Easy Outrage: When Hearts Grow Cold

We live in a society where people get outraged far too easily. Some things truly are worthy of outrage, but when outrage is the foundational orientation . . . 
Honestly, I think this outrage-orientation is one of the most insidious and alarming aspects of our society (fueled by one-sided, 24/7 media programs (on both - or multiple - sides of every issue that are focused on stoking outrage for ratings and the attendant profit) - and I think it is a manifestation of the concept of hearts growing cold and real charity being lost. When we don't even try to listen to those whose views are different than ours, with real intent to understand and respect (even when we still don't agree), we lose an important part of our humanity. 
I could have gained a quality education from professors at a lot of institutions, but the students at Harvard gave me a deep respect for people who saw the world differently than I did - and a deep respect for their views, even when understanding and respect didn't create agreement. In a real way, they gave me the world. 
I try hard not to fall into that trap, but I have not been entirely successful lately while posting on Facebook - not so much in what I post, since there truly hasn't been real outrage for me in those posts, but rather in how I have reacted a few times to respondents who appear outraged and derail the posts completely. I have committed to practice better what I preach - so if all someone wants to do is argue, with no attempt at understanding and respect, please understand if I ignore their comments and/ or simply don't continue to engage. 
Hopefully, that won't happen often; hopefully, we can converse civilly and respectfully. However, if that is not possible, I will try harder to respect everyone by not perpetuating and fostering increased outrage.

Seven Years of Daily Posts Has Come to an End

Since I started this blog in September 2007, I have written over 2200 posts. At first, I wrote fairly long posts every two-three days; for the last seven years, I have written shorter posts every weekday and longer posts many Saturdays.

I knew the time would come when I couldn't continue at that pace, and yesterday was the first weekday in over seven years when I didn't post something. I'm not sure right now how I will move forward with this blog, but I hope to be able at least to keep the schedule I used when I started of at least two posts each week.

I have enjoyed tremendously recording the things of my soul and will continue to do so. I have spent no effort trying to employ any sort of marketing strategies to maximize the traffic here, so I appreciate greatly those who have found this blog, commented on the posts and, in some cases, formally followed my thoughts here. Thank you, sincerely, for your thought and comments over the years. They have meant and continue to mean the world to me.

If my words have helped you in any way, I am humbled by that. All I ask in that case is that you share this site with others who also might be helped in some way. With well over 2000 posts, I think I have written about most topics someone would associate with Mormonism, specifically, and religion, generally.

It has been a joyous daily walk along my individual path of faith, and I have loved walking it with all of you.

See you sometime next week.

Turning the Verbal Cheek: Avoiding Forceful Defense When Not Required

We are wired biologically to attack and defend whenever we perceive threat. Therefore, it's easy ("natural") to fight about things; it's much harder to prove that you have no desire to attack - or defend forcefully. Often, perceived threats are not meant to be threats and only become such because of our reactions to them.  In other words, we often start arguments when none need occur simply by defending what isn't being attacked.  (and this occurs online much more often, because there is no way to see someone as they type and judge the intent of their words based on their body language - and because anonymity breeds aggression that often would not occur in person)

In situations where someone says something with which I disagree (even strongly, but not enough to feel I have to refute what they say), I usually just grin broadly, let my eyes twinkle a bit and say, "I like you WAY too much to fight about this" (sometimes with a hand on the other person's arm or shoulder, depending on the person) - then turn and walk away or start another, safer conversation.

It either calms the person down or makes him even madder - but, in a group setting where everyone hears what I say, it's impossible for the other person to keep arguing without coming across as a total jerk. I hope for the calming response, but if the madder response is unavoidable, so be it. At least the argument ends - or doesn't occur at all.

A Compilation of Posts about How to Mourn with Those Who Mourn

Mourning with Those that Mourn: A How-To - Kyle M (By Common Consent)

Thestrals, Dementers, Boggarts and Crises of Faith

I work in education and have the week between Christmas and New Year as a paid holiday break.  Over the last week, I have re-read the Harry Potter books in my relax time - and a parallel hit me about many people with whom I have spent time online over the last five years.  If you haven't read the books, it might not make as much sense, but here it is:

There are at least two specific instances in the Harry Potter books where suffering is tied to unique abilities - one positive and one negative. 

The first is possessed by those who have been touched directly and profoundly by death (who see people they love killed violently).  They have the ability to see creatures called "thestrals", while those who have not experienced death that closely are unable to see them.  These creatures pull the carriages that the students ride to get to school, so the students who can't see them believe they are being transported by the use of a magic spell.  Those who can't see the thestrals are positive they aren't there, and nothing said by those who can see them can change the minds of those who can't see them.  For those who can't see them, they simply don't exist.  It can be frustrating to those who see the thestrals to realize others don't believe that they exist, and, generally, they give up trying to explain and simply go on knowing that what they see so clearly (their own reality) literally is unknowable to others (isn't part of their reality).

Also, thestrals can fly, and knowing they exist and how to "cope with them" can lead to being able to fly with them - and, in at least two cases, they are instrumental in escape from danger.   

What struck me is that intense grieving often opens "our spiritual eyes" and allows people to see things that were invisible previously - things that those who have not grieved in that way remain unable to see.  I believe this has direct application to faith crises - and the more intense the crisis, the more difficult it can be to explain to those who have not experienced anything similar.  Just like the thestrals that are so obvious to those who can see them, everything about a faith crisis can be "invisible" to those who have not experienced what causes a faith crisis.  Just like with thestrals, it can be frustrating to those who see the thestrals to realize others don't believe what has been seen, and they often give up trying to explain and simply go on knowing that what they see so clearly (their own reality) literally is unknowable to others (isn't part of their reality).

Also, those who are able to navigate faith crises by seeing new and amazing things actually can experience joy and happiness in ways that others simply can't - because those new and amazing things are invisible to the others.

The second is a disability, of sorts, and deals with dementers.  "Demeters" are foul creatures that take away happiness and warmth - ultimately, by destroying the soul (spirit, in Mormon terms) through the "dementer's kiss", while leaving the body alive and functioning in a living Hell.  Those who have experienced extreme grief are more susceptible to dementers, since it is harder for them to let go of their grief and focus on the only thing that drives away the dementers: intensely happy memories that produce a protective force manifested in animal form called a "patronus".  It is instructive that it is not the existence of grief, even incredibly deep grief, that robs the person of the ability to focus on the memories that will fight the dementers; rather, it is the difficulty of focusing away from the grief and concentrating on the joy. 

Likewise, "boggarts" are spectral creatures that take the form of one's worst nightmare - the thing that each person fears the most.  For those who have not experienced deep grief and personal pain, that might be something as "normal" as a huge spider or a scary teacher; for those who have experienced extreme grief and pain, that might something as terrible as a dementer.  The key to fighting boggarts is humor - thinking of something so ridiculous that laughter is inevitable and altering the boggart to include the ridiculous image.  (eg. the scary, male teacher in an old woman's dress and silly hat or the spider on roller skates)

I don't mean to imply the extreme or automatic extension of what I am going to say, especially about online communities, since some of them offer excellent support for people experiencing a faith crisis of some kind, but it struck me hard as an analogy that might provide perspective in a new way:  

One of the problems that many people who experience a faith crisis face is the tendency to focus so much on the "issues" that they end up "wallowing in grief" in one way or another, including the classic manifestation of anger that accompanies feeling like everyone has been lying to them, and being unable to see any humor in their lives or with regard to their situation.  When a tidal wave of such grief washes over someone, it can be very hard to remember, much less focus on, the very real happiness and even joy that was experienced previously or look at their crisis in any way that allows them to laugh - and it can be very easy to minimize that happiness and joy as somehow "false" or "naive".  It also can be easy to turn to sources, especially online, that, in practical terms, are filled with human dementers - people who are dedicated to sucking out the former happiness and joy that existed prior to the faith crisis - and/or see nightmares all around them that they never imagined previously.  The human dementers might see their roles very differently (even as "saving" people), but, again, in practical terms, what often results is people who are left with nothing in which to believe - nothing that replaces the happiness and joy they have lost.

The example of boggarts also can fit the way some members interact with those who are struggling.  Sometimes, the only option when some things are said is to laugh internally and accept that some things that are profound to some people really are absurd to others.  The key is to recognize the personal absurdity of any particular idea and not attach it to the person who believes it, since, to that person, it is not absurd and often is powerful in a real and important way.  

There are two "lessons" I took away from my pondering about this:

1) A faith crisis often can open one's eyes to new things, and those things can be beautiful and fulfilling or dark and terrifying - real or imagined - frightening or laughable.  The difference isn't in the newly seen things themselves but in the way each person reacts to them. 

2) Prolonged immersion in grief and anger leads inexorably toward the dementer's kiss - not because true joy and happiness never existed, but because new happiness and joy cannot be experienced and created.  Intense grief doesn't have to be denied or forgotten; it simply has to be over-ridden by memories of old and new joy and happiness.  The danger of a faith crisis lies not in the grief and suffering it causes; the danger of a faith crisis lies in the forgetting or denial of the joy and happiness that once existed and still can exist - and it lies largely in the tendency to push away real friends who were part of that joy and happiness and replace them with associates who aren't focused on helping create new joy and happiness - who really are focused on deepening grief and separation. 

There are no easy answers in the book or in this post.  Fighting dementers and boggarts is not easy, and someone would be naive and a bit addled to ask for the type of experience that allows thestrals to be seen.  I don't have canned advice in this post.  All I have is an analogy that I hope touches someone in some way - that perhaps can lead to the type of individual pondering that I experienced and some kind of personal insight that will help.

I Now am Writing "with Real Intent"

I just want to let everyone know of a new group blog where I have been asked to write as a contributing author.  It is called "with Real Intent", and I have enjoyed the thoughts of many of the other authors on their own blogs and in their comments here and elsewhere for some time now. 

I comment regularly at sites I enjoy and still read others where I no longer comment, and I am an admin at a site for members who are struggling with crises of faith for various reasons, but I agreed to participate actively at "with Real Intent" in order to be able to write posts from a traditionally "faithful" perspective for people with all kinds of personal views and beliefs.  I hope to be abe to contribute something on a regular basis, even as my overall blogging time has been reduced in the last year due to my new job responsibilities. 

I hope everyone who reads my blog regularly will check it out and see what you think.  I'd love any feedback you want to give. 

Creating Joy

I came across the following post I wrote a few years ago and felt like I should re-post it today.  I hope it helps someone, somehow: 
------------------------------------------
One of the reasons I loved my mission so much was that both of my Mission Presidents emphasized what I already believed about the purpose of a mission – both what it means to be a missionary and how that should direct missionary effort.

The foundation: I have believed a basic concept for as long as I can remember thinking about it. I have believed it from a very early age – even before I remember hearing anyone else articulate it. I finally found the perfect, concise expression of it in the following expression: "People do not believe what they see; they see what they believe."

The missionary application: I approached my mission as an attempt to find people who would accept our version of the Gospel when they heard it (who could catch a glimpse of the vision when it was presented to them) – or, I should say, who would not reject it when they began to hear it and refuse the chance to begin to see it. It wasn't my job to try to convince them intellectually, but rather to touch them spiritually.

Some people I met said, upon hearing various things we believe, "That's crazy. You're nuts. Mormonism really is a cult if you can believe that stuff." Some said, "Say what? Whatever. I just don't get it." Others said, "I don't get it, but I’d like to hear more." Finally, a few said, "That's exactly what I've always thought/felt!" Given what little time I had, my job wasn't to convince the first two groups, but rather to find and encourage the latter two groups – to help them feel the motivating influence of the Holy Ghost. That perspective led me to say, in essence, to everyone, "Follow what you feel – not what you think about it at first. Try it; you'll like it." If someone responded with strong negativity, my response basically was, "OK. I'll find someone else." They almost always spent more time and energy trying to convince me that I was wrong than I did trying to "convert" them. I was looking for a particular type of person - someone who was looking, first and foremost, for joy – either joy they lacked or more joy than they felt at the time. As I had experienced myself, once they found a core Gospel perspective that produced the joy they were seeking, they were able to wrap their minds around the theological and doctrinal details – the other “intellectual” stuff.

The choice: I believe you can tell more about people (both inside and outside the Church) by how they deal with the joy others find outside their own organization (or with differing perspectives that bring joy inside their own organization) than perhaps by any other criterion. One type of person lacks internal joy, constantly finds fault with the joy of others and actively seeks to undercut that joy; another type is secure in his joy and not interested in the differing joy of others; the final type accepts and embraces the idea that others have their own degree of joy - and tries to add to it (and, through it, add to their own joy) whenever possible. I don’t want to argue with the healthy and happy; I want to learn from them. I want to spend just as much of my time administering joy to the sick and searching.

The blogging observation: When I entered the world of blogging, I was struck immediately by two competing forms of discussion: the vast majority of those who participate in the blogs I frequent are sincerely searching for greater understanding and increased joy. Some of them, however, seem to be stuck in a cycle of trying to understand something intellectually before they can accept it spiritually. They seem to be saying, "I will accept this once I can understand it," rather than, "This brings me joy, so I will accept it and do my best to understand it - even if that means my understanding changes periodically, or regularly, or constantly over a long period of time." They say, "My heart wants to accept this, but my mind keeps me from accepting it," rather than, "My heart accepts this, so I will exercise my mind diligently to try to understand what I have accepted - knowing that that process might not end completely in this life, but I will continue to accept it regardless, because it brings me joy."

The personal observation: I am joyful because I have chosen an outlook that brings me joy; I am at peace because I made the conscious choice from among many options. This peace and joy are not primarily intellectual. I still must exercise my mind constantly in order to understand and reconcile the issues with which I am faced daily, and I love to read the nuanced, intelligent and insightful perspectives of others, but I do so from the foundation of belief. I hear someone (anyone - inside or outside the Church) say something, and my first thought is not, “I don’t get it; it must be wrong,” but rather “How can I understand this in a way that is consistent with my understanding of the Gospel – in a way that will add to my joy?” In all seriousness, that approach has not let me down yet - particularly since I am willing to suspend disbelief when I'm not getting anywhere and revisit the issue when my mind has had time to rest and recuperate. Sometimes, what I consider to be a "full" understanding (meaning as close as I believe I will ever get to knowing fully) has taken years to achieve, and there are some questions that still sit on a shelf untouched for a time while I refine my understanding of others. I'm fine with that.

The question: Why is this? The answer: I know I am able to construct just about any intellectual justification I desire that will warrant just about any theological / philosophical / doctrinal construct I choose to accept. Given my ability to adapt a solid intellectual argument for whatever I desire to believe, I exercise my agency by focusing on what I desire to believe – what my heart and soul tells me it wants to believe - what brings me joy. I consider the options and make my choice. Again, since my brain is capable of justifying whatever choice I make, I pick my course (what kind of life I want to live), then I construct / adopt / assimilate the perspective that I feel will lead best to the end of that course.

The result: The only intellectual restriction I place on my mind is that whatever I devise must be consistent with the over-arching and under-pinning principles I hold central to my understanding of joy - in my terminology, the core principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as I understand them. I have been accused of engaging in mental gymnastics, but I believe life is, in very real and powerful ways, an obstacle course. I believe everyone plays within their own gymnasium or on their own steeple chase course (jumps through their own intellectual hurdles - or stops and refuses to surmount them) in ways that look odd to others whose conclusions are different. I understand completely the concerns others express, but the joy I feel now is my own soul's condition – what my heart/spirit has directed my mind/body to accept. I no longer feel joy; I have it - and it has me.

On Thanksgiving Weekend

Although my wife and I are not richly blessed in material things, we are richly blessed.  We have enough to live; we have children we love and who love us; we have a religious foundation that gives us peace and great joy; we have friends and extended family who are a blessing in our lives; the list goes on and on. 

One thing for which I am grateful that applies directly to this forum is my discovery of blogging five years ago.  I dove in headfirst to the world of the "Bloggernacle" (the online Mormon group blogging community), and I started writing this blog in 2006.  At first, I posted sporadically, then weekly, then three times per week, and now daily (except Sundays).  I commented on lots of blogs, very frequently (lol), before focusing on writing this blog. 

All of that leads me to express my gratitude for all of you who read this blog.  As I said recently, I don't publicize it actively (since that's not the main reason I write it), but I am thankful that there are people who read it regularly and whom an occasional post seems to help.  I truly do appreciate the comments and responses I get - even almost all of those with which I disagree.  I appreciate the civil tone that prevails in those comments, and I appreciate the opportunity to make new friends I otherwise would not have the wonderful fortune to know in any traditional way. 

So, on this Thanksgiving weekend, I say simply:

Thank you!  You have enriched my life and that of my wife, and I am grateful for you. 

To Persecute Others Less

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to persecute others less - taken from Alma 5:54, which says:

Yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the holy order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this church . . .

My overall resolution goes beyond the parameters of this verse a bit, since this verse focuses on those who persecute faithful members of a religion or denomination, but for this first post I want to focus more narrowly on the actual message in the verse - and examine if I do, in fact, "persecute" the humble who walk righteously before God.  It's a sobering subject, and it's one that I initially brushed aside without much thought - but as I was thinking of how to begin my contemplation and efforts this month I was struck by the thought that, perhaps, the actual question in the verse itself might apply in some way to me, as well. 

I certainly don't intend to persecute anyone, much less those who are humble and share my general beliefs - who have "been brought into this church".  I generally am quite tolerant and accepting, so it has taken some serious introspection to realize areas where I do, in deed, "persecute" fellow church members. 

In my case, it isn't so much an active, stereotypical persecution that concerns me about myself.  There are two primary definitions of the word "persecute" - and I have little or no inclination to inflict the first one, which is:

to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

That simply is not in my nature, but as I read the second definition, I was struck by a thought I'm not sure I had considered in quite that way before beginning to think about this month's resolution.  That second definition is: 

to annoy or trouble persistently.  

As those who regularly read my blog (or my comments around the Bloggernacle) know, I am heterodox in some of my beliefs.  I believe deeply and passionately in the Restored Gospel taught in the LDS Church, but there are many areas and topics about which my personal views are quite different than many other members.  I am a "thinker tinkerer" by nature, so I spend perhaps an inordinate amount of time considering multiple possible interpretations of almost everything I believe.  I also am not exactly shy about sharing those views with others - although I do try to be aware of others' sensibilities and not push any particular interpretation on those inside the Church who see things differently than I do.  

What struck me this week as I thought of the idea of persecuting fellow believers is that sometimes I am prone to phrase things (verbal statements and written comments) in somewhat forceful ways - and I know that sometimes this general tone leads others to feel criticized in some way and, perhaps, even attacked occasionally.  I rarely mean to come across this way, but it struck me that if I am aware of this tendency and fail to be even more careful than I am inclined naturally to be, I am, in a sense, allowing myself to "persecute" those with whom I disagree.  At worst, I am "annoying and troubling persistently" other LDS members (especially when I continue to read and comment at sites where I know my views will be annoying to the author); at best, I still am allowing others to feel persecuted - and, in practical terms, sometimes perception truly is reality.  

So, my first focus this month will be to take even more care in how I write here and how I comment in other arenas - both online and in person - to try even harder to ensure that I do not "annoy or trouble persistently" those within the LDS Church whose views are different than mine.  I can't stop sharing what I believe, but I can strive to word what I share as charitably and non-annoyingly as possible.

Advocating Extremes Is Easy; Real Life in the Middle Is Hard - but Worthwhile

I'm old enough to have "shifted" substantially on various issues over time. Much of the perception of my beliefs in the Bloggernacle is based on the fact that I don't like inconsistency and one-sided arguments - so I end up addressing comments that exhibit those traits. Those comments tend to be the most extreme on both sides. That means I end up on predominantly liberal sites being called too conservative, while I end up on predominantly conservative sites being called too liberal - all because I tend to believe the best solutions lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes in most cases. 

Frankly, and as bluntly as I can say this while still grinning from ear to ear, I have found that my current path is MUCH harder to walk and requires a complete lack of complacency - while advocating most extremes is incredibly easy. It's very difficult and taxing to read every single comment in a post before commenting, try to read very carefully every word everyone says, remember the gist and general content of every comment, go back and re-read former comments prior to responding to make sure I don't misinterpret, consider each word in a comment to which I respond and what it might mean, look for any ways to read others' comments charitably (seeing, for example, where a particular word used probably, based on overall context, means what a different word would have conveyed better), contemplate the best way to structure a response, re-read each response I construct, edit it at least once before submitting it, etc. Honestly, I go through that process almost every time I comment (and regret it almost every time I don't), and there is no complacency involved in it.  

I try to tackle every issue of every topic that same way - reading each and every comment for insight into how it can influence my own view of the topic. This approach has molded my view on many issues over the years, and those views have changed and continue to change. It's just that I tend to respond in public settings to the comments that are the most extreme (on both sides of whatever the issue is being discussed), so my comments on group blogs generally are more in response to others than passionate statements of my own beliefs. As I have spent more time in the Bloggernacle, I have written those (passionate statements of my own beliefs) in group settings more often, but they are nowhere near the majority of my comments. 

I expect others to be more passionate about some topics than I will be. It is more personal to them than to me, and it hits them much harder than it hits me. If that means I appear to be more “complacent” about those particular topics than some others are, perhaps that is a fair statement. It just doesn’t mean I am a complacent person. What it means is that I am trying my best to walk my own path in the way that is most consistent with the dictates of my own conscience - and, while that approach is harder than advocating extremes, it is MUCH more worthwhile, in my opinion. 

Topical Trolls

Just a general comment for everyone, to be ignored, I'm sure, by most:

Some people are very passionate about certain topics. It might be gay marriage, or abortion, or feminism, or children - or something totally combustible like homeschooling. Whenever that particular topic is discussed in the Bloggernacle, these people come out of the woodwork and comment on blogs they don't give a large rodent's hairy hindquarters about on a daily basis. They don't participate regularly, so they don't know everyone who does - so their diatribes are based solely on assumptions about regulars.

My unrequested advice:

Understand that these people are topic-shoppers, so don't take their comments personally. They believe what they believe, and they don't comment on any other threads. Let them launch their broadsides; let them not even try to understand you; let them live in their own world - and don't begrudge them their passion, whether or not you agree.

They probably aren't trolls in real life - only when it comes to their particular passion. They don't participate to become part of a community; they swing their swords in defense of truth and right - and they do so from both sides of each issue. Understand their topical trollishness, and just endure to the end. This too shall pass.

End of sermon - Stepping down from the pulpit.

Holiday Season Hiatus

My family and I are visiting family out-of-state, so I am taking a hiatus from blogging here until the new year. I will post my 2011 New Year's Resolution on . . . you guessed it . . . New Year's Day.  The regular daily posts will begin again on Monday, January 3rd.

I will try to handle the withdrawal symptoms properly and not give in to the urge to write from now until I write the New Year's post.  (*grin*)

May the next few days be blessed days for all of you - and may we all grow closer to our Heavenly parents this upcoming year than we are on this date.

God bless all of you.  You have enriched my life immeasurably.

A Few Reflections on My Participation in the Bloggernacle

1) What is the most important thing/lesson you have learned from your participation in the Bloggernacle?

That my wicked sense of humor doesn't translate very well sometimes in print. Seriously, I almost blew it when I first started blogging in the 'Nacle. I jumped into some banter going on over at BCC among people who knew each other from years of blogging and started to throw my own humorous barbs into the mix. Problem was, nobody knew me - so I ended up offending a few people who couldn't see my smile. I also didn't realize how some of my comments came across, and I am grateful to Steve Evans for pointing it out to me. It changed the way that I express my humor - and helped me begin to eliminate sarcasm from much of my non-blogging communications, as well.

2) On the whole, has it been a positive or a negative experience for your spirituality?

I'm not sure it has had a direct impact on me spiritually, but it certainly has brought friendships that I cherish. It also has brought fascinating insights from multiple perspectives, and I also cherish that. It has not hurt me spiritually; that's for sure.

3) How has your involvement altered, if it has, your view of Mormonism and other Mormons?

It hasn't altered my view, but it has broadened my understanding - and that's a wonderful thing to me.

Obviously, given how much I have commented around the Bloggernacle since I began, I must enjoy it. *grin* I have had to cut back a bit on my commenting in the past couple of years, for a number of reasons, but I do it because I love the people I have met and the discussions we have.

The Golden Rule of Blogging

“Say unto others as you would have them say unto you.”

(I know someone said something like that sometime ago.)

Seriously, I fail occasionally to follow this rule and end up responding too quickly on blogs, but I have a rule to re-read what I have written prior to submitting it and make sure I wouldn't get ticked off if it was being said to me. I nearly always regret it when I don't follow the rule, even in situations where the conversation is flowing so quickly that waiting to re-read and edit causes my comment to appear a bit disjointed when it posts. Hurrying just isn't worth the mistakes I make when I do - both in wording and in tone.

When it becomes a true habit, it happens even with posts like this one - where I know there isn't anything hurtful in what I am typing. I have read this post more than once as I've edited each paragraph. It works for me - when I remember to do it. When I don't, I often end up saying something that doesn't need to be said.

Being a Father Got in the Way of Blogging Last Night and Today

Taking my oldest three daughters back to our former stake so they could spend a week with friends put me on the road from 6:00PM-2:00AM yesterday - then again from 5:30AM-1:20PM today getting back home for my assignment tomorrow.

Fatigue and soreness preventing me from thinking and writing more right now.

Sorry, no resolutions post this week. New resolution next month.

Priorities, I know. I'll get them straightened out again. LOL

Increased Compassion in Our Conversations

I was blessed to be raised with a mother who never once raised her voice to anyone - not in anger and not in any other way. I can say honestly that I have never heard her condemn anyone. When we did something we shouldn’t have done, she would automatically tear up because of what she feared our actions, if continued, would do to us. Those tears were worse BY FAR than anything my dad did to punish us, but it was not transmitted through a sense of guilt. It came across obviously and strongly as a deep and abiding love for us and concern for who we would become. She simply was (and is) a gentle soul - a "sweet spirit" in the purest sense of that phrase. My dad used to say that if we came home and found everything gone, stolen by someone, my mom would say, “They must need it more than we do" - sincerely and reflexively.

I have a deep and abiding desire for respectful conversation and mutual understanding explicitly because of what I saw my mother live. She was loved, truly and deeply, by everyone who met her, and I wish I was like that more fully.

Elder Wirthlin’s words about accepting all within the orchestra (not just the piccolos) resonated with me largely because of my upbringing, but my experience since beginning to blog also made his words ring clearly to me. I have seen so much contention and bickering and vitriol even among the Saints, and it pains my soul - especially when I know what it does to people.

I don’t ask for compassion in commentary simply because of what it does to a conversation; I ask for it also because of what it can do within those who comment.

With Sharpness vs. Sharply

Too many people misunderstand "reproving betimes with sharpness". "Sharpness"- as used in this context - does NOT mean "with raised voice" or "harshly" or anything like unto it. It means "with precision" or "directly on point" - like the difference between operating with a scalpel or with a steak knife. If means getting right to the heart of the issue and not letting other things or issues get in the way. When you add "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" qualifier, I believe that very little of our mutual conversation actually fits this verse.

Too much internet conversation - devoid of direct and visual observation and feedback - includes reproving not with sharpness but merely reproving sharply when not moved upon by the Holy Ghost. That is what we need to fight - the natural (wo)man tendency to let our emotions influence how we speak with each other and allow those emotions to puch things past the line where civility resides.

Disagreeing Without Contention

I find the following is something I need to remember constantly:

When emotion rules, things get dicey. I have trained myself over the years to overcome much of my natural inclination to argue in a way that attempts to win, but I still find myself doing so occasionally when I’m not careful. On group blogs (and in general), I have found that the faster I respond, the more likely I am to begin contending in a way that is described in the scriptures as "of the devil". (3 Nephi 11:29) I have said some pretty hard-edged things occasionally, and sometimes I should not have done so, but generally I have tried to do so carefully and thoughtfully and slowly - to do so without the heat of emotion that stokes the fire of contention. I force myself to employ a deep breathing technique and to re-read and edit what I type prior to submitting it when I am particularly passionate about an issue.

On the other hand, disagreement, in and of itself, is NOT contention - and I believe that is the biggest misconstruing of the scriptural concept that "contention is of the devil" within the Church. Also, sometimes we must "contend" if our core values and principles truly are being attacked. It is the discernment necessary to distinguish between honest and basic differences, unintentional attacks, intentional attacks, etc. that is difficult to have and maintain.

Summary: If you or someone else or both are listening to each other, sharing honestly and learning from a conversation, there is no contention - regardless of whether or not you agree. If those conditions are not being met - if you essentially are talking past each other, then contention is present. I don’t always succeed, but I try to remove myself from that type of discussion as soon as I recognize that I (and/or the other participant) am not gaining anything new out of it.

The Difficulty of Responding When Wearied

In working with people with whom we disagree and who disagree with us, I believe everything can be worked through in patience and understanding as long as no axe is actively being ground in the process - i.e., as long as nobody is going into the discussion with the intent to tear down or belittle someone else. I truly enjoy discussions that include fundamental differences of opinion - where many different perspectives are included, since I learn so much from viewpoints I wouldn't consider on my own. However, I don't enjoy attacks and broadsides, since (as a Mormon) I've dealt with them for decades. I sometimes react forcefully to that type of comment, simply because I have heard every possible permutation for too long to worry about counting. They weary me, and I sometimes forget how "new" they are to others.

I don't want anyone to muzzle himself or hold back her honest feelings in blog posts out of a fear of offending. As long as the statement is honest and expressed in a non-hyperbolic and non-ridiculing manner, I want to hear it. If the statement is disingenuous or "twisted" or obviously inflammatory, I don't. The key, I believe, is trying even harder to make sure responses are calm and measured - especially when we are "wearied".

A Rare Sunday Post: Announcing the (Belated) Niblet Awards for 2008

The opportunity to honor unique and talented Mormon bloggers was sorely missed this year. So your friends at MORMON MATTERS decided to give you a chance to look back on 2008 and remember the great things that happened in the Bloggernacle.

Mormon Matters will be hosting this event to highlight your favorite 2008 Mormon blogs and posts, and we'll be back again in 2009 to do the same. We are pleased to announce our collaboration with Ziff of Zelophehad's Daughters, the mighty numbers cruncher, who will handle results presentation at the end of this event.

We'd love to have your help in publicizing this event! Please announce it on your blog, facebook, message boards, or other sites!!

The following are the Niblets categories for 2008. You can make nominations by going to http://mormonmatters.org after Sunday, June 27.

Best big blog:
Best group blog:
Best solo blog:
Best new blog: (must have put up its first post in 2008)
Best blog layout/graphics:
Best commenter:
Most memorable comment: (please include link)
Best overall blogger:
Best humorous post: (please include link)
Best historical post: (please include link)
Best spiritual post: (please include link)
Best doctrinal post: (please include link)
Best current events post: (please include link)
Most blatant example of navel-gazing: (please include link)
Best contribution to the Bloggernacle in 2008:
Write-in category:

Thank you for your participation!