Internal Opposition in All Things

In college, I had a Comparative Religion professor who used "literalist" and "interpretist" when it came to "historical religion" - meaning "one who takes religious statements and stories literally" and "one who looks for interpretations, allegories or morals and, generally, ignores questions of historicity". I really liked that distinction, since it removes the condescension and negative connotations inherent in quasi-political terms like "liberal" and "conservative". I also like the "black and white" vs. "gray" description I've heard from lots of people. The first one tends to see everything clearly (or at least believe they see clearly) - which qualification shows my own perspective, the latter. One tends to state things as absolutes; the other tends to use words like "tends", "most", "many", "I think", "I believe", etc.

Frankly, I am a combination of the two - and it drives some people nuts on both "sides". I am a hardcore parser, since I hate defending what I don't say or believe just because someone assumes what I don't say. That tends to be associated with literalists and black-and-whiters, but it's just common courtesy to me. (Golden Rule) I live a VERY conservative lifestyle, and it leads many people to assume I have a strictly conservative, literalist view, but philosophically I am very interpretive and see gray in most things. There are certain things that I feel totally comfortable claiming to "know", while there are many things I simply believe, accept or don't worry about understanding for now.

Ironically, both extremes legitimately can be called "lazy" by the other. Those who see in black and white (literalists) can be said to be copping-out and avoiding the pain of nuances and contradiction; those who see gray (interpretists) can be said to be endlessly avoiding having to make a firm decision by eternally wandering in the middle.

Summary: I believe in moderation / balance in all things, including terms like liberal, conservative, intellectual, orthodox, literalism, interpretive, etc. I think if you can be characterized too easily as one thing or another, you probably aren't thinking enough - that if there is no "internal opposition in all things", you probably are too sure of yourself. However, I also believe there are certain areas, concepts, principles, commands, etc. that really can be grasped as universal and undeniable - that really do constitute absolutes. It's figuring out individually what those things are for me and allowing others to reach different conclusions for themselves that is the central issue, imho. That is inherently a painful process, but it's where I think the real growth occurs – the muddle in the middle.

"Judge Righteous Judgment"

“Judging righteously” is perhaps the most over-used, mis-applied concept in religious history. I look at judging righteously as meaning making the exact same judgment that Jesus would make - based on both actions and the condition of a heart. All of us are required to judge actions, words and situations in a way that informs our own actions, words and responses, but not one of us should extend those types of judgments to the point of divisiveness, personal rejection, condemnation, or any other result that shuts the door on future fellowship - even with our enemies and those that spitefully use and persecute us.

For example, I truly hate and loath what a friend of mine did to his daughters, but I am commanded not to pass judgment on him - unless I am in a calling where that is required. If I knew absolutely everything that had contributed to his actions, then perhaps I could judge righteously, but I don’t have that understanding and knowledge. Therefore, it is not my right to pass judgment on him, even as I must pass judgment on his actions.

I don’t know enough about anyone who contributes to a blog to come CLOSE to a proper level of understanding to judge their faithfulness.

What of the Longing Arms?

The Childless Ones - Ardis Parshall (Times & Seasons)

Shattering the Old Bottles of Sectarianism and Racism

Commemorating the Revelation - J. Stapley (By Common Consent)

Accepting What Is Given, Found and Opened to Us

To be totally honest, I am knee-deep in move preparations, and wrapping up the responsibilities for my church calling - and I forgot to write this post before midnight, so it would post right away this morning. It also is an interesting resolution for me - not because it is something about which I don't think often, but because it's something about which I am a bit conflicted.

My resolution for this month is to ask God for more specific desires and is taken from Matthew 7:7-8, which says:

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

I am conflicted by this passage specifically because the most straightforward, parsed interpretation (which is my standard initial approach in every case) turns God into something like a vending machine - giving something to anyone who puts enough money into the slots. When I read the words, I am torn somewhat, since I don't see God as that type of being. I believe obedience is rewarded, and I have no problem with the idea that I need to ask, seek and knock - but I do have a problem with the way that this passage is used to justify lots of practices and interpretations with which I disagree strongly.

As I thought about this post, however, something struck me that I had not considered perviously - and it was an eye-opener for me:

When I actually read it again (both verses in conjunction with each other - as two separate statements), it hit me that the parsed meaning does NOT equate to the vending machine analogy. There is a huge difference between that analogy and what the words themselves actually say. I am going to break it down phrase by phrase and show, hopefully, what I mean.

"Ask, and it shall be given you. - For everyone who asketh receiveth."

The first part (verse 7) seems to imply that the person who asks will receive exactly that for which s/he asks. The second part (verse 8), however, is the echo / resolution. It doesn't specify such a direct, one-on-one relationship. Rather, it leaves the receiving open-ended and non-specific. Also, the first says "it" shall be given you (placing the emphasis on the giver); the second turns the emphasis around and says those who ask "receive" (placing the emphasis on the asker accepting whatever it is that is given).

This same re-orientation applies to the other two phrases about seeking and knocking - leaving what will be found and what lies behind the door open and unspecified, and putting the responsibility directly on the seeker and knocker rather than the provider and the opener.

This perspective has been interesting for me to ponder, as it opens all kinds of interesting possibilities for what will be received, found and opened. More than anything else, this has led me to recommit to continuing to ask, seek and knock - even if what is given, uncovered and revealed is not exactly what I expected when I asked, sought and knocked. I need to believe "it" will be right for me, regardless - to believe that God knows me well enough to allow me to receive, find and reveal what will help me personally return to and become like Him and His Son - even if that is slightly or radically different than what he provides for someone else.

Traditional Roles for Mothers and Fathers

This is going to sound strange, perhaps, but women now are facing as a group what men should have been facing for centuries, but too often haven't - how to properly balance occupation within the overall circumstances of life that include family. For many years, especially with industrialization, men (unfortunately) have had the ability to neglect wife and kids - by claiming that their wives would raise them while he provided for them.

When everyone worked on a farm, this arbitrary separation often didn't occur, and it still doesn't occur in situations of real poverty. "Traditional roles" aren’t traditional; they are fairly new to the history of the world for the "common" couple. They appear historically in times and circles of wealth, when two incomes are not necessary to sustain life and relative comfort.

I sustain and honor stay-at-home-mothers, but I also understand it's a relatively modern luxury that used to be reserved for only the truly upper class. It is difficult in so many ways specifically because it is not "natural"; it is something that must be accepted and learned and acquired - and it is absolutely critical, in my opinion, to accept and honor the flexibility articulated in the Family Proclamation that allows for adaptation in personal circumstances.

We Are Wired to Avoid Pain

Embracing Agency - m&m (mulling and musing)

More Meals in the Cafeteria

I try to live absolutely everything I understand - and even those things I don’t understand yet. However, HOW I live those things differs considerably in many ways from how another deeply believing member sitting next to me in Sunday School or HP Group or Ward or Stake PEC or Sacrament Meeting lives those same things. Both of us believe the same basic things, but each of us lives them in a slightly different way because we understand them in a slightly different way.

I'm grateful to be part of a church that teaches basic principles - but in which I can govern myself.

Gather and Treasure Up All Good and True Principles

Gathering the Good of Other Churches - Hawkgrrrl (Mormon Matters)

Proper Incentives

The Father's eternal plan is based on an incentive - the opportunity to become like our Heavenly Parents. Of course, we hope we are pursuing that objective because of our love for Him, but the foundation is an incentive, nonetheless.

Just something to consider when raising children.