More Often than We Admit, "They" Aren't the Problem: "We" Are

It's always easier to blame someone else for problems than to face the fact that they aren't someone else's fault.

Marriage is falling apart? Blame the gays.

Morality seems to be declining? Blame the infidels.

Job productivity is decreasing? Blame Facebook.

Promiscuity is rising? Blame the media. 



I don't see it that way. 

If those things are happening (and I"m not convinced they are happening, since, as a history teacher, I am well aware of how weak marriage and morality and job productivity have been and how rampant promiscuity has been for thousands of years), they are happening because "WE" are dropping the ball - not because "THEY" are corrupting our wonderful society.

I believe we should try to fix our own house before complaining about the conditions of other houses. If America is being killed, the current descendants of immigrants who came here earlier are doing the killing - not the immigrants who come here now.

If marriage is failing, it's heterosexuals who are causing the failure - not homosexuals.

If morality is failing, it's Christians who are causing the failure - not Muslims and atheists.

If promiscuity is rising, it's the religious who are fueling that rise - not the non-religious.

etc., etc., etc.

If this country (and others) fall, it will be "we" who make it happen, not "them".

Accountability and charity are powerful principles, and we cut the heart out of both of them when we insist on blaming others for our own problems. 

The Garment: At the Risk of Sounding Sacrilegious

I was talking with a woman recently who was told that she was being immodest because she wore something that allowed the garment to be seen.  It wasn't a matter of too little coverage; her blouse was just light and thin enough to see that she was wearing the garment.  She asked me what I thought about the charge of immodesty, and I responded by telling her:

If they aren't supposed to be seen, then there are lots of men sinning by wearing a white shirt to church. 

She laughed and told me that the comment was made by a man who was wearing a typical white shirt - which showed much more clearly than her blouse that he was wearing the garment. 

My comment about white shirts is exactly why I don't take it seriously when someone says they shouldn't be seen. I don't want to walk around showing my "underwear", so I get it - and I respect that standard greatly.  however, we as a community have gone so far past that point as a culture that I just shake my head silently and go with whatever is comfortable to me personally.

Seriously, any man who wears a typical white shirt to work or church with typical garments underneath and then talks about not letting garments be seen hasn't thought very hard about it - or is unconsciously sexist in his application of that standard.  Frankly, that hypocritical sexism bothers me much more than anything else about the story she told me. 

The Most Fundamental Reason Mormons Are Christian: Sets and Sub-Sets

Someone once asked the following question in a group discussion in which I was involved: 

"If Christians aren't Mormons, why is it OK for Mormons to want to be called Christians?"

My response was: 

Let me re-phrase your question in terms of another set and sub-set - one that has direct and obvious historical precedent:

"If humans aren't African-American, why is it OK for African-Americans to want to be called humans?" 

This is a simple question of sets and sub-sets.  It's not any more complicated than that.

If it's OK for people to disagree about some doctrines (and Protestants of different denominations have disagreed VIOLENTLY over lots of "foundational" doctrines over the centuries) and still be considered Christians - and if the only immutable concept which everyone within Protestantism must confess in order to be considered Christian is that Jesus is the Christ and Savior and Redeemer (which, in a nutshell, is the standard for Protestants who disagree vehemently about lots of other things) - and if, in fact, Mormons actually do confess this required concept (which, in fact, they do) - then the only way to exclude them from being Christian is to change the rules explicitly for them - to hold them to a different standard and definition than that to which others are held.

That's hypocrisy, pure and simple - since, just as African-Americans are humans no matter how others might have excluded them in the past from that category, Mormons are Christian no matter how others still exclude them from that category.  It's a simple concept made complex by people who simply are unwilling to let go of the incorrect biases and prejudices of the past, just like White Supremists who still won't admit that African-Americans really are fully human.

A Profound Post about Hypocrisy: An Angle I Had Never Considered

Measured Faces - Sam MB (By Common Consent)

Judging Others As Being Judgmental

I have lived in two wards where judgmentalism was a big issue, but I have lived in at least five wards that were anything but judgmental. It's a mixed bag, and we need to acknowledge that to begin to understand the big picture, I believe.

I just want to point out the danger of describing others in judgmental terms while railing against those who are judgmental. I had a friend who left the Church because, in his own words, "They are hypocrites" - because they didn't live perfectly the ideals they taught. That ward was FULL of loving, caring, kind, Christians - but my friend left because "they" dared to teach an ideal they couldn't live. I failed completely in helping him see the disconnect between what he condemned in them and his own reaction to their imperfections - and it haunts me to this day.

Evil-Speaking Historical Analysis

In the Bible, Jude has a fascinating passage concerning those who "speak evil of dignities" and "speak evil of those things which they know not". (Jude 1:8-10) When you couple these descriptions with the general counsel of Jesus to "Judge not, that ye be not judged," I think it is apparent that the worst thing about "evil-speaking history" or criticism of religious leaders is that generally it is undertaken and compiled in a spirit of belittling rather than understanding.

All of us are fallen and come short of the glory of God, so it isn't necessary to focus or dwell on the proof of that fact - particularly if all it accomplishes is to dull our appreciation for the wonderful things some have done. Does knowing Winston Churchill was a rude drunk make any difference in the grand scheme of things? Perhaps so, if it is used to point out his greatness despite his weakness and encourage greatness from us despite our weakness, but if it is used purely to denigrate him, of what use is it?

We Are the Masters of Our Own Journeys

I know a man who was gloriously happy after he joined the Church. He truly was. He had been a judgmental person before his baptism; he recognized that tendency and was trying to change - and the Church was helping him. Then he had a run-in with another member over a family issue. Frankly, both of them were correct to some degree, but neither of them would see the other's point.

This man allowed his conflict with the other member to send him back to his former judgmental self. He accused the other man of being a hypocrite (which, to a degree, was valid), but he failed to see the hypocrisy in his own stance and actions. Today, this man hasn't been to church in years - and he is miserable, having returned to his "natural" self. In the meantime, his actions have had a terrible impact on his family, who also were incredibly happy at the time of the spat.

My point: It is one thing to do what you feel is right for yourself and your own children; it is another entirely to actively seek to shatter the happiness of others - to challenge their beliefs in a way that is as "blind" as you accuse them of being. My friend was happy (truly happy) while he was in the Church; he now is miserable - and it's not the Church's fault at all. It is his responsibility, and his alone.

We are the ones who are responsible for our own destiny / fate / outcome / lives / whatever. I have no problem whatsoever with others living and believing in any way they choose, according to the dictates of their own consciences. Anyone who focuses on trying to help others understand what they believe without attacking the beliefs of those others has not crossed any taboo line; anyone (Mormon or not) who focuses on attacking someone else rather than explaining their own beliefs has crossed such a line. I try very, very hard to stay behind it but still cross it sometimes. Crossing it is human nature, and it is part of what we are told to try to overcome. It's a constant battle, but it helps to recognize the nature of the battle.

Subtle Hypocrisy

We too often are to others what others are to us.

If we can’t control our own feelings or actions toward those with whom we disagree, we have no standing to condemn them for not being able to control their feelings or actions toward us. For example, if we as Mormons speak in universal and stereotypical ways about evangelicals or Jehovah's Witnesses or anti-Mormon activists, we can't complain if they speak in those same ways about us.

We also can’t put the burden of understanding and love on them; we need to pick up that burden ourselves and model it to the best of our ability.

Some Thoughts on Sexual Activity and Being "Chaste"

Nearly three years ago, a friend told me of a professor who applied the discussion of whoredoms in Jacob 2 to "petting" and kissing. That discussion is relevant to my current resolution of "Being More Chaste in Thought and Deed". In response to that discussion, I wrote the following:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the professor was wrong on at least one fundamental level - his application of the whoredom discussion in the second chapter of Jacob to petting and kissing. However, I believe he was correct in his statement that the Lord doesn't care if fornication is homo- or hetero-sexual -- that the sin is the same. Let me address that point from two angles.

First, petting and kissing (of any kind) are not condemned in any of the canonized scriptures of which I am aware. Those records condemn the categories of sexual activity known as fornication and adultery. This broad categorization includes pre-marital and extra-marital sexual activity - or activity of a sexual nature.

We do have a written prohibition against these same types of activities in what we accept as the words of modern prophets and apostles - the "For Strength of Youth" pamphlet. Among other things, it says to abstain from petting, "passionate kissing" and any other activity that arouses sexual desire. It doesn't distinguish between hetero- and homo-sexual activity; it prohibits both equally.

Second, I always try to understand the "why" for restrictions. In this case, however, I disagree completely with the "respect" angle. If I love a pedophile, showing "respect" for his or her inclinations might be a justification for facilitating that desire. "Respect" is far too subjective for me.

In this case, I see a very clear and simple "why." Petting, passionate kissing (NOT kissing, but "passionate" kissing) and other similar activities (including, in my mind, anything that simulates intercourse) arouse sexual desire. Sexual desire can be very hard to control once initiated. Hence, the counsel to avoid any activity that might logically lead to a losing battle with escalating desire for more stimulating activity. "You can't finish what you don't start" is a truism.

I see the smoking and drinking prohibitions in the Word of Wisdom in exactly the same light. If I make it a scientific issue, I lose. There is much evidence that alcohol used in moderation has positive results for many people. I just read this week an article that described the positive aspects of caffeine consumption - one of the richest sources of antioxidants. Yet we are asked to abstain. Why?

Because of evil designs of conspiring men. (Which applies perfectly to those who seek to stimulate sexual desire, as well.) These substances are addictive, and the consequences of over-indulgence can be disastrous -- especially for a drunken woman. The article I mentioned in the last paragraph skipped blithely over a statement that heavy coffee drinkers are much more likely to be heavy users of alcohol and cigarettes. It is impossible for each individual to know, with certainty, what his or her limit is prior to reaching it. Because it is not always easy to know those who are weak and prone to misuse, the prohibition has been "adapted to the weakest of the weak who are and can be called saints."

In other words, if I am strong and not likely to have a problem, then it should be easy for me to abstain; if I have a problem abstaining and find myself fighting the restriction, then I probably am weak in that area and benefit from the prohibition more than others might. (That, in and of itself, is a fascinating concept - that the areas where I need repentance and outside guidance the most are exactly the areas where I want it the least and work to justify my rejection of it the most. Often our biggest weaknesses are most apparent by our claims that we are strong enough to not need outside prohibition or counsel.)

As an additional rant, I have a HUGE problem with those who rail against homosexual activity but are quick to forgive and excuse heterosexual fornication and adultery. I have always said that punishing homosexual activity in any way without doing the same thing for heterosexual fornication and adultery is hypocritical and narrow-minded. That's why, although I oppose redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, I have no problem, within the context of our heterosexually lenient society, with creating a legally recognized way to allow homosexual partners to live in a committed relationship without fear of legal punishment. Again, the alternative is hypocrisy.