Does God Really Direct Us Down "Wrong Roads" Sometimes?

Elder Holland gave a talk in General Conference a couple of years ago about what he learned when he and his father took a wrong road on the way home late one night. It generated a lot of discussion online about whether or not God really would direct us down wrong roads in our lives. 

My own take is that God allows us to walk "wrong roads" as part and parcel of mortality and our limited understanding (that he doesn't always stop us from walking the ones we are prone to walk), but I personally don't believe he proactively places us on or guides us to roads that truly are wrong for us. Thus, I don't believe he gives us incorrect answers to our prayers. I might be wrong, but that's how I see it. It just fits my own belief in the nature of God better.

Having said that, it makes perfect sense for someone who sees God as more of an interventionist God than I do - and it can be the only thing that would make sense for some people who thought they received answers to prayers that they followed into situations that caused pain and felt wrong to them. I also am completely open to the idea that God will do that for some people who need to learn from mistakes but won't choose them on their own - those, for example, who mare more inclined to put their head down and live a Law of Moses life, letting others tell them exactly what to so. I can see God directing them off that path in order to get them to the right one, even if that means they walk a hard road to get there.

However, I do believe that God opens doors to us at times and arranges opportunities that we can take or not take. That's how I see my own life, since I can't deny the incredible ways that the path of my life appears to be "directed" in various ways. There have been a couple of moments/periods in my life that I only understand in hindsight as what was necessary to get me to the next place my family needed to be, so, in that sense, I can understand the idea of being on a "wrong path" to get to the "right path" - even though I wouldn't phrase it that way.

I recently have come to phrase those experiences as being on the right track but the wrong train - or, perhaps more accurately, being on the only train at that particular time that would take me to the point on the track where I could catch the next "right train" for that particular time - usually with the core purpose being someone in my family or a personal connection, rather than a professional reason. In that light, I can see my life as a serious of trains connecting me to multiple tracks that made our overall destinations possible to reach - but I had to disembark from each train and climb on a new one each time to get where my family needed to be at each juncture in our life.

The Ideal Is to Live in Your Own Best Way

“How . . . do we put the Savior first without putting down other people or their religions? We don’t have to insist on being right all the time. When my parents drank tea, I sat with them and drank hot water. Make compromises. Find ways to serve. Minimize the areas of conflict. Don’t retaliate. After all, you want your family to see that you’re a better, happier person as a result of belonging to the Church.

Be spiritually independent enough that your relationship with the Savior doesn't depend on your circumstances or on what other people say and do. Have the spiritual independence to be a Mormon--the best Mormon you can--in your own way. Not the bishop's way. Not the Relief Society president's way. Your way.” 

- Chieko Okazaki, "Lighten Up", p. 98-99

Political Memes: Flaxen Cords and Itching Ears

When we allow ourselves to become outraged over little things, we lose our ability to recognize, appreciate, and respond to truly outrageous things. 

When we allow ourselves to become outraged over manufactured, fabricated things, we lose our agency in a fundamental way - and we give it to people who intentionally are conspiring to take it. 

Political memes can be as addicting and damaging as alcohol and cigarettes, appealing to what has been called "itching ears". Prohibition isn't the answer, but using restraint and at least an attempt at simple fact-checking are good ways to retain one's integrity and agency. Ignoring such measures is a guaranteed way to tighten the flaxen cords that enrich conspiring men and women and harm everyone else in real and lasting ways.

The Word of Wisdom: Both Letter and Spirit of the Law

I think it is fascinating and instructive that the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) contains things that are accepted and enforced in our time as commandments, and that are included in the requirements of temple attendance, as well as things that are accepted generally in the same spirit in which the original revelation is worded - as "words of wisdom" but not clearly definable prohibitions.  

When this is discussed my members, the conversation often turns to meat consumption, but I see the question about meat as the same as a discussion about grains and fruits (and sleep, although that is not addressed in the Word of Wisdom). Healthy practices vary person to person and simply cannot be codified properly into one common standard that can be measured for temple attendance or even simple obedience. As a people, we can be Nazis about too many things already; the last thing I want is for a local leader to be able to start keeping charts on each member’s Body Mass Index, meat consumption, seasonal fruit decisions, etc.

In other words, I am fine with some portions of Section 89 being measured according to the letter of the law and others being left up to us as individuals to live according to the spirit of the law. After all, we aren’t supposed to be commanded in all things and, rather, are supposed to be agents unto ourselves – and I think the Word of Wisdom is perhaps the best practical example of how we can be commanded in some things and not in others, even in the same general area.

Did We Choose Our Mortal Trials in the Pre-Existence?

I have a friend who said once:

"We are all put in the right place for the best possible outcome."  

I have thought about that idea off and on for a long time, and I both agree and disagree with it.  My main concern, however, isn't in the wording but rather in the extrapolations that are so common from it.  I hope the following makes sense as a summary of why I am conflicted about the quote above. 

Given our belief in a "veil of forgetfulness", the pre-existence is where Mormon theology gets a bit squishy, but within Mormon theology there are some things that point toward the wording above. Two of those things are:

1) In the case of a crack baby (or a child born into terrible abuse) who dies early, if we accept the idea that all children who die before being accountable inherit the Celestial Kingdom (which my heart loves, but by head has a hard time accepting due to my dislike of predestination), that baby gets the best possible reward for what s/he suffers in this life.

2) Our temple work does not require anyone to accept God or Jesus or Mormonism or the LDS Church or anything else in this life - and it leaves the final judgment completely in the hands of God. The standard really is what type of person each individual becomes, relative only to their personal effort and circumstances - and, again, that judgment is God's alone.

My problem with the quote above, as worded, also is with the phrase "in the right place" and how it can be interpreted. I have heard it used way too often in my life to justify a condescending attitude toward "the other" - that their specific situations in this life (and, by extension, our own situations) are a direct result of something about their former life, usually worthiness or valiance.  Thus, I believe the idea that every person is born into the best circumstance for that person can be viewed in such a way that it functions as a conceit of luxury. It's a way to justify one's own privileged position and rationalize others' horrible circumstances.

It's also one of the reasons I am open to the idea of multiple probationary experiences, even though I don't preach it or believe it passionately. Rather, I lean toward a structure of eternal progression that is WAY more expansive and extended than a limited focus on mortality allows. I do believe that this life is the most important stage in our eternal progression at this moment, but I also believe our previous stages were the most important at those times and that our future stages will be the most important at those times. I believe all is present unto God in the sense that the past is gone and the future will be whatever the present makes it be.

I think all we can see is the here and now, so we do the best we can to understand the stark differences all around us - and, because we see through a glass, darkly, we each end up with partial views that make sense to each of us. That's why I try to understand the best I can and allow others the same privilege, let them understand how and what they may.

I simply would say,

All who are born will receive the best possible outcome, according to the wisdom, grace and love of God. All who "keeps their first estate" will be rewarded for it to the greatest extent possible.

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. 

"Many Questions Must Await a Future Answer": The Case of Homosexuality

I don't believe that all people who end up in homosexual relationships are hard-wired biologically for that. I understand enough about the research on human sexuality and know too many homosexuals who had traumatic experiences that influenced greatly their choices and/or actions to believe sexual orientation is predestined at birth for all. Boys who are sexually abused in their childhood by a male are more likely to be abusers of other boys when they are adults; women who are abused by men are more likely to turn to other women for comfort, support and sexual fulfillment; etc. I understand those "environmental" forces and their effects on sexuality.

However, I also know WAY too many homosexual people who lived completely normal lives without any trauma, "indoctrination" (which I really don't like using regarding a topic like this, since it's a standard charge that means, in practical terms, "teaching something to children that I don't believe") or other environmental influences. I've known too many people who have known only sexual attraction to those of the same sex from the days of their earliest awareness of sexual attraction - and many who have tried to change that aspect of themselves without any success whatsoever. For them, like for me, trying to change their sexual attraction from one sex to another is useless; it simply can't be done.

Thus, I believe the following statements in the Church's latest pamphlet about same-sex attraction ("God Loveth His Children":

Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.

However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life

.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings.

It also is interesting that the pamphlet does not use the word "repent" or "sin" once when dealing with homosexual attraction. Rather, it talks about such attraction often lasting throughout one's entire life and speaks of "self-mastery" - not "change". That is a critical word choice.  It is obvious that the Church no longer views homosexual attraction itself as sin, which translates into the belief that homosexual attraction is not a conscious choice in many cases.

All other issues aside, I believe that foundational understanding is key. Yes, there are environmental forces at work in many cases, but there are genetic forces at work in many others. I have come to this understanding partly through the research, but a more important part of my understanding was gained by talking openly and deeply with those about whom this post is addressed - and the ultimate realization came from multiple people who asked me, point-blank, if I could change my own sexual orientation if I tried hard enough - if I "only had more faith". I couldn't, and the very assertion that I should evokes a powerful oppositional reaction within me. In that sense, I "get it" - and I understand why many people hear someone say that they weren't "born that way" and feel like such statements are a direct attack on them and their honesty and sincerity. It is very much like saying, "That's not true. You are lying - or deceived." They aren't lying, and they aren't deceived. They simply are being honest about what they feel and, in many cases, always have felt.

So, for me, the "solution" to this type of discussion is to recognize the truth of the Church's first statement I excerpted and posted above:

Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.

I'm fine with doing my best to understand what I can in this life while admitting openly that many questions must await future answers. 

Having said all of that, I also need to make it clear that there are parts of the pamphlet I have excerpted and parts of the general view of homosexuality within the LDS Church with which I do not agree.  I also need to make it clear that we do NOT need to await further light and knowledge regarding this topic only "in the next life" - that we are learning much in this life and must be open to continuing that learning, both religiously AND scientifically. 

I Also Don't Like the Phrase "Keep the Sabbath"

Last month, I mentioned that I don't like the phrase "break the Sabbath".  I didn't mention it in that post, but I also don't like the phrase "keep the Sabbath".   Frankly, I don't feel as strongly about that wording as I do about the breaking wording, but there is a theological reason I feel the way I do. 

The actual commandment says:

(1) Remember the Sabbath Day to (2) keep it holy.

Thus, in the Biblical injunction, there are two aspects of approaching the Sabbath properly, and I think we miss the mark greatly when we eliminate the first aspect totally and abbreviate the second one by eliminating the word "holy".

Not only does that version alter the injunction itself in important ways, but doing so opens the door for the kind of list-making that plagues our culture.

Why is such list-making so insidious?

1) It is a great example of building hedges so far around the law that the law itself gets obscured and, too often, forgotten.

2) It eliminates the heart of agency encoded in figuring out what is constituted by "holy" in unique lives of different individuals and, instead, substitutes demands from someone else.  Some things that are holy for some people in the circumstances of their lives are not holy for others, and list-making denies people the ability of keeping the Sabbath holy in legitimate ways.  It is a great example of that about which Moroni warned in Moroni 7: calling that which is good, evil, and, moving further from the charity he extols in that same chapter.   

Finally, I know this sounds hyperbolic, but, in a real way, it substitutes Lucifer's plan for the plan of the Father - albeit on a small scale. 

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. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recaps: There Is No Reward in Thoughtless Obedience

This month, the topic is "Temporal and Spiritual Self-Reliance". Thus far, we have talked about the following:

D&C 58: 26-28 - "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

We talked about needing to make our own decisions and choose what we believe about lots of things - that being told everything to think, believe and do is, essentially, Lucifer's plan, which is why those who do only what they are told to do receive "no reward". They don't grow; rather, they stagnate and never develop any degree of godliness.

We talked about "anxiously" meaning "with fervor and excitement - and how being "engaged" means being "committed and in a close relationship", not just casually doing something occasionally. We talked about how "good cause" is singular, while "many things" is plural - that we should do lots of good things, but that it's better to choose a good cause into which we can pour ourselves than to do multiple things only shallowly.

We talked about how "(wo)men do good" isn't confined to any one area (not even church), so anyone who does good, no matter what that is, will be rewarded.

Alma 37:37 - "Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good."

We discussed how "counsel" means "discuss among equals - that it doesn't mean to do only what you're told or commanded to do. That ties in really well with doing much good of one's own free will. We also discussed how "direct thee for good" does not mean "tell you what to do" - that it's much more like pointing in a general direction and away from the opposite direction. Another way to say it is that God will point us toward a good outcome, but he won't tell us exactly how to get there.

D&C 9: 7-8 - "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;"

We talked about the background for this passage and then focused on the need to "study" things prior to asking for answers - and how it is important to do so "in your (own) mind" and not just rely on or accept what others think, no matter who those others are.

Sometimes We Just Need to Shut Up and Stop Asking for Answers

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.  (Doctrine & Covenants 58:26) 

I am positive that many of the "rules" that have developed over the years in the LDS Church have been given because someone insisted on getting instructions about something that should have been left up to that person's agency to decide.  I think many are cases where the leadership threw their hands in the air and said:

"Fine, we will give you an answer, since you won't shut up and stop asking - even though you shouldn't need to get instructions from us about this." 

It's like the flight attendant who shows everyone how to use the seat belt before the plane takes off.

Really?!?!

If you don't know how to use a seat belt, you shouldn't be flying.

As a close friend said once, at some point we need to grow up and become adults of God.

A Dangerous View of Bishops, Stake Presidents and Leaders Generally

I know of a Stake President who once said the following to a member of his stake: 

"Your Bishop represents Christ. If people understood that they would be excited to talk to him and willing to do what he asks." 

If I was the Bishop about whom the Stake President was talking, I would have been VERY uncomfortable with the Stake President's statement - and all of the Bishops I've know personally would have been uncomfortable, as well - except one. Instructively, he was the worst Bishop I've known.

I have no problem with the idea that the Bishop represents Christ in a unique way - in some specific situations. However, in most situations, a Bishop does not represent Christ any more than any one of the members of his congregation does.  To say it differently, all of us represent Christ, but the Bishop has certain unique responsibilities in the way he represents Christ. It simply isn't one or the other; we aren't Catholic Priest of the Dark Ages and parishioners. 

"They would be excited to talk to him." 

Generally, that's a function of him as a person, not his office or calling. People usually like to talk to nice, good people; they usually don't like to talk to jerks or harsh people.  The vast majority of Bishops are nice, good, sincere, loving people - but whether or not most regular members are excited to talk to their Bishop has little to do with representing Christ. 

"They would be willing to do what he asks." 

This is where my biggest concern lies - and it is a HUGE concern. It's dangerous to put someone in a position where they can expect obedience just because of their position. It's too easy to fall for the allure of the power.  Our War in Heaven narrative and the explanation of unrighteous dominion in D&C 121 ought to eliminate our tendency to say things like the quote above, particularly without any qualifications whatsoever.

I wouldn't have a problem with,

"They would be willing to consider seriously what he asks."

but I cannot accept the quote as worded and the all-encompassing implication of someone giving up their individual agency and doing something just because a mortal leader asks them to do it.

I believe in "obeying" God; I believe in "sustaining and supporting" righteous leaders.

Those two beliefs are not the same thing, and we should NEVER confuse or equate them.  Any leader who does is on the path toward unrighteous dominion. 

Period.  

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. 

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

On this day of unabashed patriotism, I want to share the following that has application to that topic, as well: 

There is a fine line between zealousness and fanaticism. I think charity is the delineator of the two - and, unfortunately, people do many things "out of love" that aren't at all charitable.

I look at the Golden Rule, and I can't help but wonder how (the collective) we would feel if our non-Mormon acquaintances acted toward us the way we sometimes act towards them - or if we learned that they talk about us the way we sometimes talk about them. I look at how some people interact with their "wayward" children and wonder how they would react if their parents weren't members and interacted that same way with them (their own "wayward children").

I believe in zealousness when it is manifested in a righteous manner, but I also have to be able to look at my own actions (and the actions of others as examples) and see the difference between righteous zealousness and something else. For example, I am concerned whenever I hear or read anything like the following - which I read in a comment a couple of years ago:

(In order to be zealous,) we have to stop worrying about “the other guy” and worry about how God views us.

Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the other guy AND about how God sees us, specifically because if there is one lesson in all of our scriptures I believe it is that "concern for the other" is absolutely central to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ. I agree completely that concern for how others see us can't get in the way of doing the right thing, but I also believe that "doing the right thing" without regard for "the other guy" often (and I mean very often) leads to doing the wrong thing in the name of righteousness. I don't need to use extreme examples of that principle; regular, daily examples are all around us.

I believe that being righteously zealous is not a simple thing that can be measured by a universal checklist. I need to be concerned with my own zealousness and whether my own zealousness is acceptable to God - and, for me, that absolutely must include a deep, central, strong element of how my actions in the name of God impact "the other guy" - since charity is the heart of my own measure of my own righteous zealousness.

One example to illustrate my point:

I love and admire Captain Moroni, but he was wrong - 100% dead wrong - in his chastisement of Pahoran during the war he was fighting. He didn't write that letter out of righteous zealousness; he wrote it out of frustration over seeing his soldiers die unnecessarily. (Those are his own words, not my assumption.)  He wrote it in anger - and the condemnation in it of Pahoran was unfounded. Captain Moroni was described by Mormon in the abridgment as a "perfect man", but he erred in that instance when he wrote that letter (which does not contradict Mormon's assessment of him). The letter was not charitable; it was not accurate; it was not in line with the standard articulated in D&C 121; it was not sensitive to the plight of a friend, supporter and fully righteous man; it was not a righteous judgment; it was not an example of "being moved upon by the Holy Ghost"; it was not an example of righteous zealousness.

Again, I admire Captain Moroni deeply, but I admire Pahoran even more deeply in that example - since he easily could have reacted very differently. It was Pahoran, not Captain Moroni, in that situation who "saved the day" - and he did it explicitly by remembering, in a time of great stress and distress, to "think of the other guy" and not return threat for threat. He did it by remembering the pure heart behind the mistaken accusations and not holding Moroni's mistake against him. He did it by loving the man even though the man's words must have cut him deeply. He did it by not being zealous in the traditional, stereotypical manner but by being zealous in love and meekness.

I believe in zealousness, but I also believe it is manifested differently in different situations and that, for me, at the very core, it absolutely involves "worrying about the other guy" in a very real and important way. I believe charity is the balancing agent between righteous zealousness and unrighteous fanaticism - and, if I have to choose between one extreme or the other, I try to choose to be overly charitable rather than overly fanatical.

Accountability: God Is Within and Among Us

My favorite part of the concept that we are gods and children of the Most High God, and that the kingdom of God is among/within us, is that it takes away our natural tendency to blame someone outside the collective "us" for the bad things that happen and puts the responsibility to deal with those things squarely on us as individuals and as a collective people.

It makes Hitler responsible for what he did, but it also makes Mother Teresa responsible for what she did - and it makes me responsible for what I do on both sides of the scale. Mormonism's addition of degrees of accountability and the idea that our judgment is and will be nothing more than an acknowledgment of who we are and become (what we make of our "divine nature") is precious to me - and both of those concepts point toward the "god within".

I think it's interesting that the temple endowment paints a picture of competing Gods in this world. It hints at the primary contest being who we will follow in this world - that the ultimate goal is to build the kingdom of God on earth and establish Zion - that the struggle is to see who will be able to say, in the end, that it is the day of their power. I also think it's interesting that much of the early Mormon vision was focused less on theology and more on kingdom building - and that one of our Articles of Faith says we believe part of the plan is to make the earth a paradise.

I believe in seeing where the LDS Church has legitimate, important similarities with other religions, and I have no problem admitting and celebrating those similarities, but I think one area where we have become too much like the rest of Christianity is in our current focus on the Celestial Kingdom as somewhere out there and after this. I think we have lost sight to a degree of the idea of creating the City of Enoch here on earth, and I believe that idea is centered on the concept of the god within each one of us and the kingdom of gods we can build into Zion in the here and now.

How Much Control Do I Really Have Over My Actions? I Don't Know, but I Have Faith in God.

I have no idea how much free will I have as I make the decisions of my life – but it’s good to believe I have some degree of power to choose. It’s also good to believe it’s not all in my control, especially as I keep struggling to change what appears to be unchangeable in my nature – and it helps keep me from condemning others who also struggle to change (or appear to not be trying at all).

I have no idea why God very clearly and obviously spoke clear revelation through me on at least three occasions – but in the other hundreds of times when He could have done so He didn’t. It’s good to believe he will do so when it’s really important and not do so when I just need to do my best and learn from the chips falling where they may.

I have no idea why some of the decisions I just knew were inspired turned out so badly at the time – or why some of those ended up being really good decisions in longer hindsight, while others still look like bad decisions now. It’s good to believe he will stop me from making really bad decisions that will hurt other people badly while letting me make bad decisions that will hurt me but from which I can grow.

I have no idea why some people have been healed or protected in truly miraculous ways, while others have been left to suffer tremendously without protection or relief. It’s good to believe He loves us in those situations, but it’s bad to think He doesn’t love others in their situations.

I have no idea why the distinction obviously is NOT objective level of righteousness. Of everything else I’ve written in this comment, that is the only area about which I am certain. Sincere effort to be righteous can result in misery and pain, while wickedness actually can be happiness – at least in all objective measurements dealing only with mortality.

All of this could lead me to question God’s existence and/or love, but I know from personal experience there is something / someone out there that knows me personally and really cares – and that’s enough to keep faith that, despite my lack of understanding of issues like this, there is an answer that will make sense eventually.

Sometimes We Ask Too Many Questions

[I just noticed that this is the 1700th post I have written here.  I have a hard time fathoming that, and I never dreamed when I started that I would reach that number of posts.] 

I once listened to a conversation between a couple of men who had been in the LDS Church for multiple decades - two men whom I admire greatly.  One of them asked the other one the following question - to the best of my recollection:

What should we do if there is something in the Church Handbook of Instruction that isn't clear - if we aren't sure exactly what it means or what we should do? 

His answer surprised me, but I agreed totally when I thought about it.  He said - again, to the best of my recollection:

If it isn't spelled out, it isn't spelled out - so, by all that's holy and intelligent, don't ask someone to spell it out. There are lots of things we need to figure out on our own - through the Spirit and through our own intelligence and best efforts.

Sometimes we ask too many questions.

Avoiding Becoming Weary (or Burned Out) in the LDS Church

In his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", Elder Wirthlin mentioned that some people stop coming to church and become "lost" because they are weary.  I was struck by that when he said it, and I have thought a lot about it since then - as anyone knows who has read this blog for some time, since I reference that talk quite often.

I want to share how I avoid becoming weary in the way that Elder Wirthlin describes, and I want to use my situation while living in Missouri specifically because it highlights how I easily could have become weary - or "burned out", as one friend described his experience to me years ago.

1) I keep from getting burned out by limiting what I do to what I can do without getting burned out. I know that sounds a bit silly and obvious (and very difficult for many, given the assumptions held my some members), but it works for me. It "helped" in Missouri that our finances and distance from the church created automatic barriers to doing too much, but I held to the principle even when we used to live 1.5 miles from the church and I made plenty of money. Bottom line: It's a hard-core commitment I've made - to do as much as I can but not get burned out by trying to do too much - to not try to do everything.

Some people don't like that I do that, and some people don't get it, but most people (the large majority) really do understand.

2) Having said that, I am MUCH more open to making an exception for unique service opportunities than for "regular, run-of-the-mill" stuff. I couldn't drive 40 minutes there and 40 minutes back - and pay for the gas to do so - just to be involved in an activity where there are plenty of other people there to handle it. Financially, I just couldn't. However, I could do that - occasionally - to help someone who needed my individual help. I could do that largely because I wasn't doing all the other stuff that would have sapped my time and money and energy - and that's really, really important to understand.

It's a balancing act, and it's MUCH harder in many ways than trying to do everything - but I believe it's important to be the one doing the acting and not just be acted upon.

It Can Be Difficult to Accept the Plan of Salvation in All It's Messiness

In Mormon theology, there were two plans: one that dictated beliefs and actions (and, as a result, allowed no growth) and one that left it up to each individual to decide what to believe and do (and, as a result, allowed both greatness and depravity - and everything between those extremes). The good news is that this theology also posits an intervention (through a Savior and Redeemer) by which sincere efforts to believe and do good things are rewarded, no matter how they align with objective, absolute truth. Not everyone in the Church understands how "liberal" that theology is, but it's there in spades.

I know how hard it is to deal with the ambiguity and relativity on which such a theology rests, as evidenced by how many members (including leaders) can't accept it fully (since it can be incredibly messy and painful), but, personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't want others to be able to force me to act against the dictates of my own conscience, so I have to be willing to accept that I and mine can't do the same to them. That is true no matter how strongly I feel about the difference. 

The type of truth that I believe all should accept and follow is wrapped up in principles and characteristics and focus, not detail. I don't really care how someone describes charity, faith, hope, compassion, love, forgiveness, etc., as long as they are describing and trying to live them. I don't care if I see lots of the details differently, as long as I am working with others according to those characteristics. I really do believe that the "Gospel" is incredibly simple and "universal truth"; I just don't put much else that I can understand in that category. Pretty much everything else is more blurry or dark to me, so I don't get hung up on it when someone else sees through the mists differently than I do - or when those differing views add complexity, messiness and even pain to my life.

Self-Reliance in Adulthood; Safety Nets in Childhood

A friend of mine was talking once about wanting to experience things on his own and reach his own conclusions - that he didn't want to "rely on what others say".  I understand that sentiment completely, but I look at a bit differently.

There are some things that I don't want to experience and am fine "taking someone else's word for it".
For example, I think I know myself well enough to avoid beer and cigarettes because of their addictive qualities and my tendency toward addictive behavior. (blogging? - *grin*)  My family is multi-generational Mormon, so I don't have a lineage I can look at and see if alcoholism runs in our genes - but I'm VERY wary, given what I do know about the disabilities that do manifest in my ancestry.

Granted, that's not precisely "taking someone else's word for it" at this point in my life, but it certainly was in my earlier, formative years - and I am very grateful for that, since it possibly kept me addiction-free until I could understand myself well enough to make that decision for myself in an informed, intelligent manner.

So, my summary:

Absolutely, I want to make my own choices and not rely strictly on someone else's word on most things - but I also believe all of us accept the need for a reasonable, safe foundation of "someone else's word for it" until we are mature enough to craft "our own word on it".