic for those who struggle to overcome deeply ingrained inclinations and never totally conquer them in this life - and, to some degree, in some way, that applies to each and every one of us. For example, I know quite a few people who want badly to react differently to their children in stressful situations but can’t conquer their current reactions totally - and I would never claim that their desire to repent simply isn’t strong enough.  There are things about my own "natural man" that I am not sure I will be able to eliminate in this life.  The conclusion is simple but profound:

Some things are thorns of the flesh that will go away only in the resurrection.  If Paul, the apostle, and Nephi could write what they wrote about this issue, it's important to cut ourselves and others some slack and not insist that everything is fixable if only we really want to repent. 

That is not a blanket excuse for any action that the Church deems to be sin. It merely points out the danger in blaming one’s inability to control perfectly one’s deeply ingrained impulses and inclinations on an inadequate desire to change. The beauty of the Atonement, in my opinion, is not just that we can receive strength to change in the here and now, but also that we can receive grace for our efforts even when we cannot change in the here and now.  To even imply that not being able to conquer something completely is a matter of lack of faith or desire to repent denies the Atonement in a very real, practical way.  

I think that points to the need for those who find they struggle (or even are unable to) live a command completely at least to strive to live as close to the ideal as possible. It might not be the ideal, but all of us are commanded to try to live as closely to the ideal as we individually are able - trusting that the Lord in His infinite wisdom will understand our hearts and make up the difference. I’m not going to be judged against any other individual, and I’m not going to be judged against a universal, Mosaic Law-like standard; I’m going to be judged against myself - what I did with what I was given. Since I have enough problem understanding myself fully and have no idea the exact extent of any other person’s struggle to deal with his/her own thorns, I try to preach the ideal but not hold anyone to that ideal - trusting God to know all of our hearts and, in the end, be merciful, loving and long-suffering with his children.

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

On this day of unabashed patriotism, I want to share the following that has application to that topic, as well: 

There is a fine line between zealousness and fanaticism. I think charity is the delineator of the two - and, unfortunately, people do many things "out of love" that aren't at all charitable.

I look at the Golden Rule, and I can't help but wonder how (the collective) we would feel if our non-Mormon acquaintances acted toward us the way we sometimes act towards them - or if we learned that they talk about us the way we sometimes talk about them. I look at how some people interact with their "wayward" children and wonder how they would react if their parents weren't members and interacted that same way with them (their own "wayward children").

I believe in zealousness when it is manifested in a righteous manner, but I also have to be able to look at my own actions (and the actions of others as examples) and see the difference between righteous zealousness and something else. For example, I am concerned whenever I hear or read anything like the following - which I read in a comment a couple of years ago:

(In order to be zealous,) we have to stop worrying about “the other guy” and worry about how God views us.

Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the other guy AND about how God sees us, specifically because if there is one lesson in all of our scriptures I believe it is that "concern for the other" is absolutely central to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ. I agree completely that concern for how others see us can't get in the way of doing the right thing, but I also believe that "doing the right thing" without regard for "the other guy" often (and I mean very often) leads to doing the wrong thing in the name of righteousness. I don't need to use extreme examples of that principle; regular, daily examples are all around us.

I believe that being righteously zealous is not a simple thing that can be measured by a universal checklist. I need to be concerned with my own zealousness and whether my own zealousness is acceptable to God - and, for me, that absolutely must include a deep, central, strong element of how my actions in the name of God impact "the other guy" - since charity is the heart of my own measure of my own righteous zealousness.

One example to illustrate my point:

I love and admire Captain Moroni, but he was wrong - 100% dead wrong - in his chastisement of Pahoran during the war he was fighting. He didn't write that letter out of righteous zealousness; he wrote it out of frustration over seeing his soldiers die unnecessarily. (Those are his own words, not my assumption.)  He wrote it in anger - and the condemnation in it of Pahoran was unfounded. Captain Moroni was described by Mormon in the abridgment as a "perfect man", but he erred in that instance when he wrote that letter (which does not contradict Mormon's assessment of him). The letter was not charitable; it was not accurate; it was not in line with the standard articulated in D&C 121; it was not sensitive to the plight of a friend, supporter and fully righteous man; it was not a righteous judgment; it was not an example of "being moved upon by the Holy Ghost"; it was not an example of righteous zealousness.

Again, I admire Captain Moroni deeply, but I admire Pahoran even more deeply in that example - since he easily could have reacted very differently. It was Pahoran, not Captain Moroni, in that situation who "saved the day" - and he did it explicitly by remembering, in a time of great stress and distress, to "think of the other guy" and not return threat for threat. He did it by remembering the pure heart behind the mistaken accusations and not holding Moroni's mistake against him. He did it by loving the man even though the man's words must have cut him deeply. He did it by not being zealous in the traditional, stereotypical manner but by being zealous in love and meekness.

I believe in zealousness, but I also believe it is manifested differently in different situations and that, for me, at the very core, it absolutely involves "worrying about the other guy" in a very real and important way. I believe charity is the balancing agent between righteous zealousness and unrighteous fanaticism - and, if I have to choose between one extreme or the other, I try to choose to be overly charitable rather than overly fanatical.

Discretion Is the Better Part of Just about Anything

Discretion is the better part of just about anything. It's important to recognize and acknowledge that.

I can't say everything I might want to say in any group with whom I associate. I weigh my words all the time, both to consider their effect on me and to be careful of their effect on those who hear them. I try not to be misunderstood, even if I'm not fully understood. I don't succeed all the time in that effort, but I try. 

That's just part of life. Anything else is selfishness and lack of charity.

It's easy to forget that and think that church life is or should be different - that it should be a place where we can forget discretion and just say whatever we think and believe without filters of any kind. It's not that way, and it can't be - since it's a gathering of people who are just as short-sighted and weak as I am.

I'm not looking to carve out any "otherness" in the Church for any group of people. I'm looking to be a Papa D Mormon - for John Doe to be a John Doe Mormon - for Whomever to be a Whomever Mormon, etc. That's all, but it's vitally important to me - and discretion is the better part of that - just as it is for our apostles and local leaders, I would add.

I think leaders really do try to accomplish that (use discretion) well over 90% of the time. Even in cases like I've described here in some threads, with decisions and actions that left me scratching my head in bewilderment and caused some people real pain, most of the time the leaders involved really are trying to do the best they can.

They're human. Life is pain, because we humans inflict pain - because even our best efforts are undertaken as we see through a glass, darkly.

That's all I'm saying - that, given our collective humanity, discretion is the better part of everything we do, in all situations, among the people in all of our associations. I can't control them; I try to control me, to the best of my ability; I hope that I will not be held to a higher standard than I can reach, so I try my hardest not to hold others to a higher standard than they can reach.

That's easy when I like the others and they aren't hurting me and others in any significant way; it's not so easy when I don't like the others and/or they are hurting me and others in real, significant ways. Sometimes, I need to bite my tongue; sometimes I need to speak out; always I need to exercise discretion and think before I act - including before I speak.

To Some Is Given Not to Know or Believe

According to our scriptures (D&C 46:13-14):

To some is given to know . . .

To some is given to believe on those who know . . .

I would add:

To some is given not to know or believe, but to do the best they can, regardless.

I've said before that I feel sympathy for Laman and Lemuel when they said, "He maketh no such thing known unto us." (1 Nephi 15:19)  Maybe they just were being totally honest and snapped when Lehi and Nephi couldn't understand that. Maybe they couldn't handle the constant, unrealistic expectations and got pushed over the edge. On the other hand, maybe they really were nothing more than wicked jerks - but I tend to think it was WAY more complicated than that.

So, I'm left with the belief that people perceive and feel and intuit and know differently - which is why "all men everywhere" (including inside the LDS Church) must be allowed to "worship almighty God according to the dictates of (their) own conscience".  It's why I love the simple words of Jesus in Matthew 7:20 when he focused away from professed belief and zeroed in on actions:

Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.

If We Divorce Our Actions from Our Beliefs, We Are Left with "Dead Works"

"Faith is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things NOT seen." 

In that light, our faith consists of those things for which we hope but for which we have no objective evidence that has been observed.  I have not seen the resurrected Lord, and I have not heard him tell me personally what he taught in the Bible (and, I believe, elsewhere), but I absolutely hope he was right and his words are true.  That is my hope - that he really will accept me and my sincere efforts to do what he has told me to do - that he will "find favor with me". 

At a deeper level, how we act (the things we do or our "works") is the manifestation of that faith - the "evidence" that we really do believe what we can't see but for which we hope.  That's why James said so simply, "Faith without works is dead, being alone." 

If we divorce our actions from our beliefs, we are left with "dead works" - since there is nothing that animates those beliefs and makes them "living" (which, interestingly, means "capable of growth and change").  "Repentance", at the root, means nothing more than "change" - and when we act without an intent to change, we become "dead" (or nothing more than "inanimate" objects). 

Jesus made one very radical alteration in the Jewish culture of his day; he repositioned humanity as supreme and the law as created to change humanity (rather than humanity being created to serve the law).  He made the law all about "repentance" (progressive change that produces growth and literal transformation), instead of an end unto itself. 

That's the true focus of our "works" - a recognition that they are nothing more than our best attempt to create evidence that we really do believe that in which we say we hope.  That in which we hope is the heart of the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - that we really are "children of God" who can become "heirs of God and joint-heirs of Christ" and, ultimately, "be one, even as we are one" - seeing Him as He is, because "we shall be like Him."

How Much Control Do I Really Have Over My Actions? I Don't Know, but I Have Faith in God.

I have no idea how much free will I have as I make the decisions of my life – but it’s good to believe I have some degree of power to choose. It’s also good to believe it’s not all in my control, especially as I keep struggling to change what appears to be unchangeable in my nature – and it helps keep me from condemning others who also struggle to change (or appear to not be trying at all).

I have no idea why God very clearly and obviously spoke clear revelation through me on at least three occasions – but in the other hundreds of times when He could have done so He didn’t. It’s good to believe he will do so when it’s really important and not do so when I just need to do my best and learn from the chips falling where they may.

I have no idea why some of the decisions I just knew were inspired turned out so badly at the time – or why some of those ended up being really good decisions in longer hindsight, while others still look like bad decisions now. It’s good to believe he will stop me from making really bad decisions that will hurt other people badly while letting me make bad decisions that will hurt me but from which I can grow.

I have no idea why some people have been healed or protected in truly miraculous ways, while others have been left to suffer tremendously without protection or relief. It’s good to believe He loves us in those situations, but it’s bad to think He doesn’t love others in their situations.

I have no idea why the distinction obviously is NOT objective level of righteousness. Of everything else I’ve written in this comment, that is the only area about which I am certain. Sincere effort to be righteous can result in misery and pain, while wickedness actually can be happiness – at least in all objective measurements dealing only with mortality.

All of this could lead me to question God’s existence and/or love, but I know from personal experience there is something / someone out there that knows me personally and really cares – and that’s enough to keep faith that, despite my lack of understanding of issues like this, there is an answer that will make sense eventually.

Avoiding Becoming Weary (or Burned Out) in the LDS Church

In his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", Elder Wirthlin mentioned that some people stop coming to church and become "lost" because they are weary.  I was struck by that when he said it, and I have thought a lot about it since then - as anyone knows who has read this blog for some time, since I reference that talk quite often.

I want to share how I avoid becoming weary in the way that Elder Wirthlin describes, and I want to use my situation while living in Missouri specifically because it highlights how I easily could have become weary - or "burned out", as one friend described his experience to me years ago.

1) I keep from getting burned out by limiting what I do to what I can do without getting burned out. I know that sounds a bit silly and obvious (and very difficult for many, given the assumptions held my some members), but it works for me. It "helped" in Missouri that our finances and distance from the church created automatic barriers to doing too much, but I held to the principle even when we used to live 1.5 miles from the church and I made plenty of money. Bottom line: It's a hard-core commitment I've made - to do as much as I can but not get burned out by trying to do too much - to not try to do everything.

Some people don't like that I do that, and some people don't get it, but most people (the large majority) really do understand.

2) Having said that, I am MUCH more open to making an exception for unique service opportunities than for "regular, run-of-the-mill" stuff. I couldn't drive 40 minutes there and 40 minutes back - and pay for the gas to do so - just to be involved in an activity where there are plenty of other people there to handle it. Financially, I just couldn't. However, I could do that - occasionally - to help someone who needed my individual help. I could do that largely because I wasn't doing all the other stuff that would have sapped my time and money and energy - and that's really, really important to understand.

It's a balancing act, and it's MUCH harder in many ways than trying to do everything - but I believe it's important to be the one doing the acting and not just be acted upon.

Self-Reliance in Adulthood; Safety Nets in Childhood

A friend of mine was talking once about wanting to experience things on his own and reach his own conclusions - that he didn't want to "rely on what others say".  I understand that sentiment completely, but I look at a bit differently.

There are some things that I don't want to experience and am fine "taking someone else's word for it".
For example, I think I know myself well enough to avoid beer and cigarettes because of their addictive qualities and my tendency toward addictive behavior. (blogging? - *grin*)  My family is multi-generational Mormon, so I don't have a lineage I can look at and see if alcoholism runs in our genes - but I'm VERY wary, given what I do know about the disabilities that do manifest in my ancestry.

Granted, that's not precisely "taking someone else's word for it" at this point in my life, but it certainly was in my earlier, formative years - and I am very grateful for that, since it possibly kept me addiction-free until I could understand myself well enough to make that decision for myself in an informed, intelligent manner.

So, my summary:

Absolutely, I want to make my own choices and not rely strictly on someone else's word on most things - but I also believe all of us accept the need for a reasonable, safe foundation of "someone else's word for it" until we are mature enough to craft "our own word on it".

Why Mortal Suffering?: or, We Are Meant to Be the Gods of This Earth

Adam and Eve were told they would be "Lord of all the earth" - and "Adam" and "Eve" are generic terms for "man" and "mother".  Thus . . .

I believe we have been given the power and authority to "be God" on this earth - that our decisions and actions (our allegiances - whom we follow and emulate) determine who is the God of this earth.

So, why does God allow terrible suffering and abuse?

Maybe it's because we aren't willing yet to step up and assume our intended roles - and we allow it to continue and be so pervasive. We like to blame God, but we aren't willing to see ourselves as the God we are blaming. In my own sphere of influence, I am that I am - but it's easier to shift the blame to the great I AM and not tackle what goes on around us in our own kingdom of embryonic gods.

Yes, there must needs be opposition in all things, so suffering is inevitable.  How we deal with it, however, is up to us.  If we know someone is being abused and do nothing to stop it . . . if we know people are starving and do nothing to feed them (or simply over-consume and keep resources from them) . . . if we know women and children are being forced into prostitution and sit back without trying to stop it . . . if we know of evil and don't fight it . . .

We can believe that such things are a result of the Fall and part of the Plan, so, in a way, we can say God is responsible for their existence - but WE, collectively, are responsible for the degree to which these things flourish, and we have examples of peoples who banded together and simply refused to allow them to continue within the spheres of their own influence.  They stepped up and represented God, in a very real way - and they changed the world around them.

Wise Words from a Woman Acquainted with Sorrow

Elizabeth Edwards died of cancer on December 7th, 2010. She said the following a few days before she died - when it was announced publicly that she only had weeks or days left:

"The days of our lives, for all of us, are numbered. We know that. And yes, there are certainly times when we aren't able to muster as much strength and patience as we would like. It's called being human. But I have found that in the simple act of living with hope, and in the daily effort to have a positive impact in the world, the days I do have are made all the more meaningful and precious. And for that I am grateful."  

What a profound statement.  I hope I can say when my time has come that others can say of me that I learned and followed these words in my own life.

Doing Good for Inferior or Even Bad Reasons Is NOT Bad: Understanding "They Have Their Reward"

I think there is a really important, deep principle in the idea that "they have their reward" that gets overlooked completely in many cases. Jesus never said it's bad to do good things for the wrong reasons - and that, in and of itself, gets butchered too often in church talks. What he actually said simply is that those who do things for inferior reasons "have their reward".

If they want praise and public recognition for their financial sharing, they donate money in a way that will give it to them. "They have their reward." If they want financial blessings for paying tithing, they (sometimes) get it - one way or another. "They have their reward." If they pay tithing to hold a temple recommend so they can serve in a particular calling and be seen as righteous by others, they get it. "They have their reward."

They just don't have God's reward - or, at least, not His ultimate reward - if they haven't been changed in the process to BE that reward.

Sometimes We Ask Too Many Questions

Sometimes we simply ask WAY too many questions.

What I mean by that is that sometimes we ask questions of leaders - and they feel like they have to provide an answer - and that answer isn't something we like or want to hear - and we could have avoided the whole situation if we simply hadn't asked the question in the first place and just gone ahead and done what we believed was right.

Let me give an example from the world-wide Church Handbook of Instructions training from November 2010.

Pres. Beck talked about a RS President who was standing outside a home, pacing back and forth, concerned that she hadn't heard back yet from the Bishop about what she could do to help the sister and family in the home. She had left a message for him asking him what she could do.

Pres. Beck related that her advice to this sister was, to the best of my recollection: 

You have authority in your position as a President. Do what you feel impressed to do - and then go to the Bishop and tell him what you did.

I know that the culture of the Church in the past hasn't supported that advice in many cases, but it was said more than once in the training that organizational presidencies in the Church need to be empowered to seek and act on their own inspiration for their own stewardships - that they need to "ask less" and "do more". It also was said that the Bishop (and everyone else) needs to realize that the Bishop will not receive all the revelation for the ward - that all who have official responsibilities within the ward may receive revelation for their organizations (and families, in the case of parents) and provide honest, open, candid input in any councils in which they participate. Again, a statement that, in some important ways, we need to ask less and do more.

Again, sometimes we ask too many questions.

To Feel, Believe, Know, Do or Become

I believe what we DO trumps what we FEEL or BELIEVE or even KNOW when it comes right down to it - and what we BECOME is most important of all.

What Should I Do When I'm Not Sure What to Do?

Do you picture a God who is just or merciful - or a combination of both?

I heard a wonderful little statement a while ago that I really like - more for it's shock value than anything else, since it really made me stop and think. It says:

I asked God to give me what I deserve - so he slapped me and sent me to Hell.

What I really love about "pure Mormonism" is that it posits that, in the end, there really is nothing that is required except your best effort to live according to the dictates of your own conscience and understanding - that mistakes are fine, as long as they are made in sincerity. (There's a lesson in there for how we view our leaders - past and present - at all levels.) If that's true of those who never heard the Gospel, it's true of those who did.

So, my answer to the title question is simple, but not easy:

I go with what seems like the right thing to me personally and trust that God will accept my best effort.

We Are Responsible, Largely, for the Experiences of Others at Church

[Normally, I would proivde a link to a good post from somewhere else today, but I felt impressed to share this memory, instead.  I hope that decision was inspired - that this post touches someone, somehow today.]

There was a discussion in a leadership meeting I attended once that centered on the question of why members left the Church and what we could do about it. I knew how it probably would go naturally, so I piped up right at the beginning and said that most of the people who have left with whom I have talked personally mention being bored and feeling unfed at church - and that the best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to make our services and classes and meetings at all levels and of all kinds more spiritual and more spiritually filling.

As I expected, there was an initial, immediate reflection of that onto the people who don't come prepared to feel the Spirit (as if it's their own fault for not feeling fed and feeling bored), but the conversation eventually ended up focusing on the "standard" idea that everyone needs a friend, something to do and nourishment with the good word of God. I agreed and simply pointed out that it is up to the leadership of each ward and branch to set the example of nourishing with the good word of God and insist that the membership do that, as well, to the best of their ability.

This is one issue where I agree completely with the "standard Sunday School answer". Everyone needs a friend (someone with whom s/he can talk honestly and openly without being judged or condemned), something to do (to not feel like a nobody and to serve others) and spiritual nourishment (thoughtful, uplifting, enlightening, spirit-directed teaching and sharing). One is social; the next is active personal; the last is spiritual.

If all three of these things were provided to every member, there still would be issues - but they would be much fewer, far between and less serious. So, my advice to everyone is simple:

If you want to deal better with some of the things that cause you to struggle at church, be a real friend to someone at church, find something to do at church that is important and meaningful to you (whether that is an official calling or not) and provide nourishment of the good word of God to those who need it (including yourself outside of church time, if you aren't getting it directly at church from others).

Proving I Believe I Am Not Better than Others By Choosing to Interact with Them

In continuing to consider the idea that I am not better than others in the eyes of God, no matter my abilities in things unrelated to that eternal message, I have been drawn back to I Corinthians 13 - one of my favorite chapters in all of our canonized scriptures.  I have been drawn back to the fundamental principle of charity - and, more specifically, what it means in relation to not thinking of one's self as better than others in the eyes of God.

Tonight, I want to address how we can shake off the shackles that often bind us in regard to learning to understand, appreciate, value and, finally, love those we are not inclined naturally to see as equal in God's eyes. 

The most extreme example of this would be what Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount.  Matthew 5:43-47 says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

This passage talks about loving, blessing and praying for enemies - and those aspects are quoted and discussed often in the Church. However, the part that is not quoted or discussed nearly as much is the part that tells us to "do good to them that hate you".

Loving, blessing and praying for are things that can be done alone, away from those in question - those who are enemies, those who curse you, those who hate you and those who misuse and persecute you. At least, this is true when these words are defined as feelings or emotions, as is the case often in our modern world.  Doing good to someone is different; it cannot be done alone. The command is not to do good FOR others; it is to do good TO others.  This involves action, and it must be done WITH those whom you would avoid naturally. In other words, you must interact with others to do good TO them.

This flies in the face of two other common statements:

Be in the world, but not of the world.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

The first quote (which, by the way, is not scriptural as quoted) generally is used as a justification to avoid sinners. My only point is that all of us are sinners, so this usage, in practical terms, is to avoid sinners who are different than we are. Obviously, this has particular application to those who curse, hate, spitefully use and persecute.

The second quote is perhaps one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the entire Bible. In its original usage, it does not mean to avoid anything that even looks like evil - that appears to be evil. Rather, it means something like the following:

Abstain from evil no matter its appearance - no matter how it looks.

I bring this up specifically because I have heard it used to justify all kinds of things that keep us from doing good to our enemies - and even to those who are nowhere near our enemies. The focus is not on avoiding anything that someone else might perceive to be bad, but rather to avoid that which truly is evil.

If I am a Home Teacher, and if one of the people I am supposed to visit and serve is only "available" when he is in a bar, should I go into that bar to visit him? If a woman is walking home in the pouring rain and I have the ability to help her, should I refuse to do so simply because someone might see me and jump to an incorrect conclusion? If someone has misused me in some way, should I refuse to interact further with him? (There are certain cases where my answer to this question is an uncompromising, "YES!!" - but people use it to often in cases where the "misuse" does not rise to the level of abuse that justifies avoidance or shunning.) Can I really be in the world and not at least "appear" sometimes to be "of" the world - doing good to my enemies if I never interact physically with them?


I believe that one of the primary reasons we refuse to interact with specific others is that (specifically, with those who have not harmed us is a manner that justifies avoidance), at the most fundamental level, is a lack of valuing them as equal to us - that we define others in such a way that we can justify not serving and loving them in a way that shows we truly believe they don't "deserve" to have good done unto them.  In some way, we place ourselves above them and see them as "worse" than we are.  (The other primary reason is a devaluation of ourselves to the point where we don't believe we have anything to offer - but that is a discussion for a different post.) 

In conclusion, I believe that if we are to internalize charity fully, at some point we must be willing to step out of our comfort zones and interact directly, in some way, with those who fight us, curse us, spitefully use us and persecute us. We can't become truly charitable in isolation, and we can't become truly charitable through only an intellectual understanding of it. At some point, we simply must LIVE it - despite the very real risks associated with doing so. 

What Does It Mean to Be "Blameless" in How We Walk Before God?

In the previous two New Year's Resolution Posts this month, I wrote about walking (not running or sitting) before God and walking "before God".  In this post, I want to share some thoughts about walking "blamelessly" before God. 

In the context of the usage in Alma 5, "blame" is defined as:

responsibility for anything deserving of censure

"Censure" is defined as:

strong or vehement expression of disapproval

Thus, walking "blamelessly" before God means walking in such a way that God will not strongly or vehemently disapprove. 

Two things struck me as I initially defined the central words and reached the defintion above - one which I have understood for a long time and one that was completely new to me. 

The one I have understood for a long time deals with the nature of the Atonement and my understanding of the difference between "sin" and "transgression".  Essentially, God does not disapprove strongly or vehemently of our best efforts to act according to the dictates of our own consciences.  In fact, I believe our 2nd Article of Faith teaches that we will not be punished for the things we do as a direct result of the Fall - which, in this case, include transgressions of eternal law we commit out of ignorance or as a result of things we simply can't control.  If we do not choose consciously to do things that are contrary to our best understanding of what we believe God wants of us, those actions are paid for through the Atonement of Jesus, the Christ - and I believe the magnitude of those things for which we have been redeemed already is MUCH larger than most people realize. 

The second thing that struck me was not new in theory, as it is something I have believed for a long time, but it was new to me in the context of walking blamelessly before God.  It really is just a re-statement of the first one I just explained, but I think it is important to phrase it the way it came to my mind.  It is:

God does not expect us to walk "perfectly", nor does he expect us to walk without stumbling and falling and getting skinned up in the process.  He simply asks us to avoid those things of which he would disapprove "strongly" or "vehemently".

 

The best example I can give is how I view my own desires for my children.  I expect them to make mistakes in their lives.  In fact, I believe that is the only way they will learn many important lessons in life - by experiencing the opposition that must needs be and failing occasionally (or more than occasionally, if they are like me).  I am not about to react strongly or vehemently to the vast majority of mistakes they make.  However, there are some things they might do to which I would react strongly or vehemently.  Those things are so serious in my eyes that I would go outside my normal principle of teaching correct principles and watching them govern themselves to actively begging them to stop. 

The thing that struck me is that there really are relatively few things that fit that category that I believe are "universally accepted", but, even with my own children, the underlying principle would be things that violate their own consciences.  Thus, the things toward which I would react strongly or vehemently in relation to one child would differ somewhat from the things that would cause the same reaction in relation to another child - assuming I know my children well enough as differing individuals to understand what and how much they understand about the things they believe and the choices they make. 

I can't "blame" them for things they do out of ignorance, and I refuse to "blame" them for things they do with which I disagree simply because I disagree - as long as I believe they are acting in accordance with their own understanding and conscience.  Most importantly, the list of things they might do that would bring my strong and vehement disapproval and cause me to "blame" and "censure" them is much shorter than many people probably think. 

What I gained this week from my contemplation of this concept of walking "blamelessly" before God is that the assignment of blame rests with GOD, not with us - and that, in my opinion, that assignment will be based MUCH more on how well we walk in accordance to the dictates of our own consciences than on the exact steps we take in our walk before God.

Why I Don't Support "Hate Crimes" Legislation: Individual Worth

We live in a system that has said we can't be punished for what we think and believe, only for what we do. Hate crime legislation punishes people differently based on what they think and believe - for WHY they do what they do. It is that simple to me, so I don't support hate crime legislation.

If my wife or daughter is raped or killed, I don't want a white perpetrator to get a lighter sentence than a black man who was shouting racial slurs because my wife or daughter is a white woman. I also don't want a Baptist perpetrator shouting religious bigotry to be punished more harshly just because my wife or daughter is Mormon.

There is a MUCH deeper reason, however, that I am appalled by hate crimes legislation - and I choose the word "appalled" carefully and consciously.  

I want a lesbian, drug-addicted prostitute of any race or ethnicity to be viewed under the law exactly in the same manner as my wife or daughter - and I want someone who murders that prostitute in order to steal her money punished exactly the same as someone who murders her because she is lesbian or a different race or drug-addicted. None of those things makes her life less valuable or important, and the absence of those things doesn't makes my wife's or daughter's life more valuable or important, either. 
   

I believe they are equal in the eyes of God and should be treated as equal under the law, as well - no matter WHY the perpetrator of a crime did what he did.

(I also should note explicitly that I chose the above characterizations strictly because of the way they are viewed by many people in society.  I am NOT equating being lesbian with being a drug addict or with being a prostitute.)