My Own Bucket List

I loved the movie, "The Bucket List." I had seen it one time previously, but it was better the second time, since I knew what was going to happen and could focus on the smaller details I missed the first time I watched it. It also allowed me to consider thoughts and conceptual things that struck me for the first time, and those insights were powerful for me.

The first epiphany was something quite simple. The very concept of a bucket list is a product of relative privilege and luxury. People who can consider a true "bucket list" (things they have reason to believe they might be able to do, as opposed to things they simply wish they could do in an ideal world) are able to do so due to some kind of privilege or luxury from their current and previous lives. Financial considerations are the best example of this disparity, since more concrete, objective goals often have an accompanying price tag, while poorer people usually are forced to focus on things that are more conceptual or subjective. In fact, many people don't have the luxury of even considering the concept of a bucket list, since all their energy must be focused on nothing more than survival. 

For example, in the movie, Edward’s list was about seeing the world, which was possible only because he was abnormally rich. It included, “Go on a safari,” “Visit Stonehenge,” “Sit on the Great Egyptian pyramids,” and “Drive a motorcycle on the Great Wall of China.” Conversely, Carter’s list was full of things like, “Kiss the most beautiful girl in the world,” “Witness something truly majestic,” “Laugh until you cry,” and “Find the joy in your life.” The differences in their buckets lists could be explained as nothing more than their individual personalities and perspectives, but it is not adequate to ignore the impact of financial success and security on those personalities and perspectives. Edward was able to record practical goals that were expensive to accomplish specifically and exclusively because he had the money to make them happen, while Carter was constrained by his limited resources to goals that were not attached in any way to financial cost and which were far more subjective.

The second thought was much more personal and enlightening. My own father would fit Carter’s character almost completely. Except for the element of race, which was a legitimate, major contributing factor for Carter, my father’s life mirrored Carter’s in nearly every way. My father gave up his professional dreams to marry my mother, then he did it again, 14 years later, to give her the support she needed to deal productively with her schizophrenia. He had eight children, specifically because my mother wanted as many kids as possible, even though he knew it would increase his responsibilities exponentially. He intentionally moved from financial security to serious poverty for his wife’s sake, and, as a result, he changed irrevocably the content of what he would have included on a bucket list.

In fact, even more fundamentally, he gave up the notion of creating a bucket list and made his own life his bucket list. He lived specifically and intentionally for his wife and children, giving up nearly all aspects of pure, undiluted individuality in the process. Watching this movie reminded me that I have come to read one particular Biblical verse differently as a result of coming to understand my father's sacrifice: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

This verse doesn’t say that he "die" for this friends; rather, it says that he "lay down his life" for his friends.” There is an important difference between those two phrases. Just as Jesus, of Nazareth, set aside whatever life he had created prior to the age of 30 to begin his ministry to the people of his area, my father set aside the life he envisioned, twice, to begin his own personal ministry to his wife.

I see that same example in Carter. He lived his life for his wife and family, and he lost himself in a real and practical way. Edward offered him a chance to focus on himself again, and, initially, Carter accepted that offer. Eventually, however, he realized that the life he had established was more important than a practical, tangible, measurable list of dreams – as much as he enjoyed living those dreams. Edward didn’t improve Carter’s life in any way, ultimately, except in helping him regain the joy of his former life of self-sacrifice and service.

Meanwhile, Carter literally changed Edward’s life. The things on Edward’s bucket list that matter the most in the end were the things Carter had added, especially, “Find the joy in your life.” That joy wasn’t in the grandiose, fancy, and expensive; it was in the personal, intimate, and costless gift of his daughter and granddaughter.

That is my takeaway from this movie. Bucket lists are enticing, and, for those who can afford to fulfill them, they can be enjoyable and fulfilling to a degree. However, the most meaningful bucket lists are what people live as a direct result of their normal, daily, steady lives. I have chosen a life path that probably will not afford me the temptation to create a bucket list like Edwards, even if only in theory and not actual cost, but that chosen path has given me a multitude of experiences like Carter’s bucket list. Perhaps more than anything in my life, I am grateful for that particular way in which I am my father’s son.  

Some Excellent, Practical Advice to Help Us Find Peace

I almost never share things here that I find being forwarded on Facebook or other similar sites, but I came across this one today and want to share it with everyone here:

1. Make peace with your past, so it won't screw up your present. 

2. What others think of you is none of your business.
 
3. Time heals almost everything, so give it time.
 
4. Don't compare your life to others, and don't judge them. You have no idea what their lives are all about.
 
5. Stop thinking too much; it's okay not to know all the answers. Many of them will come to you when you least expect it.
 
6. No one is in charge of your happiness, except you.
 
7. Smile. You don't own all the problems in the world.

In the End, What Really Matters?

When all is said and done, I believe what matters most is no more than that we search for and find peace and happiness, that we love and serve others and that we try to be the best people we can be on our life's journey.

We really can't know objectively about things outside our mortal vision (which varies from person to person), so, at the most fundamental level, all we are required to do is live according to the dictates of our own consciences, let us worship how, where or what we may.

The interesting thing is that, when you get to the heart of current Mormon theology (especially when you consider temple theology and vicarious work for the dead), the summary above is a pretty good one to describe the path to "perfection" (completeness, wholeness, full development) we call the Celestial Kingdom - and it's the heart of the Atonement within our theology. Our effort, limited though it is, is enough, through the grace of God and its limitless reach. 

Sweet Bliss: The Importance of Innocence and Child-Like Faith

My second son, Jeff, wrote a poem in high school a few years ago about which I had forgotten, until my mother e-mailed it to me and my siblings.

I talk a lot here about leaving behind childish views and becoming "adults of God" - but this poem is a reminder to me that part of spiritual maturity is regaining a bit of the unobstructed wonder and acceptance of childhood we almost always lose when we move into a world that demands more than just a bit of cynicism and self-protection - that we can't be childish, but we must return to being child-like. I really like the examples Jeff used, since I think they have fascinating symbolic meaning, especially with a religious application.

SWEET BLISS

Childhood is being afraid of the dark . . .
and believing a night light will scare away the monsters.

Childhood is bringing home a wild animal . . .
and asking if you can keep it.

Childhood is digging for worms and fossils . . .
in the playground at school.

Childhood is chasing down the ice cream truck on a hot summer day . . .
no matter how far you have to run to catch it.

Childhood is playing with anyone . . .
and not caring about origin or orientation.

Childhood is . . .
sweet bliss.  

I want to extrapolate a bit on the poem from my own life's perspective:

I am not afraid of the dark . . .

because I have constructed a night light that scares away the monsters.

I am able to entertain thoughts that others see as "wild animals" . . .

because I have had so much practice handling them in a controlled environment and now can handle them on my own.

I like digging for worms (common things) and fossils (hidden things) . . .

even in the most common places where others play without realizing what is all around but unseen by them.

I enjoy chasing down fulfilling things (especially thoughts and concepts), even when it's hot . . .

no matter how far I have to run to catch them.

I find great joy in interacting with and learning from anyone . . .

and not caring about origin, orientation or perspective.

My life is . . .

sweet bliss (because it is uniquely mine).

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Plan of Salvation vs. The Plan of Happiness

This month's topic is "The Plan of Salvation". I focused today on the trend recently to talk about "The Plan of Happiness" and how that term compares to the traditional "Plan of Salvation". I wrote "Heavenly Father's Plan" at the top of the chalkboard - and then "The Plan of Salvation" on the left side and "The Plan of Happiness" on the right side. Under each term, I had the students tell me how they interpreted each term - "salvation" and "happiness".

"Salvation" means "being saved from something" - with an obvious reference to something bad in some way. The students mentioned anything that is unacceptable, uncleanliness, sadness, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc. They defined "happiness" as joy, contentment, peace, satisfaction, lack of misery, etc.

We talked about how "The Plan of Salvation" is focused mostly on one's condition prior to being blessed - taking someone "from" one condition to another condition. The emphasis is on the condition "from which" the person is saved. It is on the "savior" who does the saving.

We talked about how "The Plan of Happiness" is focused mostly on one's promised condition of blessedness - taking someone "to" one condition from another condition. The emphasis is on the condition "to which" the person is taken. It is on the "blessed" who is being rewarded.

I then asked each of them to think about the two phrasings and which one resonates the most for them personally - and why. I told them that I wasn't looking for any particular, unanimous answer; rather, I really was interested in their personal responses. Five of the eight liked "Plan of Salvation" better, while the other three liked "Plan of Happiness". I used that to start a fuller discussion about why it's important to understand how things can be phrased differently to help people understand the same overall concept, since the overall message of both phrasings really is the same.

We talked about missionaries teaching investigators (or even inactive members) about Heavenly Father's Plan. I asked them how they could know which phrase we had discussed would be the most powerful for each person. One of the students immediately answered "the Spirit". I agreed with that but added that the missionaries could use both terms and ask the other people directly which was the most meaningful for them and why. With that understanding, other teachings could be tailored to the natural "orientation" of each investigator / member. All possible legitimate phrasings could be used, but understanding multiple phrasings could help increase understanding among differing people - and it's much more important to teach people than to teach specific wordings. ("Preach My Gospel" emphasizes that, explicitly.)

We then talked about people who sometimes struggle with either wording. The students came up with some really good examples, then I mentioned two broad categories.

First, people who are already happy, even generally, might not feel the type of uncleanliness, sadness, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc. that would help them feel a strong need to "be saved". For them, continued or enhanced happiness might resonate more deeply.

Second, people who struggle with depression, bi-polar disorder or any other condition that makes them feel like happiness is not possible in this life might really like a promise of future happiness, while others might feel much more strongly about being saved from their current condition.

Finally, we talked about how people who can't envision happiness in this life might feel like they are being beaten with a hammer if they hear happiness in this life preached regularly as the goal. Thus, even if they might like "The Plan of Happiness" that is focused on the next stage in life, that same phrase might be discouraging or even painful if it is focused on this life. Again, the end result is the same, but the unique focus of each phrasing might mean more to each person in question - and it's really important to teach people "in their own language, according to their own understanding".

As an example of what I meant, we read from 2 Nephi 4 and talked about what it says about Nephi. We summarized "the things I have seen and heard" (v. 16 - his visions and what he was told in them) and then looked more closely at vs. 17-19, in which he describes how he feels about his "natural man" tendencies and actions. The wording is quite extreme, and it is worth pasting here (with the words we discussed in more detail bolded):

O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins.

This paints a picture of serious internal turmoil - and, taken literally without the help of the visionary background, it even could be seen as describing a bad man. That is interesting, since we Mormons tend to describe Nephi in such glowing terms that he comes across as almost perfect - an ancient superhero of sorts. I mentioned how we have the "good parts version" of prophets in our scriptures (and I explained the Princess Bride reference to them) and how we might buy into Nephi as superhero without weakness if we didn't have 2 Nephi 4. (I told them that if Nephi was alive today and talking with a therapist, he might be diagnosed with depression or bi-polar disorder or something like that - and he might be given medication to control his condition.) At that point, our Bishop, who was sitting in on the class, made a really profound comment that led perfectly to the conclusion I wanted to make. He said:

I see that man every day when I look in the mirror. I know what he meant in these verses and in the following verses about knowing in whom he trusted.

I then told the students that we tend to treat our modern prophets and apostles in the same way - overlooking or ignoring their weaknesses and mistakes and talking about them as if they were flawless. I reminded them once again that Joseph Smith was the most chastised person in the D&C, and we talked about his reference to himself as a "rough stone rolling" and what that means. I mentioned how much we tend to talk about Joseph the same way we tend to talk about Nephi - and how hard it can be for some people when they finally realize that Joseph wasn't a nearly perfect superhero.

I told them that if any of them ever was in a situation in their life, at any point, where they felt wretched and were grieving and groaning because of temptation, iniquity, sin or simply feeling like they didn't measure up to what they felt they should be, I hoped they would remember these verses and this lesson and not let themselves lose hope.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: The Family Proclamation; Part 2

Last Sunday, we talked about the rest of "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". This is going to be long, since we went through the all but the first three paragraphs (covered last week) sentence-by-sentence and talked about what each sentence means.

I began the lesson by reminding them that I had skipped the sentence last week dealing with gender, identity and purpose, and I told them that I had thought a lot about how to address that sentence openly and honestly with them. I told them that my own view on those topics is outside the norm for most members - that it is not orthodox - and that I didn't feel comfortable sharing that view with them as their Sunday School teacher. I told them that I would be wiling to discuss it with any of them on an individual basis, as long as their parent(s) approved, but that we simply would skip it in the setting of a Sunday School lesson.

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."

We talked about that first commandment - to multiply and replenish the earth. I mentioned that some people can't have kids and others never marry, so this isn't a universal commandment that must be followed, but rather a commandment for those who can multiply within marriage. For example, I told them explicitly that I would rather have someone die single than marry just to marry and end up being miserable and/or abused their entire lives. We also talked about the fact that the LDS Church has NO mandate relative to how many children any couple should have and that there are top leaders who don't have large families - and, in some cases, have no children or are not married.


We talked about how in the temple Adam and Eve report their partaking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden to the Lord - and how, in a very real way, Adam chose to suffer with his wife rather than remain in paradise with God.

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

We put it in direct, simple terms: No sex outside of marriage - and I pointed out that there is no prohibition in this wording on intimacy that is not procreative. I mentioned our previous lesson about the actual wording of the Law of Chastity in the temple and how the Church does not take any official stance on what can and cannot be done within marriage.

"We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed."

We put it in direct, simple terms, which started as, "Sex is good." I told them the sentence goes further than that by calling it divinely appointed. I told them that I hate it when I hear any member of the LDS church echo the old Catholic original sin concept and call sex bad, dirty, or in any other way that implies negative connotations.

"We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan."

I asked them what that means and what issues are addressed in it. One of the students said, "No abortion" - so we talked about the Church's official statement about abortion. We talked about how it emphasizes that life is sacred, but it also mentions explicit cases where abortion is not forbidden - like rape, incest, the health of the mother (and I mentioned that the wording includes emotional health, not just physical health). It also says, ultimately, that the decision is up to the parent(s) involved. We talked about how the Church no longer encourages teenage mothers to marry the father in all cases or have the grandparents raise the child - that the counsel is to give birth to the child and allow it to be adopted. We talked about why that is the current counsel - all of the issues related to teenage parenthood and marriage and the effects on the parents and the baby. I told them that we do not see abortion automatically as murder, like many other people do. I told them that the best description I have heard of the statement is that it is BOTH pro-life AND pro-choice - but that, ultimately, it is based on agency and individual accountability.

The next paragraph deals with caring for children and how God will hold people accountable for how they do that. There was a very good talk in Sacrament Meeting about that basic topic given by one of the students in the class, so I endorsed what was said in that talk and we moved on to the next paragraph.

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan."

I simply reiterated what I said last week about being aware of and sensitive to how we teach that within a group that includes many people who are not part of traditional families.

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

I told them I believe deeply in the "general ideal" being taught in this sentence, but that I am bothered by how badly it is misused by some people. We talked about what "entitled" means (possessing a right), so this sentence is focused on what would be ideal for children - to be raised by a couple who are faithful to each other. I asked them if they would support taking children away from single parents - or putting children into abusive situations simply because the parents were married and monogamous. They all agreed they wouldn't do that, so I emphasized again, like when we talk about interpreting scriptures, that we can't pull something out of context and use it in selective, damaging, uncharitable ways.

The rest of the paragraph deals with happiness in family life and parental responsibilities, and since we have talked about that paragraph in at least two former lessons, we simply emphasized that it is up to each couple to decide how to balance the things they have to do to care for their families. As an example, I mentioned that I know some Mormon couples where the husband stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife works - and that such an arrangement is not forbidden in the actual wording of the proclamation. I told them that they have to make those decisions on their own when they get married and that they shouldn't do anything just because most other people do it. They have to take responsibility for how they structure their marriage and family life.

We also talked about what it means to have a marriage and family "founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ" - that it does NOT say successful marriages and families have to be Mormon or Christian or anything else. As long as the teachings of Jesus are the foundation, even if Jesus is not known to the people, successful, "ideal" marriages exist - and Mormon or Christian marriages are worse than other marriages if they are not founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the others are.

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity (adultery, particularly, since the word "covenant" is used), who abuse spouse or offspring (in any way, not just physical or sexual), or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God."

I told them about the temple recommend question about obligations for children and how someone is not supposed to receive a temple recommend if they are not taking care of their children - like failing to pay child support, for example.

"Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I emphasized that this is focused on "disintegration" - NOT general issues all marriages and families face and not occasional divorce or death. I told them how much I am bothered whenever I hear this sentence used to preach against divorce in a broad, general way - again, because it hurts good people doing their best to cope with divorces that are necessary and, in many cases, better than really bad marriages. I also told them about working for years in places where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is over 90% - and how "calamity" is a good description of what life is like for those communities and many of the children, especially, who are raised in them.

"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I told them that there are controversial things we could discuss relative to this sentence, but I stressed instead practical things like parental leave policy differences between Europe and America - how much longer the leave is for parents in Europe and how fathers can take paternity leave as part of that extended leave, if the mother returns to work before it ends. I told them that there are so may "simple things" like that we need to address that it would be a shame to spend all of our effort fighting people and ignoring the things that actually can improve our own marriages and family lives.

I Am Responsible to Build My Own Own Heaven on Earth

Our own individual lives - and our family lives - and our church lives - and our community lives - and all other aspects of our lives can be "heavenly" (or "heaven on earth") if we feel free and comfortable within each of those spheres. By "free" I don't mean sharing anything at any time, but rather able to choose freely what to do and say and be; by "comfortable" I don't mean totally at ease, but rather happy generally with one's self and one's life within the circumstances of life as they are.

In my own case, my life is heavenly in most ways. I am comfortable and feel free within my own individual life; I am comfortable and feel free within my family; I am comfortable and feel free within my church life; etc. Of course, there are things that would change in what I perceive to be the ideal, but I am comfortable and feel free from micro-managing to a large degree. 

My work life has been different at different times. It has been a much more micro-managing and more restrictive (less freeing and empowering) environment in some cases; thus, it has been less "heavenly" and more difficult. I worked on that, however - which leads to . . . 

My final point is that there are elements of micro-managing in my family and church lives. I simply have chosen to accept their existence as part of being able to be part of a family (marriage) I adore and a church in which I believe and fellow members with whom I want to be associated. I have eliminated much of the micro-management that many find in the Church simply by choosing to ignore it without making huge waves - just going about my business in the way that makes the most sense to me without challenging others about it. If someone wants me, they get me.

In other words, I have created my own heaven by building it myself. 

Once I stopped trying to rely on others to build it for me (a form of reliance on micro-managing), I was free to build it myself. So, my mansion might look quite different than many others, but I'm happy and at peace because it's mine - and because I built it among people I really do love.

Thestrals, Dementers, Boggarts and Crises of Faith

I work in education and have the week between Christmas and New Year as a paid holiday break.  Over the last week, I have re-read the Harry Potter books in my relax time - and a parallel hit me about many people with whom I have spent time online over the last five years.  If you haven't read the books, it might not make as much sense, but here it is:

There are at least two specific instances in the Harry Potter books where suffering is tied to unique abilities - one positive and one negative. 

The first is possessed by those who have been touched directly and profoundly by death (who see people they love killed violently).  They have the ability to see creatures called "thestrals", while those who have not experienced death that closely are unable to see them.  These creatures pull the carriages that the students ride to get to school, so the students who can't see them believe they are being transported by the use of a magic spell.  Those who can't see the thestrals are positive they aren't there, and nothing said by those who can see them can change the minds of those who can't see them.  For those who can't see them, they simply don't exist.  It can be frustrating to those who see the thestrals to realize others don't believe that they exist, and, generally, they give up trying to explain and simply go on knowing that what they see so clearly (their own reality) literally is unknowable to others (isn't part of their reality).

Also, thestrals can fly, and knowing they exist and how to "cope with them" can lead to being able to fly with them - and, in at least two cases, they are instrumental in escape from danger.   

What struck me is that intense grieving often opens "our spiritual eyes" and allows people to see things that were invisible previously - things that those who have not grieved in that way remain unable to see.  I believe this has direct application to faith crises - and the more intense the crisis, the more difficult it can be to explain to those who have not experienced anything similar.  Just like the thestrals that are so obvious to those who can see them, everything about a faith crisis can be "invisible" to those who have not experienced what causes a faith crisis.  Just like with thestrals, it can be frustrating to those who see the thestrals to realize others don't believe what has been seen, and they often give up trying to explain and simply go on knowing that what they see so clearly (their own reality) literally is unknowable to others (isn't part of their reality).

Also, those who are able to navigate faith crises by seeing new and amazing things actually can experience joy and happiness in ways that others simply can't - because those new and amazing things are invisible to the others.

The second is a disability, of sorts, and deals with dementers.  "Demeters" are foul creatures that take away happiness and warmth - ultimately, by destroying the soul (spirit, in Mormon terms) through the "dementer's kiss", while leaving the body alive and functioning in a living Hell.  Those who have experienced extreme grief are more susceptible to dementers, since it is harder for them to let go of their grief and focus on the only thing that drives away the dementers: intensely happy memories that produce a protective force manifested in animal form called a "patronus".  It is instructive that it is not the existence of grief, even incredibly deep grief, that robs the person of the ability to focus on the memories that will fight the dementers; rather, it is the difficulty of focusing away from the grief and concentrating on the joy. 

Likewise, "boggarts" are spectral creatures that take the form of one's worst nightmare - the thing that each person fears the most.  For those who have not experienced deep grief and personal pain, that might be something as "normal" as a huge spider or a scary teacher; for those who have experienced extreme grief and pain, that might something as terrible as a dementer.  The key to fighting boggarts is humor - thinking of something so ridiculous that laughter is inevitable and altering the boggart to include the ridiculous image.  (eg. the scary, male teacher in an old woman's dress and silly hat or the spider on roller skates)

I don't mean to imply the extreme or automatic extension of what I am going to say, especially about online communities, since some of them offer excellent support for people experiencing a faith crisis of some kind, but it struck me hard as an analogy that might provide perspective in a new way:  

One of the problems that many people who experience a faith crisis face is the tendency to focus so much on the "issues" that they end up "wallowing in grief" in one way or another, including the classic manifestation of anger that accompanies feeling like everyone has been lying to them, and being unable to see any humor in their lives or with regard to their situation.  When a tidal wave of such grief washes over someone, it can be very hard to remember, much less focus on, the very real happiness and even joy that was experienced previously or look at their crisis in any way that allows them to laugh - and it can be very easy to minimize that happiness and joy as somehow "false" or "naive".  It also can be easy to turn to sources, especially online, that, in practical terms, are filled with human dementers - people who are dedicated to sucking out the former happiness and joy that existed prior to the faith crisis - and/or see nightmares all around them that they never imagined previously.  The human dementers might see their roles very differently (even as "saving" people), but, again, in practical terms, what often results is people who are left with nothing in which to believe - nothing that replaces the happiness and joy they have lost.

The example of boggarts also can fit the way some members interact with those who are struggling.  Sometimes, the only option when some things are said is to laugh internally and accept that some things that are profound to some people really are absurd to others.  The key is to recognize the personal absurdity of any particular idea and not attach it to the person who believes it, since, to that person, it is not absurd and often is powerful in a real and important way.  

There are two "lessons" I took away from my pondering about this:

1) A faith crisis often can open one's eyes to new things, and those things can be beautiful and fulfilling or dark and terrifying - real or imagined - frightening or laughable.  The difference isn't in the newly seen things themselves but in the way each person reacts to them. 

2) Prolonged immersion in grief and anger leads inexorably toward the dementer's kiss - not because true joy and happiness never existed, but because new happiness and joy cannot be experienced and created.  Intense grief doesn't have to be denied or forgotten; it simply has to be over-ridden by memories of old and new joy and happiness.  The danger of a faith crisis lies not in the grief and suffering it causes; the danger of a faith crisis lies in the forgetting or denial of the joy and happiness that once existed and still can exist - and it lies largely in the tendency to push away real friends who were part of that joy and happiness and replace them with associates who aren't focused on helping create new joy and happiness - who really are focused on deepening grief and separation. 

There are no easy answers in the book or in this post.  Fighting dementers and boggarts is not easy, and someone would be naive and a bit addled to ask for the type of experience that allows thestrals to be seen.  I don't have canned advice in this post.  All I have is an analogy that I hope touches someone in some way - that perhaps can lead to the type of individual pondering that I experienced and some kind of personal insight that will help.

No Fishing in the Ponds of Past Mistakes

A wonderful sister in Arlington, MA told my wife years ago something profound when my wife was struggling to care for our young children each Sunday while I served as the Seminary teacher in a small branch miles away. It was hard, and my wife wondered aloud one day why I couldn't be there to help her.

My memory version of what Sister Sloan told her is:

There is a bridge spanning a canyon that is very deep. Far below the bridge a small stream runs through the canyon. The local people regularly take pieces of paper, write their hurt feelings and bitterness on the paper and drop them from the bridge to the stream below. In the middle of the bridge, where the people drop their notes, is a sign which says, simply:

NO FISHING!

Happiness Defined

"Maybe happiness is this: not feeling like you should be elsewhere, doing something else, being someone else."

Eric Weiner - "The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search for the Happiest Places in the World"

Glorifying "The Good Old Days"

I think it's fascinating to watch people justify their angst over prophets by pointing out all the "weird" stuff about which prophets used to speculate, then turn around and criticize the current church leaders for being "boring" because they won't speculate any more. I also think it's fascinating that most of the people who long for "the good old days" rarely mention that those "good old days" included INTENSE persecution, death and incredible hardship - or that the "bad new days" include explosive growth and much more of a "rolling stone" appearance than the "good old days".

Personally, I'll take my life over Brigham Young's any day and twice on Sunday - when they used to meet all day, and our entire three-hour block of meetings would have been the opening exercises. Nostalgia is easy - especially for those who never lived in the times for which they are nostalgic. It allows them to criticize (often harshly) those early leaders while pining for the time in which they lived.

No thanks.