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.

Feeding Individuals and a Community Isn't Easy

My family has a history of physical issues that make it hard for us to eat meat without choking - unless we are very careful to chew it extremely well before swallowing. I haven't had that exact issue, but one of my little brothers almost died of choking on a relatively small piece of meat, and I have an aunt who choked to death at the dinner table. Thus, discussions of teaching meat vs. milk at church mean something different to me than to many members. 

I share that only to emphasize that every person has unique dietary needs and issues of some sort - some that are critical to health and continued life and some that deal only with taste and preference. For that reason, I am wary of describing anything as universally "milk" or "meat" - or insisting that "The Church" teach or not teach something specifically because it constitutes milk or meat to me or to someone else.

I believe strongly that we should be engaged in "meatier" conversations and classes as adults of God, but I also realize that there are many physical adults who still are children of God spiritually - and that, to some degree, that is true of all of us. Thus, I throw out really small portions of "meat" in most group settings carefully to see if it is digestible before putting a larger chunk on the communal platter - and I often "chew on" the meat I put out there by taking a moment to frame it honestly but carefully as something a friend once said - or something I've thought about over the years - or something an apostle once said - or some other phrasing that makes it less likely to cause someone to choke.

Finally, I stopped expecting or requiring "The Church" to feed me a long time ago and shouldered that responsibility myself. Seriously, I wasn't getting "fed" at church with what I needed for my own growth before I left Primary - so I've been feeding myself for a long, long time. I still get a really good meal quite frequently at church, in one form or another, but it usually is dessert to me - not the main course.

Sometimes, the Presentation and Attitude Are More Important than the Words

I had an interesting experience in Sacrament Meeting a few years ago, and I have thought about it off and on ever since: 

The first speaker talked about repentance - and, as strongly as feel about how we tend to present only a small, simplistic view of repentance in the Church, I ended up enjoying the talk, mostly. The speaker had a good sense of humor, was self-deprecating and used personal experiences of when he'd screwed up to illustrate his points. "Doctrinally" I had a few issues that could have been bigger - but his approach and attitude overcame those issues.

The second speaker (the High Councilor) talked about the Law of Chastity - and my experience with the first talk was magnified throughout the second talk. There were more aspects for me over which I could have taken issue (and those issues were deeper for me), but, in the end, I was impressed by something that hit me hard - and I mean really, truly HARD:

He obviously was sincere - and trying his best to be compassionate, understanding and empathetic. His delivery method and attitude were humble, even as probably 2/3 of his talk was content I never would have chosen for a talk about that topic - and 1/2 of that content I couldn't have said over the pulpit if I'd tried (like some of his description of pornographic imagery - even not in explicit terms - since I believe that only brings such images into the minds of those who need help the most without actually helping them in any way).

I didn't know either speaker - had never talked at length with either of them. All I had was their words and their presentation of those words - and, in the end, what I FELT about them as I listened outweighed what they actually said. I felt like they were good, sincere people doing the best they could to help others - so the fact that I believed that some of what they said wasn't helpful in the slightest and, in a few cases, actually incorrect, didn't mean as much as that impression. I cut them slack because of what I felt, when I would have been more critical if I had felt differently about them.

It's true that often we overlook things people say if we love them - so I try to learn to love people who see and say things differently than I do. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Practical Ways to Strengthen Marriage and Family

We focused today on practical things that we can do to strengthen marriage and family in our own lives. Most of the kids in my class have two parents at home, and today all of the ones in attendance have traditional families, so I structured the lesson around a series of reflective questions and input from the students. Also, the Sunday School President attended the class, as did my wife. (She was called today to teach the younger class and wasn't prepared with a lesson, so we combined the two classes.)

I asked each question, gave them about a minute to think about it, and got their answers - talking about each one, if further discussion seemed appropriate. The following are the questions and the answers that were given:

1) What do your parents do to strengthen their marriage?

They help each other with the small tasks around the house.
They communicate with each other / talk about everything before making big decisions.
They work things out without arguing with each other.
They look for things to do together.
They still do silly, romantic things - like dancing in the kitchen while the food is cooking.
They go on regular dates.
They talk nicely to each other.
My dad made it clear he loves us but loves my mom more - that she is his top priority and he won't let us disrespect her.

2) What do your parents do to strengthen your family?

They make sure we read the scriptures as a family at least a couple of times each week and have family prayers most nights. (I loved the focus on regularly when "daily" just didn't work, especially since these parents are ward leaders and would be classified as traditional members by pretty much everyone who knows them.)
They try their best to put up with the kids.
They make sure we eat dinner together, even though my dad works 12 hour days.
They do fun family activities, including my favorite: rides after church on Sunday.
They had fun Family Home Evenings, including things like basketball in the backyard, tag, hikes, etc.
My mom helps everyone. She takes us to all of our activities and volunteers to help others, also - even though that leaves her little time for herself.
They spend as much time together as possible and work hard to have good relationships with us.
They show appreciation for us and compliment us more than they criticize us.

3) What sacrifices have your parents made to help their marriages and their families?

My dad took care of me when I was little and my mom was bedridden with her degenerative disease.
My mom got a job to help support our family, even though she wanted to stay home with us.
My dad started a new job during the day while trying to keep his business open. He would spend hours with us each evening, then, when we would go to bed, he would spend hours each night trying to save his business. We didn't know what he was doing until after his business closed, since he didn't want us to feel bad about the time he spent with us.
My mom gets stressed out easily. She tried to take medication for it, but it made her feel like a zombie, and she couldn't help us while she was on it. She gave up the medication and is trying to find other ways to cope with her stress, even though it's really hard on her. She told us she would rather struggle to be part of our lives than not struggle and not be part of our lives.

I used the responses to that question to reiterate again how we tend to talk about an ideal when we talk about marriage, but I pointed out (by asking the questions directly) that all of them know single, adult members of the ward - and divorced or widowed members of the ward - or members who are married to non-members and attend church without a spouse - etc. I told them that what we were talking about is important no matter what their individual adult lives end up being like - that it's much like in October when we will talk about "Becoming More Christlike".

I finished with one last question, and I told them I would NOT ask for their answers. I told them that it was something to consider now but also over time - and that it might be one thing or twenty-seven things or any number of things. I first reiterated the core definition of "repent" (which they all know by now is simply "change") and told them that this is a great example of a way to approach proactive repentance (making changes NOT because of mistakes / sins of the past but in order to grow moving forward).

4) What do you need to change about yourself in order to be a better husband / wife or mother / father when you are ready to get married and have a family of your own?

Finally, I told them not to try to find "the perfect spouse". I told them, for example, that the apostles and their wives weren't apostles and apostles' wives when they met, fell in love and got married. I told them if they are with someone who makes them feel worse about themselves when they are together to run away from that person and find someone who makes them feel better about themselves when they are together. I told them to find someone who will make them the top priority - who will be willing to sacrifice in some way to support them and to keep a strong marriage.

We Can't Preach the Gospel in Antagonistic Ways and Truly Love Others

We have two competing commandments - or at least it appears that way on the surface. 

The greatest one is, “Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Love one another,” or any number of ways to phrase it. The other one is, “Preach the Gospel.” Christ said that the world would hate those who represent him, but he didn’t say that meant we should preach in such a way as to alienate automatically by our own words and actions. He generally didn’t do that (except when condemning hypocrites and the Pharisees, primarily), and neither should we. 

We can fulfill the command to preach the Gospel as well as the command to love others, but we can't do both if we approach preaching with an antagonistic spirit.  In that light, I believe strongly that we need to stop framing so much of our discourse in battle terms - us vs. others, generally, and, more specifically, us vs. "the world".  We need to stop blaming others for issues for which they are not responsible (like, for example, blaming the homosexual population for the deterioration of traditional marriage, which is the fault of the heterosexual population). 

We need to preach what we believe (including real repentance), but we need to do so from a position of love - and we can't say we "love the sinner" while using language that is not conducive to love (or in language that, as Pres. Uchtdorf said, essentially judges others for sinning differently than we do).  We can't preach repentance exclusively to others, particularly in detail; we need to preach the Gospel (including the correct principle of repentance) to ALL, including and especially to ourselves. 

At the most basic level, it's not us vs. them; rather, it's me vs. me - and us WITH them.  We can work to build up the kingdom of God on Earth, but it won't happen (won't really be the kingdom of God) if we aren't working in such a way that we simultaneously are establishing Zion - and Zion is based on a foundation of real charity. 

Discretion Is the Better Part of Just about Anything

Discretion is the better part of just about anything. It's important to recognize and acknowledge that.

I can't say everything I might want to say in any group with whom I associate. I weigh my words all the time, both to consider their effect on me and to be careful of their effect on those who hear them. I try not to be misunderstood, even if I'm not fully understood. I don't succeed all the time in that effort, but I try. 

That's just part of life. Anything else is selfishness and lack of charity.

It's easy to forget that and think that church life is or should be different - that it should be a place where we can forget discretion and just say whatever we think and believe without filters of any kind. It's not that way, and it can't be - since it's a gathering of people who are just as short-sighted and weak as I am.

I'm not looking to carve out any "otherness" in the Church for any group of people. I'm looking to be a Papa D Mormon - for John Doe to be a John Doe Mormon - for Whomever to be a Whomever Mormon, etc. That's all, but it's vitally important to me - and discretion is the better part of that - just as it is for our apostles and local leaders, I would add.

I think leaders really do try to accomplish that (use discretion) well over 90% of the time. Even in cases like I've described here in some threads, with decisions and actions that left me scratching my head in bewilderment and caused some people real pain, most of the time the leaders involved really are trying to do the best they can.

They're human. Life is pain, because we humans inflict pain - because even our best efforts are undertaken as we see through a glass, darkly.

That's all I'm saying - that, given our collective humanity, discretion is the better part of everything we do, in all situations, among the people in all of our associations. I can't control them; I try to control me, to the best of my ability; I hope that I will not be held to a higher standard than I can reach, so I try my hardest not to hold others to a higher standard than they can reach.

That's easy when I like the others and they aren't hurting me and others in any significant way; it's not so easy when I don't like the others and/or they are hurting me and others in real, significant ways. Sometimes, I need to bite my tongue; sometimes I need to speak out; always I need to exercise discretion and think before I act - including before I speak.

We Can Learn from People Whom We Naturally Think Can't Teach Us Anything

Throughout my life, I have found the most profound insights often come from people from whom I naturally would not expect to be able to learn anything – and they have come almost always when I am in the right frame of mind to listen carefully to what someone is trying to say and not get so caught up in crafting a response that I forget to listen to everything they say prior to reaching a conclusion about what I assume they are going to say. In other words, these insights come when I am more focused on understanding than arguing or being understood. 

For example, I have had experiences of not liking what someone has said in General Conference and then, when I read the talks afterward, realizing they really didn’t say what I thought while listening to the talks live. In nearly all cases, the disconnect was my focusing so intently on one statement that I failed to hear the surrounding statements or consider context enough to realize that I had misconstrued the original statement and turned it into something other than what had been intended. That same experience has occurred in conversations with fellow members, with talks they give in Sacrament Meeting, with co-workers, with my wife and children, while reading blog posts and comments, etc – and it generally is because I was thinking of a response before they were done talking or before I was done reading.

If it happens with people from whom I want to learn, I know it happens even more frequently with people from whom I am not as inclined naturally to want to learn.

I have learned over the years to try to listen to everyone (their voice, in person, and their words, in a forum like this) with the primary purpose of learning from them rather than arguing with them - and, while I am not yet perfect at it, the result has been amazing to me. I truly have been able to learn from people from whom I didn't expect to learn anything.

Talking about Sex

I wish we could be much more open and aware of sensibilities in the way that we talk about sexuality and sexual activity, and I don't mean that only about within the LDS Church. It's widespread throughout humanity to lean toward one extreme or the other, unfortunately.

I have been disappointed in how little some people can deal with discussing sex, but I also have been disappointed in how much others want to talk about it - and I've been disappointed by how both types of people often talk about it. (Of course, if you insert "religion" or "politics" into that sentence, it's totally accurate, as well - so it's not just about sex.)
 
If we were less squeamish about topics - or less prone to judge and argue, we could understand ourselves and others so much more easily.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Covenants and Ordinances - Nature and Meaning

I began the lesson last Sunday by asking the students to define the words "ordinance" and "covenant".  We talked briefly about the fact that each word has application outside religion ("ordinance" as "law" [like city ordinances] and "covenant" as "contract" [like a rental agreement between landlord and renter]), but we then turned specifically to definitions within the realm of religion.  The definitions upon which we settled were:

ordinance: "a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant"

covenant: "a spiritual promise between God and humanity in which God sets the terms and we accept those terms, with a reward or benefit associated with faithful adherence to the terms of the covenant" (much like the rental agreement, where a landlord promises to allow habitation as long as we pay the established rent - understanding that we don't get to decide how much the rent is or pick any house we want regardless of the amount of rent we are willing to pay)  

We read the section on "covenant" in the Bible Dictionary, and we talked about the sentence that says "covenant" sometimes is translated as "testament".  I referred to the Bible itself and asked, based on that sentence, what the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" might mean.  The students immediately realized that those terms could draw a distinction between an old covenant (the terms of being God's chosen people before the birth of Jesus) and a new covenant (the terms of being God's chosen people after the birth of Jesus). 

We talked in detail about the change from circumcision to baptism as the "ordinance" (the symbolic representation) of a people's relationship to God.  I mentioned that circumcision had and still has practical health benefits, but the ancient Israelites were able to imbue it with spiritual, symbolic meaning, as well.  I mentioned that it is so widespread and common now as nothing more than a medical procedure within multiple non-religious cultures that it has lost its religious meaning entirely for most people.  Thus, we have no problem replacing it with a different ordinance (symbolic representation) that makes sense for us.  We talked about the specific covenants and symbolism of immersion and why we immerse instead of sprinkling or eliminating baptism entirely - and I pointed out that some Christians sprinkle or don't require any form of baptism specifically because they don't accept and/or understand the symbolism that we accept and understand.  They don't necessarily reject the covenant; what they reject is the symbolic representation of that covenant. 

I mentioned the fairly recent change in how the initiatory (washing and anointing) is administered in the temple.  I explained how it is done now (much like a standard Priesthood blessing in form) and how it used to be done (by touching various areas while pronouncing the blessings).  I asked them if they could think of any reason why such a change would be made, and one of the students mentioned how hyper-sensitive many people now are about "inappropriate touching".  I mentioned how we are much more aware of physical abuse than we used to be and how many people, especially women, have been abused in such a way that they are traumatized to some degree by how the initiatory used to occur - even though there was nothing that I would deem to be close to objectively inappropriate and even though the ordinances is performed by women for women.  Given how our culture has changed, we needed to make sure the way we represent that particular covenant continued to convey the intended symbolism - so some of the ordinance form was modified.  (I mentioned that changes in temple ordinances and ceremonies can be hard for people who see everything in the temple literally as having come straight from God's mouth to the temple, but I told them it's no big deal if the symbolism - and the reason for symbolic representation - is understood.) 

I then had the students list ordinances that exist within the LDS Church, and we listed the covenants represented or symbolized by each ordinance.  The list they created, along with the associated covenants, was:

1) Sacrament (renewal of baptismal covenants) 

2) Baptism (becoming Christ's children, with all of the associated details of that covenant)

3) Sealing of marriage (eternal companionship and "increase")

4) Endowment (return to and becoming like God)

5) Gift of the Holy Ghost (constant companionship of the Holy Ghost)

6) Priesthood Blessings (pretty much anything given through revelation through the blessing)

7) Washing & Anointing (cleansing and specific blessings associated with physical health and enlightenment)

(We stopped there, just to make sure we had time to discuss each of them.) 

I then asked the students which part or aspect of the ordinances was the most important.  They didn't understand what I was asking at first, so I took them back to the definition on the board ("a physical action that represents / symbolizes a covenant"), told them to read it looking for its "parts" and asked the question again.  They agreed that the covenant being represented or symbolized is the most important part. 

I used baptism as an example.  I told them that I was going to say this very carefully, because I didn't want to detract in any way from the sacred nature of baptism, but that I would have no problem with baptism being replaced by dressing up a cow in ceremonial garb and enacting a play about being cleansed and becoming God's children - IF such a symbolic representation was powerful and meaningful in a particular culture.  We talked about why we use baptism (because that is what Jesus did and because it works for us as a symbol for being "born again" and "spiritually resurrected").  If, like the washing and anointing, it needed to change somehow to continue to convey that symbolism, I would be fine with it. 

Next week, we are going to talk about the covenants we accept in the temple. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Balancing Two Lines of Communication

[Warning: This lesson summary is LONG.]

Today, we went through Elder Oaks' talk from General Conference in 2010 titled, "Two Lines of Communication".

For this summary, I'm going to highlight sentences from the talk that we discussed as we read the talk:

"We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance . . . All should understand and be guided by both of these essential lines of communication."

I reminded them of how often in the past two months we have talked about exactly this principle - that balance means finding a point in the middle of extremes that works for us and allows us to live according to the dictates of our own consciences. I mentioned that Elder Oaks repeats this basic charge (to be balanced) throughout the talk and never, not once, stresses one line of communication over the other. Rather, what he does is lay out the pros and cons of each - or, more accurately, of relying too much on either.

"In the personal line, we pray directly to our Heavenly Father, and He answers us by the channels he has established, without any mortal intermediary."

I mentioned that this is a refutation of the old Catholic teaching that the Priest served as an intermediary between God and humanity - that this is what we discussed when we talked about "The Priesthood" and "the priesthood" in a previous lesson.

"The direct, personal line of communication to our Heavenly Father is based on worthiness"

I asked them what this means, in practical terms. Before any of them could answer, I asked them who is most worthy of communicating with Heavenly Father: each of us in the room, attending church or a homeless guy begging for money on the street or someone who used to be a member of the Church but had become inactive (or even started attending another church). After a few answers, two of them said, essentially, "You haven't given us enough information about the other people to know how worthy they are." I agreed, and we read Alma 41:5, which begins with:

"The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good"

I asked what it takes to receive answers to prayers, and one of the students immediate answered, "Praying." That got chuckles, but everyone agreed.

We talked about "worthiness" being defined best, in the context of communicating with God, as "proper condition of the heart" and "willingness to ask, listen and accept" - rather than adherence to a checklist of do's and don'ts. It is measured more in terms of doing the best you can to follow what you believe. However, it also is influenced by actions that inhibit one's ability to hear - and the best example of this might be addictions that alter one's ability to see and feel clearly and/or act upon belief, knowledge and desires.

I asked them if they could think of a prominent example of someone who received communication from God without appearing to be worthy of it. Alma, the Younger, was mentioned immediately, but I pointed out that his father, the Prophet, had been praying continually for him - so some people could say that his communication really was a result of his father's worthiness. We then talked about Saul, of Tarsus, and his vision.

I told them to think about Saul and tell me who, in generic terms (as in what type of person), a "Saul" would be now - whom we might compare to Saul based on our own time and circumstances. Someone mentioned a person who leaves the LDS Church and then fights against it (an apostate in the clearest sense of the word), but I pointed out that Saul never had been a Christian in the first place. I told them that perhaps the best example would be a preacher who condemned and persecuted Mormons - a classic, traditional anti-Mormon agitator (like a man I know in Idaho who has made it his ministry's mission to lead members out of the LDS Church). I asked them why God would communicate directly with Saul, given how we would tend to call him an evil man if he lived in our time and persecuted us the way he did the early Christians.

We talked about the description of people who inherit the Celestial Kingdom - those who are "valiant" in their testimonies. Saul certainly was valiant and passionate and dedicated - and he was exactly that way after his conversion. Even though his actions prior to his conversion were not "worthwhile" in our eyes, he was "worthy" to receive communication from God. I emphasized that we can't dismiss other people's "revelations" and communications with God, simply because their actions aren't what we would consider to be worthy for us.

"On this personal line of communication with the Lord, our belief and practice is similar to . . . Christians (who believe in) . . . the principle Martin Luther espoused that is now known as 'the priesthood of all believers'."

I reminded them of the same conversation we had when talking about Priesthood and priesthood.

"The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family . . . the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters"

We talked again, as we had in a previous lesson, about a church leader who confuses these "spheres of responsibility" (as one student phrased it) and tries to tell someone that s/he has received revelation for that person outside the realm of "church matters". I asked the students what they would say if a church leader walked up to them and said, "I have received a revelation that you should marry (a particular person)." They all agreed with one young man who said, "I wouldn't say it to the person, but I would think he was nuts." I told them that is a perfect, albeit extreme, example of what Elder Oaks said in the quote above - that each line of communication has its place and sphere and that neither should cross into the other.

"Some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves through the personal line."

I told them about a member I know online who argues all the time with people almost solely by quoting former church leaders who agree with him. He ignores those that express different opinions and almost never includes original thoughts of his own. I like the man and try not to argue with him, but I am saddened by that type of "quote fighting" - since it says, at the core, that he wants church leaders to do his thinking for him and, therefore, has surrendered his own right to receive answers from God directly. I also mentioned that church leaders over time have disagreed about a lot of things, so it is impossible to rely on them ("mortal intermediaries", as Elder Oaks called them) to answer questions unanimously outside their callings as people who strive to use the priesthood line to "govern heavenly communications on Church matters".

Since we were starting to run out of time, I summarized the section on the priesthood line by telling them that Elder Oaks did the exact same thing in that section that he had in the section about the personal line: explain its place (the Church), its history (ancient to present) in the emphasis on "authoritative ordinances (sacraments)", the danger of underestimating its importance (at the extreme, rejection of "organized religion"), the tendency of some members to over-emphasize it and devalue the personal line, the need to not be "solely dependent on one priesthood leader or teacher for our personal testimony" to avoid being "forever vulnerable to disillusionment by the actions of that person" (and I mentioned that Prophets and apostles are included in that statement).

We read the paragraph about Joseph not being able to translate when he was upset and how he had to calm down, pray and apologize to Emma before he was able to translate again.

I asked everyone if they could draw something that represents, for them, the concept of two lines of divine communication - using a circle to represent each of them as an individual. One person drew two waves going through the circle that intersected occasionally within the circle. Another person drew a circle for God and a line between him and God, then another circle to the left of the line for the Church and lines going from God to the Church to him - ending up being a triangle. Another drawing was of multiple circles of increasing size (looking like a shooting target), the smallest being herself and each larger circle being a family, then the Church, then the community, then the world, then God - with the personal line of communication going out to family and then jumping ("tesseracting" - for those who had read "A Wrinkle in Time" or seen the new Superman movie) straight to God and skipping the other circles.

One of the students asked where the prophet fit into the drawing of multiple circles, and we ended up agreeing that he fits exactly where each one of them fits - with the only difference being how far out into the circles his line extends before jumping to God. I mentioned that the problems arise when someone confuses how far out the personal lines go and how far in the priesthood line goes.

I ended the lesson by explaining, once again, why I believe this concept of finding a balance that works individually is so important that it would come up again and again in our lessons - and I used "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" as a concrete example. One of the talks in Sacrament Meeting had included a reference to it, and the speaker had said that she believe it was for the membership more than those who are not members. I told them that I admire and respect that person greatly but that I disagreed with that statement. I said I believe it is directed primarily to "the world" - and that I have worked in my professional life in enough places that need some of the central messages badly - that some of those concepts literally would change the world if enough people really believed them. I talked about the paragraph about parental responsibilities - how there is a general statement about "primary responsibilities" that constitutes general guidelines for all (the priesthood line) but also a clear statement that puts the responsibility to figure out how to be "equal partners" based on "individual circumstances" that allow each couple to "adapt" individually (personal lines). I told them that such a balance (general outlines and personal adaptation) is what I read in Elder Oaks' talk - honoring and valuing each, but crafting a personal combination that is our own.

The Importance of Being Charitable in How We Interpret Others' Words

I am a parser by nature, but I also choose to parse specifically to avoid "getting the impression" and "reading too much into (people's) comments". I have found in my life that when I don't parse, and especially when I rely on reading between the lines for what people "mean to say", I often end up being wrong about what they really meant to say - and sometimes I end up being radically wrong. I have learned this the hard way in too many situations, and I determined quite a while ago not to have it happen again. I have not succeeded completely in that, especially because all of us really do mis-speak occasionally and partly because I don't always follow my own commitments, but I believe MANY of the things we castigate people for saying and believing are things they don't say, don't believe and would be mortified to know that someone thinks they have said and believe those things.


My own general rule is to believe that someone doesn't mean more than what they say. I know enough liars (including those who will say anything) to know that's not a universal rule, but I still choose to believe that about someone until they prove me wrong. I also grant people the right to change their minds about things, so I try not to pull out old quotes to dismiss newer ones. (Now, if the "old" quote is only a week prior to the "newer" one . . .)

My point is quite simple:

I take a lot of time and spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to make sure I say only what I mean to say - and that I actually say what I mean to say. Seriously, it probably takes me FAR more time per word to write these posts than it does for anyone else who posts and comments here. I use all kinds of disclaimers and qualifiers to avoid extremes and overly-broad generalizations. (Just as an example, I have reworked and reworded this paragraph at least three times already - just to make sure it is worded as well and clearly as I am capable of wording it.) I still screw up sometimes and write something that doesn't convey exactly what I mean, but I almost never write something that requires someone to read between the lines to find what I really mean.

I think lots of people are like that - but their ability to accomplish that objective varies radically. I still grant them the consideration of only holding them to what they actually say - since that is what I desire from them. I don't want to be held accountable for what someone thinks I am implying or assumes I probably mean; I want my words to be taken on their own merit and addressed for what they mean in and of themselves.
When I do that, I find I am offended less often - and I am able to pinpoint more precisely exactly why I am offended when it does occur. I also am able to converse with the other person more productively - since they don't end up getting defensive over my misunderstanding of their words. There is not much else that can derail a conversation more quickly than insisting that someone said what they themselves "know" they didn't say.

Why did I write this post?

Mostly, it was to encourage everyone who might read it to slow down a little when they communicate (especially online), focus solely on what others actually say and look for ways to view what is said charitably - even if they then move on to real disagreement with what it said or written. In this case, I believe the Golden Rule is about as universal as it can be.

Truly Loving Others Requires Different Actions in Different Situations

I don't fight about quite a few things with which I don't agree totally or even largely - because I try to weigh and balance the costs and benefits of fighting about them against loving others as myself.
Most times, in most situations, love of others wins over speaking out; sometimes, love of others requires I speak up; always, love of others requires I speak carefully and thoughtfully whenever I speak up.
 
I have regretted every instance of when I have failed to do so. 

Some Thoughts on the Importance of Parsing

I've mentioned in the past that I am a hardcore parser.  I believe that approach is very important whenever we deal with things others have said - and the following is why. 

In the spirit of parsing (*grin*), the actual, dictionary definition of "to parse" is:

"To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components; to make sense of; comprehend."

 
I believe in parsing, because I believe in verbal and conceptual precision - and parsing is the only way other than deep conversation of which I am aware to get at the heart of what people actually say and write. This is true especially with people with whom it is not possible to converse directly about something. Since I've had countless experiences where someone (including myself) has said, "No, that's not what I said (or meant)," I believe strongly in identifying exactly what was said and allowing modification, where necessary, to clarify. Without the benefit of clarification, I simply must rely on parsing if I am to be both fair and charitable. 

I want others to parse my words (to examine them closely and subject them to detailed analysis - to make sense of and comprehend them), simply because I don't want to be misunderstood. I want to be judged by what I actually say, NOT by what others assume I must have meant. That has happened to me - people saying, "You can't have meant that, no matter what you said." My response always is, "I said it; I meant it." If I mis-speak, I want others to point out the meaning of what I actually say, so I have a chance to correct my mistake. However, I don't want them to jump to erroneous conclusions based on their assumptions of what I just had to have meant.

What others read into my words that isn't there is NOT my responsibility. I only can say what I mean, as clearly as I am able to say it in that moment. If it is misunderstood, I have no responsibility for that - IF I have done my best to express myself as clearly as I can. In that situation, it is up to the person who hears or reads my words to put as much effort into undertanding me as I put into trying to be understood - to parse my words for their actual meaning and grant me the consideration of believing I tried hard to write or say what I meant.

To me, that's nothing more than common courtesy and charity - not judging, not jumping to conclusions, not assuming to know one's "real intent" hidden cunningly behind one's words, not dismissing the parsed meaning and inserting other meaning instead. Again, I've been the target of enough non-parsing interpretations that I refuse to do it to others. Hence, I parse - carefully and consciously and as charitably as I can without intentionally twisting and distorting.

How Can We Recognize When (If) God Is Shouting At Us?

I once was asked the following:

"How would you know, or what would it be like, if God were yelling at you or disciplining you?"

That is a fascinating question, especially since I think we have two VERY different paradigms in our canonized scripture - and because we tend to extrapolate our own experiences with our parents onto God (both the positive and the negative ones). First, the background:

1) The God of the Old Testament is a yelling, destroying, jealous, vengeful God - the ultimate alpha male. God's "love" in the OT seems to be more centered on "protection" than on "feeling" - and that makes sense given the history of oppression and conquest of the Israelite and Jewish nations. In short, the God of the OT is the God of "a people" - loving them by actively and directly protecting them in times of obedience and actively and directly punishing them in times of disobedience.

The same description exists in the BofM prior to the Lord's appearance to the people after his death - a very clear "prosper in the land during righteousness" and "suffer during unrighteousness" distinction. It also exists throughout the D&C - again, during the formative years of the Church when "protection" was paramount.

When protection is the foundational paradigm, it is EASY to see when God is "yelling at you".

The parenting application is that the same paradigm tends to be in place in our own families - that we yell at our kids when they are in the early developmental stages - when perhaps our primary purpose and goal is to protect them and teach them how to live on their own. I'm not saying it's right or correct or good to yell then - only that it's what tends to happen often.

2) The God of the New Testament is a compassionate, meek, merciful, loving, patient, PERSONAL God - the classic man who is in touch with his feminine side - or, interestingly from a Mormon perspective, what normally would be considered a "complete couple" (combination of full masculinity AND femininity). Jesus spoke directly and harshly sometimes, but it was directed almost exclusively to those who were hypocritical leaders who rejected him. The woman taken in adultery ("He who is without sin . . . neither do I condemn thee.") - the Caananite woman (first classified as a "dog" but then blessed anyway) - the unclean (whom he touched and blessed) - etc. All of these were INDIVIDUALS - and it is clear he came to serve, teach and validate them, not to protect the nation.

The same emphasis can be seen in the post-resurrection visit to the Nephites in the BofM - where "punishment" consisted of walking away and letting people alone (withdrawing), rather than direct, active punishment. I think the same can be seen in the modern Church, where the hyperbolic and harsh pronouncements of the Brigham Youngs of the world generally have disappeared and been replaced by the current apostles who serve, teach and validate much more than scream warnings (and it explains why strong warnings grate so much on so many, since they aren't used to hearing them on a regular basis).

When service and validation and teaching are the foundational paradigm, it is HARD to see a need to yell very often - if ever.

The parenting application is that the same paradigm tends to be in place in our own families - that we DON'T yell at our kids when they are in the later developmental stages - when perhaps our primary purpose and goal is to pray that we have served and taught them in such a way that they are able to live on their own in a productive manner.

SUMMARY: I think we, as adults, aren't going to recognize God yelling at us very often - simply because I think he doesn't yell at us very often. I also think if he does yell at us, we will recognize it - unless we've totally stopped trying to listen and completely tuned him out.

If we are trying to be able to recognize whispers (even if the practical application is nothing more than "following our consciences and what we feel is right"), I believe we will hear the shouts.

Finally, as adults, I think we will consider, at the very least, WHY the Church leaders appear to be shouting when they do on rare occasion. (I'm not saying we ultimately have to agree, but I think we should consider the "why" at least. Too many people reflexively brush it off as the rantings of out-of-touch old men - and I can't express how much I disagree with that characterization. I think that reaction is reminiscent of a childish tantrum toward someone in a position of authority, and I think a good indication of one's spiritual maturity is how s/he reacts to counsel or statements with which s/he disagrees reflexively.)

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.

When Someone Challenges My Christianity

Whenever someone asks me if I am Christian (or claims that I'm not), I try to say something like:

"That term ('Christian') means different things to different people. I believe I am a Christian, but I'm not sure if you would or not. Do you have a few minutes to listen to me explain my beliefs and see if you think I am?"

If they are serious and really want to know, they will listen - or pick a different time to do so. If they aren't interested in making that decision for themselves (or have made it already), they will turn me down - and that will be it. No debates, no hard feelings, no arguments, no change from before the question was asked. Nothing gained, but nothing lost. 

We had a training meeting for the bishops in our stake a few years ago, and one of the points that was made to them was to invite in such a way that it is easy for the other person to say, "No." Don't challenge; rather, invite - but give them a dignified and easily accessible way out in the invitation itself.  

That's what I try to do when someone questions my Christianity.

Communication Varies at Differing Levels in the Church

I believe the difference between ward and stake disciplinary councils is reflective of the role differences between the Bishop and Stake President. In other words, the Bishop's primary focus is much more on the individual (minister), and that makes him play a different role in most disciplinary councils than the Stake President, whose primary focus is on the organization (administrator).

Likewise, I believe this explains why most of the decisions that make waves are reached at the stake level (or higher) - because they are taken to "protect the organization" rather than to "help the transgressor". The opportunity to "help the transgressor repent" generally is confined to the ward level, while the responsibility to "protect the organization" generally is held by those above that level.

Fwiw, most of the truly angry and loudly condemnatory statements I have heard from those who have been excommunicated have come from those whose decisions were reached at the stake level or beyond, while I am aware of quite a few ward level decisions that didn't cause a stir at all - or were very positive experiences. That fascinates me.

On a more individual, non-disciplinary level, I agree completely with the need to "administer to the one". I believe in that fully. It struck me, however, as I was reading multiple threads here across the Bloggernacle that some people are upset that their own individual takes on certain practices aren’t being validated by their leaders - that uniformity of the group was overriding individual wishes. That actually is what got me started thinking about this post and its relation to disciplinary councils.

The most obvious examples for me are discussions about the Word of Wisdom (for example, where some members feel like they could handle moderation in some areas and feel like the communal prohibitions are not necessary for them - and, by extension, for many) and discussions of sexual practices (again, where the communal standards for all exclude a minority of members whose individual standards are outside of the communal standards), but I don’t want to narrow the discussion to only those topics. This post isn’t meant to be about any one topic; it’s more the meta perspective that struck me as I was reading about multiple topics.

I have thought for a long time that the central tension in the Church is about defining the line between community and individual, and I also have believed for a long time that there is a real difference between the type of focus that (I believe) must distinguish leadership at “lower” (local) and “upper” (area and global) level leadership. This post is the result of all of that percolating in my head.

One more thing:

I see a big difference in the kind of individualized messages we get in a ward setting, the slightly less individualized message in a stake setting and the much more universal messages we get in General Conference. At the ward level, there can be nuance and personally unique applications, but at the global level the messages can appear to be black and white directives that don’t allow for individual nuance - even when the speakers include multiple disclaimers. The tension inherent in many members who hear the globally standardized directive but not the disclaimers fascinates me.

Incorrect Assumptions of Arrogance

There is a fine line between arrogance or smugness and simply answering the best one can based on one’s study, prayer and contemplation. That is much harder to discern in print than in person, since there is no vocal tone to weigh; it’s much easier to discern in person than in print, especially for those who know the person making the statement.

Arrogance is easy to assume when reading comments, even when there is no arrogance in the heart of the commenter. Many of the comments in the Bloggernacle, for example, that appear to convey arrogance or smugness would not cause any ripples whatsoever if they were made in person to those who know the commenters.

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 an Orthodox Member with Heterodox Views

I am considered an orthodox member of my ward and stake NOT because of the actual nature of my beliefs, but rather because of how I state those beliefs - and, perhaps more importantly, by how I live my life. I don't actively or openly "battle the Brethren" in any way, and when I state my opinion about something in church I almost always do so simply as a statement of opinion - not as a challenge or in an argumentative way. Therefore, even though many of my personal perspectives and beliefs are quite unorthodox, my life and my actions are quite orthodox - and others accept me as orthodox, even though what I say often disagrees with what they say. They don't see me as an opponent, so they don't label me as such in any way.

As a friend once said, I "try to find ways of expressing what might be slightly heterodox modes of faith in more orthodox ways." At its heart, that is much more important, in my opinion, than the academic level of the vocabulary I use and than any need to convince someone else that she is wrong.