Apostles Are Complicated People - Not Simplistic Caricatures: Elder Packer as an Example

I really like Boyd K. Packer - even though I don't agree with some of what he has said over the years. I like the fact that he stands up and says exactly what he believes - and, frankly, the controversial stuff overshadows a HUGE amount of really cool, liberating stuff he also has said.

I think a lot of people who dislike him would be shocked (or, one of my favorite words, flabbergasted) at a lot of what Pres. Packer has said over the years. He is characterized as an ultra-conservative extremist by many people who disagree with him about things like sexuality, but he isn't overall. Yes, he's said some really conservative things, but he also has said some of the most liberal things I've heard in General Conference in my lifetime - and I mean that.

I like him as much as I do because he reminds me of myself in one way:

I don't have a single "conservative" or "liberal" view of everything, so my writing is hard to classify properly with labels. It drives some people nuts who read my comments online, since they want to pigeon-hole and label me in some way. I'm pretty sure there will be people in the future who read my personal blog and everything I've written throughout the Bloggernacle who will wonder if there were two or more authors of it all - not just due to the volume, but also since sometimes they literally sound like they are coming from different people.

I'll share a specific example that still makes me shake my head.

There was a person who had been an official "follower" of this blog for a couple of years. He left comments praising much of my writing - and then I wrote a post about the Priesthood ban that he took to be attacking of the former church leadership. It wasn't, but that's how he read it. He wrote quite a mean-spirited comment about that post on another blog where the author had chastised me for writing my post - and I called him on it. He went on to call me an apostate who obviously was devoid of humility and the Spirit and vowed to un-subscribe from my blog - which he did. For a long time I was a faithful, insightful member who helped him a lot with what I wrote; suddenly, with no change whatsoever in me, I became a hard-hearted, deceived, dangerous opponent. 

I see a lot of that with Pres. Packer. Lots of people love him; lots of people hate him; very few people really look closely at everything he's said over the decades and see the complicated, rather balanced, "real" man. They jump on some things, ignore others and attack their constructed caricature - and I feel bad for him, having experienced it myself to a much lesser degree.

The Best, Most Concise Comment about Prayer I've Ever Heard

The following is from a friend and might be the best, most concise description of and advice about prayer I've ever heard: 

I think that each one of us has our own spiritual language, and that God speaks that language to us . . . I think that every person needs to find their own prayer language.

The Importance of Leaders Being Run Over in Life a Few Times

A friend of mine was talking to me once about leaders and how, sometimes, they can be unsympathetic to those who are struggling in some way - financially, morally, spiritually, physically, emotionally, mentally, etc.  He said, relative to his own life, that after life has run over you a few times it seems prudent to be a little nicer than you would have been before being flattened.

I really liked that imagery, and I thought about it a lot over time relative to church leadership.  For some people who become church leaders, getting run over in some way doesn't happen until they become Relief Society President, or Bishop, or Young Women President, or Stake President . . . and, unfortunately, sometimes not even then, solely because they don't allow their calling to do part of what I believe many callings are intended to do.

Seriously, that is one of the difficulties of calling Bishops and Stake Presidents. They have to be able to spend the time and emotional capital necessary for the calling, and some who can do that haven't been "run over by life a few times".

That often is the single most compelling difference I have seen in empathetic leadership and hardline leadership - the existence of beat-downs in their lives. Those who have never had it happen can have a VERY difficult time understanding those who struggle.

Racism and the Atonement

Given the hoopla over Cliven Bundy's racist statements this week, I am providing the link to a post I wrote in March 2012 - after Prof. Bott's comments on race were broadcast.  Just as was the case at that time regarding Brother Bott's words, I am appalled by Bro. Bundy's words - but the same thing applies now that did then.  I have tried hard to condemn what was said without condemning those who spoke, even though I have called Bro. Bundy a "racist hypocrite".

The Atonement of Jesus Christ: Powerful Enough to Cover All, Including Those Who Believe(d) Racist Falsehoods

When Someone Hurts Us

When someone hurts us, it's hard to remember that, sometimes, it's just a case of a good person trying his or her best and simply screwing up.

I know I've hurt others plenty of times in my life, and I hope I am a good person. If I can hurt others unintentionally, just because I'm a stupid, flawed, blind mortal, I try really, really hard to keep that in mind with regard to others. I try really hard to have my first "action" be charitable rather than judgmental. I don't succeed as often as I'd like, but I do try.

Life Will Be a Success in the End

You that are mourning about your children straying away will have your sons and your daughters. If you succeed in passing through these trials and afflictions and receive a resurrection, you will, by the power of the Priesthood, work and labor, as the Son of God has, until you get all your sons and daughters in the path of exaltation and glory. This is just as sure as that the sun rose this morning over yonder mountains. Therefore, mourn not because all your sons and daughters do not follow in the path that you have marked out to them, or give heed to your counsels. Inasmuch as we succeed in securing eternal glory, and stand as saviors, and as kings and priests to our God, we will save our posterity. When Jesus went through that terrible torture on the cross, He saw what would be accomplished by it; He saw that His brethren and sisters the sons and daughters of God would be gathered in, with but few exceptions those who committed the unpardonable sin. That sacrifice of the divine Being was effectual to destroy the powers of Satan. I believe that every man and woman who comes into this life and passes through it, that life will be a success in the end. It may not be in this life. It was not with the antedeluvians. They passed through troubles and afflictions; 2,500 years after that, when Jesus went to preach to them, the dead heard the voice of the Son of God and they lived. They found after all that it was a very good thing that they had conformed to the will of God in leaving the spiritual life and passing through this world. (Lorenzo Snow, MS 56:49-53; Collected Discourses 3:364-65.)

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.

It's Okay to Disagree with Others, even about Doctrinal Things

There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.

Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things. (Hugh Nibley, "Temple and Cosmos")

A Very Short Post about God and Change

Maybe part of learning how to be like God is learning to take responsibility to change things that are in our power to change - but also learning to do it patiently and in the proper time frame.

Maybe that proper time frame is much, much longer than we want it to be in many cases and much, much shorter than we are willing to make it be in many other cases. 

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Truth and Error, Pure Doctrine and the Prieshood Ban

The topic this month is The Apostasy and the Restoration. There are five potential lesson outlines but, due to General Conference and Easter, there are only two Sundays available to teach about that topic. Therefore, I combined two lesson concepts last Sunday: "How can I recognize the difference between truth and error?" and "Why is it important to teach pure doctrine?"

I started the class by telling everyone that I really struggled to prepare this lesson, because I had felt some impressions about structuring it around something that might be seen as controversial by some members - but which I believe is probably the best example possible of why it is important to focus on pure doctrine, why it is important not to stray into the purely / highly speculative and how we should approach understanding anything in relation to truth and error.

We then read the first scriptural passage in the truth vs. error lesson outline - John 8:31-32. I read verses 25-29 to lay the groundwork to understand the context, focusing on the fact that Jesus started by talking about doing the will of the Father and then addressing 31-32 exclusively to those who "believed on him" - a subset of those to whom he had been teaching originally. Thus, 31-32 was said to believers - those who accepted his statement that he was representing the Father and were looking for a practical answer to what they should do with that belief.

John 31-32 says:

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We talked about the most important words in that passage: "continue", "truth" and "free". We discussed the idea that "continuing" means nothing more than "not stopping" - but, in Mormon theology, it also carries connotations of "progress" (which includes an inherent aspect of "growth and change"). It is that continuation of growth and change that, eventually, creates a "new creature in Christ" that is free - specifically from the limitations, restrictions, bonds, etc. that existed prior to "know(ing) the truth". Thus, the ultimate end of knowing truth from error is freedom from ignorance and all of its mortal applications.

We then discussed D&C 9:7-8 (all of 7 and the first sentence of 8), after discussing the context of the section, which reads:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind.

I mentioned to them how often we talk in the Church about the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in terms of how we feel (our spiritual/emotional/heart experience) but how little we tend to mention our minds as part of the testimony toolbox, if you will. I explained that I don't take anything as "pure doctrine" unless it speaks compellingly to BOTH my heart AND my mind - that there are things that resonate with my heart or mind but not with the other - that I try not to rely on only one of those things in constructing what I believe - that I only accept it as part of my own faith if I like how I feel and think about it. I told them that when there is a disconnect between the two, I try to dig deeper into the disconnected aspect and understand why the disconnect exists by looking more closely at it - not by ignoring it. I mentioned that problems can occur when either the heart or mind is allowed to dominate - that the heart alone can lead to emotional conclusions that aren't true, while the mind alone can lead to an intellectualism that denies feelings and can allow someone to lose sight of morality and humanity.

Focusing on "pure doctrine" is important in this process, because it explicitly is when we leave pure doctrine and move into speculation that things get all kinds of messed up and we become enslaved (not free) by our mistaken understandings.

I told them that this was the point over which I agonized in the preparation of the lesson. I wanted to use a real example of something that was not "pure doctrine" but which mutated into being seen as pure doctrine due to the mortal inability to distinguish between truth and error and the similar mortal tendency to hold on to false traditions and teachings. The best example I know of this is the Priesthood ban, so I mentioned the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the explanations of various things that the Church has published recently on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section.

First, I asked the students who was allowed to be baptized when the Church was established in 1830. They all answered that anyone of age could be baptized, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I asked who could be ordained to an office in the Priesthood and attend the temple. They said all worthy members could attend the temple and all worthy men could be ordained, except for black men. (My daughter wasn't allowed to answer, since we have talked about all of this in the past.) I told them that answer was wrong - that, originally, there were no restrictions based on race and that a handful of black men had been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and endowed in the temple. I then summarized the lds.org explanation and talked about the prevailing "philosophies of men" and how they worked their way into our teachings - and how uniquely Mormon justifications arose when people tried to explain why the ban was in place. I mentioned the belief in a curse of Cain, the idea that the Church couldn't ordain black men in the political environment of the time, the belief that black men and women had been less valiant in the pre-existence / fence-sitters, etc. - and how those justifications allowed white people to think they were better than black people. I explained that every reference we have in our scriptures that might seem to support those conclusions to any degree occurs PRIOR to the life and death of Jesus - and that there are verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that state, clearly, that, as of that time, ALL people were alike to God - including both black and white, explicitly.

We talked about how we all tend to explain rules, policies, commandments, counsel, etc. in order to justify them - in school, at work, in church and everywhere else. I mentioned Elder McConkie's statement in 1978 after OD2 and the rescinding of the ban about forgetting everything he and anyone else had said about the reason(s) for the ban - that they had spoken with limited light and knowledge and now had increased light and knowledge that repudiated everything they had said in the past. I stressed the importance of not holding so tightly to anything that they might lose the ability to let go when further light and knowledge appears, as I'm sure will happen in their lifetimes.

In the context of the lesson topics, we talked about how the entire thing might have been avoided if the early saints (including Pres. Young) could have let go of their bias against inter-racial marriage, focused solely on "pure doctrine" and been open to new understanding of truth and error. I told them that they never have to accept or believe something FULLY, without question or concern, simply because it is taught in the Church - that, ultimately, they have to receive confirmation in their hearts and minds about anything and, if necessary, hold onto hope and faith that what they can't accept or believe fully at the moment will change in the future - either the thing they can't accept or their personal understanding of it.

A Deeply Personal Post about Stillborn Children and Differing Beliefs

(NOTE: I don't share the following very often, especially publicly, but . . . I will try to do so now, hoping what I type doesn't hurt anyone in any way but helps someone, somehow, and is inspired in that way.)

My mother was a very good secretary before her marriage to my father. She was one of the youngest Church Headquarters secretaries in the history of the church at that time - during Pres. McKay's presidency. (I have no idea if that still is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me.) She has a personalized letter of appreciation signed by the First Presidency given to her when she got married and stopped working. (totally her choice, not policy in any way)

She really wanted to have children and stay home with them, but her first three pregnancies ended in miscarriages. Her fourth went full-term, and she gave birth naturally to a stillborn girl.  My parents had no idea; the stillbirth came as a complete shock. Obviously, they were crushed.

I've written here previously about my parents' decisions after those four pregnancies and how they almost gave up and adopted instead, and I've written a post here in tribute to my father and the choice he eventually had to make for her sake. What I want to share now, however, has nothing to do with those subsequent decisions.

My parents understood that the Church's official position with regard to stillborn children is, "We don't know." It was intensely painful for them, but they (and I) understand that position. It is the best position to take, in my opinion - since anything else would open up all kinds of other issues that are best left closed. My parents knew the official position - and, since it is, "We don't know," they were free to believe they have nine children instead of the eight whom they raised. That was very important to them. It meant and means the world to them.

For me, however, it's strictly academic - since it all happened before I was born. Honestly, I struggle even to type her name or write "my sister". Since it's academic for me, and since that gives me the detachment to think about all the implications of different views, I have a hard time intellectually believing what my parents believe. It's hard for me to type this paragraph in a way in which I am comfortable, as it raises all kinds of emotions, not the least of which is a degree of consternation and even pain that I don't feel more strongly about it. It hurts my heart a little to know that, to me, I have five sisters (not six) and two brothers - and, to me, it's different than if it was a case of an older sibling dying some time after birth.

In that way, I am very different than my parents - and I wouldn't dream of saying that to them or challenging their view in any way. I'm not sure they would understand, and I think they might be hurt greatly. It is my own reality, however - and so I think I understand both views, at least to the extent possible for someone who hasn't experienced it personally.

I honestly am not sure why I felt like sharing that in this post today. This has been the most difficult post to write since I started this blog - since I really struggle to find the "right" words, both for others and myself. In the end, I simply am thankful that the "official position" of the Church allows me to feel differently about such a personal, emotional topic than my own parents do without any "doctrinal" guilt for either of us.

That means a lot to me, actually - and I don't think I've ever thought about it quite in that way previously.

Chieko Okazaki on Being Herself

What I understood as the gospel message didn’t match what we encountered so often with the people. There was a big gap in so many ways. Again, my mother’s wisdom helped. She said, “Know that you know the truth,” (She wasn’t a Mormon. She was a Buddhist until she died.) “and others haven’t learned it yet. So just hold fast and let the rest go.” So that’s what we did. We just held on and tried to look at the doctrines of the gospel rather than how people behaved sometimes. . .

. . . When people ask, “How is it that you are able to speak the way you do?”, I say, “I was given a blessing, that I would speak my mind.” It was really interesting, because all of our talks had to go through the First Presidency, and nothing was changed. Nothing in my talks was changed.

. . . I brought Buddhism with me. Buddhism teaches love for everybody. The Buddhist values are not limited just to the people in the Buddhist faith. They include the whole wide world. When you talk to the Dalai Lama, you can feel a love that he has for all humankind. He doesn’t preach, “You must belong to my church.” He preaches, “You must become better people because of what I am telling you.” Christians, Muslims, Buddhists go to listen to him, and they become better Christians, better Muslims, and better Buddhists because of the values and morals that he teaches. He makes you think, “I can become a better Christian because of what I heard.” He is a messenger or a disciple of God, in a different way. I came to the Church having all these values. The Church didn’t teach me that. (Chieko Okazaki: "There is Always a Struggle" 2005)

Not Much in Life Must Be Set in Stone

My wife and I decided early in our marriage that we couldn't shop together without ruining a wonderful marriage. I won't relate the details, but we simply shop in polar opposite ways - and it led to tension and conflict, so we stopped. I shopped one week; she shopped the next. Then, we had kids, life got more complicated and we worked out a different arrangement. Now, almost 25 years later, we can shop together - usually - except when we can't. We now know how to shop in any particular situation, and we choose the best way for us as a unique couple in each situation.

There's a lesson in there that relates to just about everything in life.

Mormonism Should Not Clash with Science

"In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular."  (Remarks by Brigham Young, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, May 14, 1871.  Reported by David W. Evans.) 

I can think of a few topics where it would be nice if we, as a collective whole, lived up to this simple statement.   We, of all people, should not fight scientific advancement - or be afraid or hesitant to change our perspective in response to "further light and knowledge" revealed (and I choose that word intentionally) through scientific discovery. 

Inactivity among Mormon Actors (and Others): Part of It Is Our Own Fault

Why are so many Mormon actors inactive - or, conversely, why are so few Mormon actors active?


Rick Schroeder shared in an interview once that it is very difficult to be successful in Hollywood if you don't socialize like the others in the industry do.


I think that's the major reason - and, of course, the need to be willing to take roles that don't align with basic Mormon standards. People generally don't like to be around other people if they think those other people don't approve of them - if they think those other people are condescending. Having different standards of socializing doesn't mean condescension exists, but impressions are reality for many people. 


Also, it's hard to work regularly at a really high level in Hollywood if casting directors know you won't take a role that has nudity or a sex scene, for example (or where the character drinks or smokes - or swears, in some cases). Generally, you need to have street cred and be highly-desired over others to get away with having personal restrictions. I know not all Mormon actors have those personal restrictions, but I'm sure it's a general stereotype in the minds of casting directors by now. It's also impossible (or, at least, extremely hard) to make a living in film and stage, especially, if you want to attend church regularly on Sunday. It's no harder than being a professional athlete during the season, but there isn't a scheduled "off season" in film and theatre - unless you are a top-level actor who can pick and choose and create your own personalized work schedule.


My oldest son was studying to be an English and Theatre teacher, and he was asked once by the guest artist (a professional actor) who was working with them in their production why he wasn't trying to become a professional movie and/or play writer. He was flattered by the question, but his answer basically was two-fold: 1) he wanted to be a teacher / professor; 2) he didn't want to give up his religious life (the activities of regular attendance) and family life (the ability to spend quantity and quality time with a wife and children). 


Also, when it comes to Hollywood, Proposition 8 didn't help, I'm sure. 


In summary, to get steady work, it's almost necessary to make it clear that you aren't an active, practicing, steroetypical Mormon. Katherine Heigl, for example, has said that she might return to church activity once she stops acting - but that she'll have to give up the alcohol and language in order to do so.   


I wish she felt she could return to activity before giving up those things, and, to me, that's an even more important issue.  The perception that she can't attend our meetings and worship with us while not following the Word of Wisdom and being a stereotypical "good Mormon" is one reason for inactivity that we can address - one constraint that we could eliminate, if we all understood and truly embraced charity for what it really is.

In Defense of "Praise to the Man"

I was telling a friend of mine how I hear various complaints about the hymn "Praise to the Man" from people who feel it presents Joseph Smith as some kind of perfect Being - and how I personally really like the song.  She wrote back to me and shared the following perspective - and I agree with almost all of it.  (I have edited it only slightly, to add a little perspective of my own.) 

First I sense where and how the song can stick in someone's throat. When everyone else is singing it with all their gusto, some people picture a flawless man in a soft blue coat gazing majestically into the horizon. Once the picture becomes less polished - once someone sees the real, complex man and not just the caricature of an infallible prophet, it can make it harder for some people to shout, "Hallelujah."

If you don't mind though, I've come to think of it another way.

No matter how someone sees him - flawless or fallible, Joseph Smith died an untimely death by assassination. Often we mortals experience an intense response to that. Just look at Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy. At the time of both of their deaths, they were not beloved like they were afterward. It was rumored that Kennedy wouldn't win re-election. Many in America had lost faith in the man. But his death and the morbid events that caused it pushed him to a greatness he may have never achieved otherwise. The images burned painfully in our minds brought something unexpected to the forefront. Though no hymns were written for him, his works and images became land marks for everyone. His PT109 story was the stuff heroes are made of . His "Profiles in Courage" continues to be a go-to book for leadership. All this from a bullet. Lincoln's untimely death was very similar. The South still didn't love him, no matter how we would like to imagine it. The North had questions and concerns, as well. But that bullet shifted many people's feelings toward him and about his legacy.

In the American West this band of people experienced something similar. The hymn itself was written by a man who once hated Joseph Smith - and many people don't realize that. Of anyone who could have decided either to mourn or vilify Joseph, Brother Phelps was close to number one. In his grief he wrote a song, and that song is now an anthem. Why it didn't get lost in history, I don't know. Other songs written for the saints did.

I take a deep breath and try to remember what those left behind might have felt. They lived it. They lived with Joseph. How much they knew, we may never know, but like other leaders his death was a beacon for them. This song was their anthem of hope.

I have not decided what Joseph would think of it. Some of his final addresses would make it seem like he would be thrilled to have his own hymn. But other parts of him lead me to believe differently. For all the ego that we suppose he had, I have found it intriguing that he rarely preached from the book "he wrote". (Those quotation marks are important, since I'm not saying he didn't translate it.)  Many of his addresses were platforms from the bible - especially Paul. I don't read of meetings that began with, "As King Benjamin taught us . . . " or, "Like Nephi of old said . . ." From my vantage point, I would expect an egotistical soul to pulpit-pound his magnum opus. Yes, he never rejected it; he testified of its origin and his conviction of it. However, it wasn't his platform. Something else was.

So, for me, "Praise to the Man" is a hymn I hum or sing in remembrance of a man who inspired bands of people to cross oceans, deserts, and mountains in the hope of something deep that burned in their hearts - and in remembrance of those people whose hope burned so brightly. 

I also should add that Mormons use the word "praise" very differently than many other Christians do, and understanding that simple fact removes so much of the concern.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ Embraces All Good

I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it; it is ours; we claim it . . . 

[The gospel] embraces all morality, all virtue, all light, all intelligence, all greatness, and all goodness.  (Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young; Chapter 2)

Organizational Leaders Receive Revelation for the Organization - Not Generally for Individuals

To follow-up on my last post, a friend and I were talking a long time ago about how I view the role of revelation and church leadership relative to personal revelation.  After a fairly long, complex conversation, he asked me the following question: 

Are you saying that the leader of the organization can receive revelation for the organization but not for the individuals within the organization?

My response was:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, as the general rule, with occasional exceptions.

Let me give you a real example:

My wife was the Young Women President once. She prayed about who she should suggest to fill positions within that organization, then she gave those names to the Bishop for consideration. The Bishopric talked about each suggestion, then the Bishop told her whether or not her suggestions had been ratified by the Bishopric. Sometimes they were; sometimes they weren't; how strongly she felt she had been inspired had nothing to do with the result. (The same thing happened when she was in the Primary Presidency.)

Why the apparent disconnect?

I don't see a disconnect at all. I see someone praying for inspiration about who would be the best person for a particular position within a particular organization, and then I see another person praying about whether that person would be the best person for that position given the broader perspective of the entire ward - and then I see that person being responsible to determine if that position is one in which she believes God wants her to serve, given her own position in her own "organization" (whether that be only herself or that be her family). I see three different spheres of revelation, if you will, with three different people approaching God for confirmation as to whether a person would be the right "fit" for the calling - and I see the possibility of one or two people receiving a "Yes" answer and one or two receiving a "No" answer - and ALL THREE being "correct".

The person my wife suggested as her 1st Counselor might or might not be the best person for the Young Women organization; she might or might not be the best person given the dynamics of the ward; that calling might or might not be the best position for her at that time, regardless of the answer to the larger organizations. Three people - three stewardships - two possible legitimate conclusions each and every step along the way.

On a related note:

If I am married, I believe we must act as one in the decisions we make that have any degree of importance - that neither she nor I can receive unilateral revelation for the other or for our family, unless there is some kind of limitation on one of us that renders that one incapable of participating in such decision-making processes. My parents' situation was one such exception (in some but not all cases), due to my mother's schizophrenia, but most marriages don't have that type of limitation, in my opinion. Many, many marriages default to one person making most of the decisions, but I believe that's because, primarily, our culture allows the apostate assumption that it is OK to do so.

Ordinary Lives, Full of Ordinary Miracles, Expressing Ordinary Grace

The Ordinary Means of Grace - Kristine (By Common Consent)

Why I Don't Like the Idea that We Should Talk with Our Bishops about Everything

I have heard lots of members say, "Go talk with the Bishop" about almost everything imaginable.  Frankly, I really don't like that outlook and advice - for numerous reasons.  Rather than go into those reasons directly, the following are some reasons why I think members say it so much:

1) Many people want to be able to give the responsibilities for their choices to someone else. It's a very natural inclination - almost like the occasional Catholic's practice of confessing sins and receiving absolution for them even before committing them.

2) Many members are converts who grew up with a model of pastoral / ministerial / priest care that makes them see the Bishop as the ultimate adviser / counselor in everything.

3) Too many members see the Bishop as the "father of the ward". I really dislike that view, especially since it's not supported in any of our canonized scriptures - and in Matthew 23:9 Jesus even says, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Obviously, I make an exception for our biological fathers.)  

4) There is the mistaken idea that being a leader entitles someone to revelation for the individual people within the organization being led. I believe that's wrong, but it's ubiquitous in the Church.

5) Most members have no idea how much of a Bishop's typical burden could be removed if they would find someone else with a listening ear and non-judgmental heart in whom to confide and question. 

I'm not saying, at all, that members shouldn't seek counsel and advice from Bishops.  I'm just saying that there are so many times they go to a Bishop when it's not necessary - and so many times when it really is an unnecessary burden that should not be laid on his shoulders.  True compassion and understanding is important in those situations, in my opinion. 

Influencing vs. Nagging Applies to More than Just Marriage

Influencing occurs through example and kindness, expressed sometimes verbally as encouragement but always in an uplifting manner that is focused on the positive.

Nagging is verbal and judgmental, expressed in a negative way that conveys disappointment as the motivating factor.

It's a fine line - sometimes. Generally, it's pretty clear, however - and it almost always is defined by the recipient. If the person on the receiving end perceives it as nagging, it's nagging in every way that counts. If that person doesn't perceive it as nagging, it still might be nagging - because the recipient might have been beaten down enough to not be able to recognize its nagging nature.

Therefore, I believe it's up to us not only to avoid "objective" nagging (that which any normal person would understand to be nagging), but also to avoid that which causes someone else to react in such a way that we ought to be able to see they feel nagged. That has application not just to marriage, but also to our interactions with others in nearly all social situations - including how we interact with family and members at church and with regard to our religious views.  It takes conscious effort to learn how to eliminate nagging in our lives, and it takes a degree of humility often - since sometimes we have to ask if the person feels nagged and be willing to accept it when they say they do. That can be especially hard when we are in a position of authority, "as (we) suppose".

I Fear Dictatorial Dogmatism

"I have said these things because I fear dictatorial dogmatism, rigidity of procedure and intolerance even more than I fear cigarettes, cards, and other devices the adversary may use to nullify faith and kill religion. Fanaticism and bigotry have been the deadly enemies of true religion in the long past. They have made it forbidding, shut it up in cold grey walls of monastery and nunnery, out of the sunlight and fragrance of the growing world. They have garbed it in black and then in white, when in truth it is neither black nor white, any more than life is black or white, for religion is life abundant, glowing life, with all its shades, colors and hues, as the children of men reflect in the patterns of their lives the radiance of the Holy Spirit in varying degrees.

I pray that men may understand God and the Church, and I pray that the Church may understand men and human nature. With such understandings there must come sympathy and love. Truth and love will save the world."  (Stephen L. Richards, General Conference, April 1932)

Treatment of the Garment

A friend of mine asked me once why we aren't supposed to let the garment touch the floor.  I knew that wasn't the actual wording in the Church Handbook of Instructions, but I also knew some members think that is what the CHI says, so I looked up the actual wording.  I decided to use that experience as the foundation for a post here, largely because I think it illustrates why I believe is it critical to parse what actually is said and taught - and it also shows how twisted things can get when we work strictly off of memory or try to impose personal views on others as rules or commands.

The CHI does not say that garments should not touch the ground; rather, it says the garment should be "kept off the floor".  It's not "ground" vs. "floor" that is the issue for me, especially since the ground and the floor are the same things in much of the world.  It's "touching" vs. "kept off" that is the difference.

I don't see anything disrespectful about garments touching the floor or the ground, but I do see disrespect in throwing / dropping them on the floor and leaving them lying around the house with other clothing that is scattered on the floor. When I read "kept off the floor", I picture something like a laundry basket or hamper - instead of a pile of clothes or clothing scattered on the floor.  When I see "kept on the floor",  I see them treated as nothing more than the soiled underwear that got kicked under the bed and turned into something really nasty.

Frankly, I don't like that this kind of detail is included in the CHI, but I really do think I understand why it is - especially as worded. I think the leadership knows that the garment is underwear, in practical terms, but I think they really, really, really don't want it to be treated like underwear - so we end up with things like this. I understand that.

One solution I think is just fine, even though I don't wear the garment that way:

Wear regular underwear and the garment over it. That alone would change the way it is viewed by many people from "underwear" to "symbolic clothing worn beneath outer clothing".  Many women already do that when they are menstruating and nursing, so I don't see any way it could be anti-doctrinal - and it would keep the garment cleaner than the way it is worn traditionally.  Also, if the regular underwear is skimpy enough, nearly all of the garment still can be "next to the skin" - and it wouldn't be nearly the sexual turn-off it is for quite a few members.  Seriously, even with most modern, traditionally "modest" underwear, nearly all of the garment still will be next to the skin. 

Reportedly True, but Funny Enough for Today

Shared by a friend of mine a few years ago: 

In the summer of 1970 at the age 18, along with 13 other recent high school grads, I was on the work crew for the Hill Cumorah Pageant. He came to speak with the missionaries at the hill, so the work crew were invited to attend. He spoke then opened the time up for questions. One missionary was bold enough to ask about wearing the temple garment ALL hours off the day, regardless of the activity, such as if one was swimming. Elder Hanks caught the real intent of the question and smiled.

His reply?

"Wear the uniform best suited for the sport."