Baptizing the Developmentally Disabled

1) If someone is aware enough to want to be baptized without any pressure or coaching from others, and if there are no "worthiness" issues that would prohibit it, I have no problem whatsoever with that person being baptized.

2) We teach that up until baptism at the age of eight, the kids who are baptized haven't been accountable up to that point - at least not in the same sense as converts who are baptized. Thus, really, what's the difference between the standard eight-year-old baptism and baptism for someone who isn't accountable after being baptized?

3) We teach of the need to avoid being baptized "unworthily" - and it's hard to say someone who is not accountable is "unworthy", in the classic, traditional sense of how that word is used.

4) Baptism, the Priesthood, temple attendance and marriage are very different things, and I don't want to deny one simply out of concern about the others.

5) I understand, however, the concern that baptizing those who are not considered to be accountable could perpetuate the idea that they need to be baptized and, eventually, that they (and, by extension) all people actually are accountable from birth, no matter their capability to understand. I also understand that if one such person is baptized, others who have loved ones in similar situations might feel like those loved ones also should be baptized. Therefore, I understand the desire to maintain a bright line with those who are believed not to be accountable. It can be a can of worms that isn't worth opening.

Summary:

I would have no problem baptizing someone who wants to be baptized - and if someone understands enough to feel like he isn't a "real member", I think he understands enough to be baptized. However, I personally would do it as a clear exception to the general rule - and, if I were the Bishop, I probably would announce the baptism much like if it were a convert baptism and say something very direct, like:

Billy has come to me and asked to be baptized. After talking with and interviewing him, I believe he understands the purpose of baptism well enough and is fully worthy to be baptized. Therefore, his baptism will occur at such a time.

However, having said that, I would support a Bishop completely and without hesitation who felt like he couldn't make an exception - even though I believe exceptions often are what give real meaning to the rules. 

What Does It Mean to Be a Strong Woman (or Man)?

Strong Women and "Ladies" - Patty (I Believe in Christ)

The Fallacy of "God Wouldn't Let Me (____________)"

There are two basic ways we can try to avoid responsibility for our actions, and they are summarized in the following formats:

The devil made me do it.  

God wouldn't let me do it, if He didn't want it to happen.  

I believe both of these formats circumvent agency and are not consistent with Mormon theology. 

As to the second phrasing, the one we tend to hear more within our own faith community, it is no different than if a child said:

My parents wanted me to have a cookie, or they would have put the jar in a place where I couldn't get to it.

At some point, we need to stop being merely children of God, grow up and become adults/heirs of God. 

Violating One's Conscience

I draw a distinction between something that is in opposition to my conscience and to something that I don’t want to do. After all, one of our core articles of faith is that we allow everyone to worship according to the dictates of individual conscience. We don’t honor that as well as we should, especially among ourselves within the Church, but that is the foundation of our standards and theology in this sort of discussion.

If I have a thought or feeling that says I should do something that violates my conscience, I am very wary of doing so – and I have to take a long, serious look at why it might be okay to do it. There are multiple reasons why I still might do it, but I would have to study it out in my mind, find a reason I could accept and then re-examine it in my heart before I would do it – and that is true no matter the source. I believe doing something that violates my conscience without such soul searching is relinquishing my agency in a very real way. If I make a mistake in that arena, I would rather err on the side of my conscience than on the side of violating it.

If, however, I consider something that I simply don’t want to do, the consideration becomes much easier – based on whether it would violate my conscience to do so and what the impact of my action would be on others.

In a nutshell, I try to base my actions in these situations on how I believe those actions would “hang” under the two great commandments – and it takes a truly extraordinary situation and what I consider to be indisputable, extraordinary revelation to make me go against those two commandments and/or my conscience (and how I view the two great commandments might be a good definition of my conscience). 

"How to See a Woman": A Great Blog Post from a Protestant Pastor

The Deseret News reprinted a blog post back in September 2013 from an Indiana pastor at Christ's Community Church (Nate Pyle) entitled, "How to see a woman: A conversation between a father and son". I love the post, but I also love that the Deseret News reprinted it.  (From sad experience, I never read the comments on newspaper articles, especially with Utah newspapers.  There are too many extremists on both ends of any discussion.) 

I recommend the article highly - and I am excerpting a couple of quotes just to show the general tone and view expressed in it:

"I know why you did. I get it. But we have to talk about it because how you look at a woman matters."

"It is a woman’s responsibility to dress herself in the morning. It is your responsibility to look at her like a human being regardless of what she is wearing. You will feel the temptation to blame her for your wandering eyes because of what she is wearing — or not wearing. But don’t. Don’t play the victim."

"There are two views regarding a woman’s dress code that you will be pressured to buy into. One view will say that women need to dress to get the attention of men. The other view will say women need to dress to protect men from themselves. Son, you are better than both of these."

Dealing with Other People's Expectations

I have reached the point in my life where others' expectations just don't concern me much anymore.

At the most basic level, I care only about my own expectations of myself (and I have to evaluate even those on a regular basis, to make sure I'm not being too hard on myself or too lazy), what my wife expects of me (since she is half of my own whole) and what I perceive to be God's expectations of me - but, since I am more of a grace / Atonement kid of guy than a strict obedience / damnation kind of guy, I don't tend to worry as much as some people do.

Planning is important; anticipation of possibilities is important; worry is harmful; unrealistic expectations can be damaging and even damning.

I've come to accept that my best effort is all I can give, so that's all that I can expect myself to give - and that means, sometimes, letting go of something or even taking a nap to revitalize is all I can give.

I Do Things because I Want to Do Things, for Whatever Reasons Make Sense to Me

I follow the rules / keep the commandments according to the dictates of my own conscience and for my own, personal reasons.

For example:

I do not pay tithing as fire insurance or as a measure / token of righteousness; I pay it to help fund the Church.

I do not attend church to be blessed in the next life; I attend church to be blessed (sometimes) and to bless others (always).

I do not attend the temple to hold any particular calling or to get to the Celestial Kingdom; I attend the temple to commune with God in a quiet, reverent place and to remember to seal my heart to all of God's children.

I do not wear the garment for physical protection (or, really, even for spiritual protection); I wear it to remind myself of my relationship to God and because I love the symbols they include - and, frankly, because I've worn it so long it's a habit.

I could go on and on, but the point is that I do things because I want to do things - for whatever reasons make sense to me. I really don't care if others agree with my reasons; I care that others find reasons that make sense for them - for whatever they do, even if their actions are different than mine.

If I ask others to respect my right to make my own decisions, and to be accountable for my own choices, I simply must "allow them the same privilege", regardless of whether or not I agree with the choices they make. 

Agency: Gospel vs. Doctrine (of Varying Sources)

I think it is extremely important to distinguish between the Gospel of Christ ("Good News" of faith, repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost, enduring to the end), the doctrines (teachings) of Christ (as recorded in our scriptures, understanding the "translated / transmitted correctly" caveat), the doctrines (teachings) of the early Christian leadership (which sometimes contradicted the teachings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament "Gospels") and the doctrines of the LDS Church.

They aren't the same thing, and I don't even classify all of the Biblical "teachings of Christ" as eternal and completely binding - since I am not convinced Jesus of Nazareth actually taught all of them. Move forward into the Pauline epistles, the teachings of the "Christian fathers", the teachings of the Popes, the teachings of the Protestant reformers, the teachings of the early Mormon leaders, the teachings of the subsequent Mormon leaders, the teachings of the current Mormon leaders, the teachings of my parents and co-worshipers, etc. and I see generally good people doing their best to understand the Gospel and the doctrines of Christ in ways that help them in their own world. I'm cool with and honor that - but I don't see it as eternal or binding. I also see my own need to "be the source" in my own life for myself - to establish my own "doctrines of Ray" that govern my life - to be, truly, an agent unto myself, as it says in the Book of Mormon.

I'm fine with some compromise (quite a bit, actually) from what might be my own personal ideal in order to work best with my immediate family, my church family, my community, etc - but, in the end, I have to figure out what my own doctrines are and try to live by them. After all, I am told that I can receive revelation (obvious or not) and live by what I believe to be the word of God. Really, that's all I can do - and I won't push that responsibility onto others, even as I default to "doctrines of the Church" when I lack a personal alternative about which I feel strongly. If it doesn't matter enormously to me, I generally will accept the group standard - but I still maintain my right and privilege to change my view about anything if I feel I've gained "further light and knowledge" about it.

I think that is a central tenet of Mormonism and indispensable within the concept of agency and accountability. 

"I am that I AM." -- "It is what it is."

I know quite a few people who have struggled at some point in their lives with feelings of pressure and guilt from situations that were not within their control.  This pressure and guilt were the result of unrealistic expectations about how their lives "should be" - feeling like they should be able to handle things differently and have lives that were closer to "ideal" in some way.  

I understand such feelings, but, in cases where the cause of the struggle is not chosen or intentional, those feelings must be addressed and understood positively and proactively in order for those people to be healed in a meaningful way. 

If that description fits you to any degree, I hope the following helps somehow:

The first thing I would emphasize is that our 2nd Article of Faith says, in my own translation, that we will not be punished for struggling with things we do not choose - that come to us simply as a result of the Fall of Adam, so to speak.  This means that there is no "guilt" attached by God to the existence of those things in our lives - that they are covered automatically and freely by his grace and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  That recognition alone can be powerful and emotionally healing.  

I would reframe that concept as a clear recognition that there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with struggling with lots of things - simply because you can't avoid them. Just as the best name for God is "I AM", often the best answer to something is simply, "It is". That recognition won't eliminate anything automatically, even the guilt felt right away, but it is important to recognize unrealistic expectations and learn to know when they are hitting "in the moment".

On a very practical note, my wife started writing a weekly blessing list on her personal blog a few years ago. Despite the struggles in her life, which aren't few for her, that has forced her to look back and "count her blessings" regularly. What she has discovered over the past few years is that knowing she would be writing such a post has made her more aware of the blessings as they happen - which has given her the ability to recall them in the moments of hardest struggle - which has given a degree of perspective she didn't have before she started compiling her blessing lists. She still struggles with some things that are her own "thorns of the flesh", but she is able to break out of those struggles more quickly and even avoid them at times.

However you can do it, counting your many blessings and naming them one-by-one is a good idea.

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 Atonement Covers Honest Mistakes

I have to live according to the dictates of my own conscience and have faith that God will not punish me for doing so. I'd rather follow that path and be wrong, learning from my mistakes and having an atonement cover those honest mistakes, than to believe and do things just because others say I need to believe and do them. That last construct is the heart of what we call Lucifer's plan - and I think it's critical do recognize that.

I had a friend once who asked me if we can choose which revelations to believe. I think everyone chooses which revelations to believe, and, more particularly, which statements of leaders to classify as divine revelation - even if that means some people choose to think they believe them all. Actually, I think there isn't a Mormon alive who believes them all - when revelation is defined as "everything an apostle or President taught or said from the pulpit", since there are so many contradictory things that have been taught and preached (and so many things we no longer teach and preach). Just to be clear, I am totally fine with that; I'm just saying that every Mormon has to pick and choose exactly what s/he accepts from our history as divine revelation and as eternal, immutable truth.  (I think that also applies to every religion and denomination, not just the LDS Church.) 

Everyone looks at things and decides what they can believe - and then they choose what they can live - and then they construct justifications for the gap. For me, the most important one is that the Atonement will cover that gap, as long as we're trying to do our best. That, to me, is a huge part of pure Mormonism - an acknowledgment that all of us are living according to the dictates of our own consciences and hoping in faith that God will understand and not hold it against us.

"The Middle Way" vs. "My Way"

I believe strongly in the concept of "a way" - and it is encapsulated beautifully for me in Jesus' statement that He was the way, the truth and the light.  Thus, I have no problem with people talking about "the way" when it comes to religion.  However, I also believe strongly, based on decades of personal experience talking with thousands of people and on my own faith journey over the course of my life, that all of us see many things in slightly or even radically different way - that there are numerous "faith orientations", if you will.  Since I believe in the principle that allows every person alive to worship God according to the dictates of her own conscience, I believe that there are many unique "ways" to worship God legitimately - ways that are acceptable to Him, because they are sincere and the best each person can do.

There is a movement of sorts among some members that has been happening online for quite some time to self-identify as "middle way Mormons".  Having said what I did in the paragraph above, I don't believe in "the middle way" as it is used by this group of people. I believe in individual ways - each person finding what works for himself or herself. I actually dislike the term "the middle way" used in this context - simply because it implies there is one way ("THE middle way") that works or ought to work for those for whom a more traditional, orthodox way doesn't work.

I've known enough members over the course of my life to believe strongly that there is no collective, all-encompassing way that works or ought to work for every member of the Church. For example, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to believe and follow everything that has been taught (or is taught currently) within Mormonism and the LDS Church. It's impossible, and anyone who disagrees hasn't studied what church leaders have said over the years in detail. Even the apostles and prophets and Presidents haven't agreed on many things over the years - so even they have had to construct their own understanding, their own "way", in a very real sense.

On the other hand, I really love the Confucian use of "the middle way", even if, in the context of our own time and within the context of our own church, "the middle way" has come to mean something very different than Confucius' meaning. Confucius focused on an individual path, as I described above - what I choose to term "finding my way"; "the middle way" as used collectively now is becoming more and more a group path that is radically different than what Confucius taught.

To make my point a little differently:

Most members I know, even most members who would be classified as traditionally orthodox, actually do strive for balance in their lives. Of course, there are members who are extremists (on each side of any question), but they are nowhere near the majority, in my experience. Even within the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, that is true. For example, President Packer is a lightning rod due to his stance on moral issues, especially homosexuality, but he also has made many statements over the years that sound like they are straight from Confucius' middle way philosophy. I mean that seriously. I think most members who struggle with his stances on moral issues would be shocked at how dominant his "balance" statements are numerically. The message of balance is taught repeatedly - but the messages that jar the most for some people shock their systems so much that they dominate their memories and distort the other messages that aren't extremist.

"There must needs be opposition in all things." 

Therefore, by definition, every way is "a" middle way - a way between opposites.

When we talk in extreme terms, migrating to an extreme (any extreme), we lose sight, recognition and understanding of the other extreme which must needs be. We become incomplete due simply to being pulled to an extreme. We move from a balanced "way in the middle" from which we can see, evaluate and internalize things from all directions and incorporate anything that rings true for us to a more restricted, unbalanced way from which many things vanish from sight.

Ironically, things look clearer as we become unbalanced, but it's because we are able to see and contemplate LESS than we could in the middle.

I talk of "the muddle in the middle" for two reasons:

1) There is more through which to sift, making the glass through which we see mistier / darker / less clear;

2) Slowing down in order to muddle through everything keeps us from jumping to conclusions about the meaning of what we see - which, ironically, in the end, makes our ultimate decisions more fully ours. True growth and progress, in my opinion and experience, occur from the need to sort through much and make informed decisions - not from seeing only one option and pursuing it unwaveringly.

That, by the way, is a decent, alternate definition of faith.

Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

What or Whom Should We Follow?

1) I define "doctrine" as "whatever the leadership teaches and most people in a group believe at any given time". There is no such thing as "eternal doctrine"; there only is Eternal Truth; the first (doctrine) is the best collective approximation of the second (truth) - and sometimes that approximation is farther from Eternal Truth than a previous one. (That is a concise description of apostasy - when "doctrine" slides or falls further away from Truth. It happens all the time, everywhere.)

2) My answer to the title question of this post is:

"We should follow God - according to the dictates of our own conscience and understanding."

3) Of course, I "follow" leaders as a sign of respect for them and their burdens and responsibilities (and because I want that same consideration given to me whenever I am in a position of "leadership") - but I don't do so blindly, thoughtlessly or without exception. Within Mormon theology, that last description is Lucifer's plan - and it's important to remember that always and diligently. Blind obedience "just because" is wrong - and even is classified as the ultimate thwarting of God's purpose in creation. Period. End of discussion. So...

4) I follow God, to the best of my understanding, first and foremost. I follow God by following my conscience - which means (if I have the Gift of the Holy Ghost (a member of the Godhead) and if "the kingdom of God is within you") I follow my own "I am" in my attempt to follow the great "I AM" as a fundamental part of that first and foremost. I "follow" (at the side of) my wife, as 1/2 of my own "I am", as part of that first and foremost. I follow anyone else (and I mean anyone else) second. I respect, value, support and sustain those I follow second, but I still follow them second. 

Judge Not: Laman and Lemuel

I try to read the scriptures with a focus on trying to understand the people in them and the "background story" behind the accounts.  I understand that is a subjective process and that some of my conclusions might be incorrect, but it's important to me to try to get to know the people themselves as well as possible and not just read the stories shallowly.  

In that light: 

If you want an interesting experience, read 1 Nephi from the perspective of Laman and Lemuel constantly hearing their father rag on them.

Read how Nephi describes it and see if "the words of a tender parent" feel tender to the person on the receiving end of the sermons.

It was easy for Nephi, I think, to agree that his father was being a loving, concerned parent - but I can't imagine that Laman and Lemuel felt anything except constant criticism and negative comparison to their "perfect little brother, the spoiled brat".

Lehi, I'm certain, loved all of his children, but he "exhorted" those whose lives were different than his goals for them. His family, in my mind, was very dysfunctional - and I'm sure some of it was a result of internal family dynamics and unrealistic expectations.

My point for this post?

In our own lives, we should strive not to react like Laman or Lemuel, even if some people act like Lehi.  However, knowing how brutally hard that is in many situations, we should strive just as diligently to avoid judging people in the way we tend to judge Laman and Lemuel - especially in situations we probably understand no better than theirs due to our relative lack of information about dynamics we can't see and/or understand fully.

Is Tithing Necessary to Inherit the Celestial Kingdom?

Someone once asked me the question in the title of this post, and my answer was what would have been the other half of the title: "Only if You Are An Active Mormon."  Let me explain what I meant, realizing my wording was a bit tongue-in-cheek but also meant to be a bit of a "Zen slap" - something that smacks you upside the head and makes you think a little harder about something than you had previously.  

1) The LDS Church teaches that tithing is required to enter the temple, which, in a very real and practical way, can mean that tithing is required for exaltation.

2) The LDS Church teaches that any-freaking-body who ever has lived in the entire history of the planet earth may end up in the Celestial Kingdom and, therefore, be exalted - regardless of whether or not they have paid tithing (or even one penny in religious or charitable donations) in their entire lives.

3) Thus, tithing is taught as necessary ONLY if someone is a member of the LDS Church in this lifetime - and not for those who weren't (and there even is the underlying teaching that each of us will be judged according to how well we live what we understand individually, which provides a HUGE disclaimer even for those who have been baptized into the LDS Church).

There is an inherent conflict / opposition in that construct, if you really think about it. It is a paradoxical teaching - and, therefore, it would be easy to dismiss tithing completely as unnecessary in any cosmic way. I don't do that - for multiple reasons, one of which is that I have received adequate benefit from my own payment of tithes over the years (including the acknowledgment of the covenant relationship in providing for my needs more than once while I was unemployed and needed assistance) - and one more, which is that I have an adequate (for me, personally) intellectual understanding of the need for tithing.

So, what do I make of the conflict between the two polar opposite stances - neither of which I reject / both of which I understand and accept?

I take it to mean that God doesn't require tithing to be exalted - unless someone understands tithing and has committed to pay tithing, in whatever form that person understands. Likewise, God doesn't require chastity to be exalted - unless someone understands chastity and has committed to live a chaste life, in whatever form that person understands. God doesn't require abstinence from theft to be exalted - unless someone understands abstinence from theft and has committed not to steal, in whatever form that person understands. etc, etc, etc.

The LDS Church, however, as an organization, believes in tithing (and chastity and no stealing) and requires those things in order to state that it believes its members will be exalted - even as it does NOT require those things of those who are not members and do not understand them well enough to be accountable to live them.  Likewise, and importantly, it does not require those things of young children or the obviously mentally handicapped - again, since they may not understand them well enough to be accountable to live them.  The key is living up to what I understand. 

Hence, my Reader's Digest answer - which I believe is the fullest, most comprehensive yet concise definition:

No, tithing is not required for exaltation - unless you're an active member of the Church (but even then with theological disclaimers) who understands the reasons for tithing.

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. 

Being an Instrument of Change: Differing Scriptural Examples and Our Personal Responsibilities

Many people have asked me what they need to do to be an instrument of positive change in their sphere of influence.  My response is very simple:

We need to do the best we can, regardless of the outcome we expect or for which we merely hope. Period.

We have to be willing to work for change even if we believe it won't happen.  Changing the world, even on a small scale, requires a degree of faith that change can happen.  Sometimes, it happens; sometimes it doesn't; either way, we have to be willing to try. 

The best examples of this in the Book of Mormon are the Alma, the Younger, and the sons of Mosiah, who succeeded far beyond anyone's expectations - and, conversely, the general, Mormon, leading his people out of love for them even though he had absolutely no hope that they would repent and watching them get slaughtered. In the Bible, it might be Elijah - who preached for years and only saw one conversion.  We aren't in such a radical, bleak situation - and we might just have a Jonah experience where people we assumed were too hard-hearted to repent actually do repent. (which, btw, is what I beleive to be the main point of that story - that even the very wicked can change, and we shouldn't begrudge them that change or think we are better than they are just because of their wickedness, since we might have no idea the cause of that wickedness and their ability to repent) 

We can't serve only in situations where we reasonably can expect great results - at least not if our objective is to make radical changes on a (relatively) broad scale.  Being effective has its place, and it is an important place, but calculations of effectiveness rob of us the opportunity to make a real, widespread difference in the world - again, no matter how broadly we define that world.  

I Am Accountable to Come to a Personal Understanding of What I Believe - and Then to Follow It

In the end, when all is said and done and I stand before God, I believe I will be held accountable for how I lived what I personally believed - and I also believe I am responsible to come to a personal understanding of what I believe. I've stopped caring if I believe exactly what others believe (even the majority of the membership of the Church with regard to some things); I care much more about figuring out what I actually do believe and refining it continually, based on "studying it out in (my) own heart and mind" and on "receiving on-going revelation" (both from God directly and from others whom He has inspired). Revelation to me through someone else ultimately is revelation to me from God. 

The principle of "on-going revelation" is important to me - since "revelation", at is core, simply means the uncovering of things that previously were hidden from view. I sustain and support prophets and apostles, and I value their insights and beliefs and perspectives HIGHLY - but, in the end, I believe I'm not going to be judged at the most basic level by how I "obeyed" them. I believe I will be judged by how I obey God - and that is determined almost exclusively by how well I follow my conscience and do my best to understand and internalize what I believe to be the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a result of who I am and who I become. 

I compromise all the time on lots of practical things as a member of a society (including of the LDS Church and as half of an equal couple), but we are told that the ideal is for all people, as individuals, to be prophets in the purest sense of the word (those to whom God speaks, in whatever way that occurs for each individual) - so that's my primary goal.

Learning to be at peace with that individual journey within my partner-marriage relationship and the collective, communal Church is the key - and most of that peace has come from nothing more than learning to accept my best effort to do and be my best.

We Can't Blame the LDS Church (or Other People) for How We View Things

I think our individual perceptions are based as much on our unique personalities and our personal experiences at the local level (wards, branches, stakes AND homes) as by our interaction with / exposure to the global leadership. We see the global leadership twice a year, generally, and we read something one or more of them have written once a month, generally – and that is if we are about as diligent as is “reasonably normal” (which I am not, in this case, frankly). My own “exposure” is with General Conference and whenever someone else quotes somebody in a talk or lesson. So, in “real, practical terms” . . . my impression of how “The Church” operates and affects me is influenced most strongly by my upbringing (whether or not that was in the LDS Church) and my local leaders and congregation. However, we also tend to extrapolate our experiences with local leaders onto the global leadership – and that is “reasonable”, since we don’t interact with them enough to really know them personally.

We forget that, sometimes.

This means how we view tithing, tithing settlement and temple recommend interviews, for example, is going to be comprised, largely, by how we naturally see things and what we experience most directly. If we had an authoritarian, Old Testament / Paul style father, Bishop, Seminary teacher, Stake President, etc., we will tend to view these things much differently than if we had more “teach correct principles”, New Testamnet / John style parents and leaders. If we were taught initially that it was our never-wavering duty to attend every conceivable church-related meeting we are going to react differently to tithing settlement than if we were taught initially that Sacrament Meeting is the only “required” meeting and everything else fits into the “do your best to be involved in whatever you can and still be balanced” category. If we have had Bishops and Stake Presidents who were more “questioning” (intrusive) in their approach, we will see temple recommend interview differently than someone who has had Bishops and Stake Presidents who simply asked the questions and allowed those being interviewed to give the simple “yes/no” answers.

Therefore, I am left to look at how the “official” practice is handled and, to the best of my ability, attempt to follow that practice on an individual basis – in whatever way makes the most sense to me. What that means in terms of tithing, tithing settlement and temple recommend interviews for ME, as an individual, is:

a) Officially, there is no official “one way to figure tithing”. It is left up to me to make that decision, to the best of my ability and conscience. Therefore, I pay on net income, but I have no problem whatsoever with people who pay on “increase”. I also have no problem whatsoever with someone paying their absolutely essential, non-avoidable bills and then paying on what is left – but I do have a problem, personally, if they include credit card debt or a payment on a luxury car or their projected grocery costs or anything else that, imo, moves them away from any reasonable “spirit of the law”. Iow, for me, as long as their heart is in the right place and they aren’t trying to come up with reasons to pay less just to pay less, I’m totally cool with their decision – regardless of what it is.

b) Tithing can be paid locally through the Bishop or directly to the Church. How I pay it is left up to me. Therefore, I pay mine to our Bishop, but I have no problem with those who eliminate the middleman and pay directly to SLC.

c) There is a formal setting called a tithing settlement interview / meeting, but status can be declared without participating in that formal setting. How (or even if) I declare my status is up to me. I don’t mind sitting down formally with a Bishop for tithing settlement – but I have no problem with someone declaring their status in any other way that works for them. One year, for example, we had a brutal time scheduling an official visit, so we ended up telling our Bishop in the hallway after Sacrament Meeting. That was harder for my wife to accept than it was for me, but it didn’t faze our Bishop at all.

d) The official pattern for temple recommend interviews is the asking of specific questions and the answering of those specific questions. How I answer the questions is up to me. Therefore, when I have my temple recommend interview, I answer with nothing more than a simple “yes” or “no” (or, in two cases – honesty and family relationships – with, “I’m trying my best and am not aware of anything that would keep me from attending the temple.”) – not because I’m trying to hide anything, but because I have no desire whatsoever in that setting to get into a discussion about anything. I don’t see the interview as having that purpose, so I don’t go there. I give my answer to each question directly and simply and wait for the next question. I understand intellectually and emotionally why some people want to talk about the questions more, but I don’t think that’s the right time or circumstance – and I think the risk of misunderstanding outweighs the potential positives. Those conversations can be had elsewhere, and I don’t think they are wise or productive in the temple recommend interview – as a general rule. Therefore, I choose to answer as simply as possible.

In all the cases I described above, I believe I’m following BOTH the letter AND the spirit by doing so.

Oh, and if the response is, “That’s fine, but it’s not how the Church works” – my only response possible is, “That’s how it works for me.” It might not work that way for someone else, but that also might be due as much to the difference between that someone else and me as to the differences between our respective leaders. I can’t say in each case, but it’s a very good thought experiment and chance for serious introspection, at the very least.