Yes, We Are Our Brothers' and Sisters' Keepers

Remember: It was Cain (a murderer) who replied to God, when asked where Abel was, "Am I my brother's keeper?"  
There are hundreds of verses and passages throughout the Bible (and other religious texts) that say, quite explicitly, that we are our brothers' and sisters' keepers in some way and to some extent. 
It is the determination of the way and the extent where there can be reasonable discussion and disagreement. (For Mormons, however, King Benjamin's sermon sets an incredibly high bar for refusal.) For Christians to deny their responsibility to help "keep" God's children (any of them), at all or minimally, however, is a direct denial of the ministry and teachings of Jesus, of Nazareth. 
Quoting Cain in doing so is the height of irony.

Beauty through Suffering

The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths. These persons have an appreciation, a sensitivity, and an understanding of life that fills them with compassion, gentleness, and a deep loving concern. Beautiful people do not just happen. 

- Elizabeth Kubler-Ross

Being Farther Along than the Church - and the Nature of Proper Pruning

"Farther along than the church" - Steve Evans (By Common Consent)

 Normally, I would link to a past post from someone else on a Tuesday or Thursday, but I want to do so now in order to give the proper foundation to a couple of comments I made about the nature of pruning in an organizational setting.  This post is focused on those comments, but I wanted to provide a link to the post that prompted for my comments below.  I want, especially to highlight two things from those comments, so I will bold those things. 

I think of the allegory of the olive vineyard in Jacob 5 and the idea that there will be bitter fruit that will need to be pruned right up to the very end – and I see that bitter fruit as corruptions or lack of pure knowledge that causes beliefs in the Church that don’t match what God would grow if he micromanaged everything solely to preserve pure, eternal doctrine. In other words, I see corrupted understanding existing naturally as a result of the human nature of the membership (including myself) – and the need to prune imperfect understanding according to the strength of the root, even if that means experiencing long-suffering as a result of recognizing some bitter fruit and not being able to remove it completely through radical surgery.

The issue for me, personally, is trying to make sure I am attempting to prune along with the Master of the Vineyard as he works incrementally and cautiously – even if I personally think a more vigorous pruning wouldn’t kill the tree. If I’m going to make a mistake, I think it ought to be on the side of the type of patience Jacob 5 describes as being the Master’s focus.  

Btw, fwiw, Elder Oaks’ talk [April 2014 General Conference] is a major move forward – although it stops short of what many people would like. It took me four weeks in the youth Sunday School class I teach to go through it this month (since the topic this month is the Priesthood), averaging only six paragraphs per lesson. I am MUCH more concerned about so many members not understanding and accepting what is said in that talk than about any perceived lessening of fathers and husbands.
I also see intense irony in not accepting what Elder Oaks said in that talk (or what is said in the Proclamation) and clinging to former understanding and then criticizing someone else for wanting more than what Elder Oaks and/or the Proclamation was able to give. One wants less; one wants more. Both are natural and unavoidable for anyone who does not give up all agency and will and thoughtful consideration and personal accountability. When one side says, “You are rejecting the words of the prophets and apostles,” while simultaneously dismissing, diminishing or not accepting different words of those same prophets and apostles . . .

Perhaps, in some ways, relative to some issues, all of us are both behind and ahead of “the church”. Perhaps, part of the pruning is allowing ourselves to be pruned and not insisting on being only a pruner – and performing the pruning we feel we must do with the same approach we hope is used in pruning us.

Rocks and the Stained Glass Windows of Our Faith

A friend once wrote the following, which touched me deeply when I read it.  I have attended two LDS churches that had stained glass windows: Cambridge, MA and Quincy, IL.  I hope what my friend wrote helps someone, somehow, who reads it here:

Yesterday was an upending day. A day I am now grateful for. In the hours of reflection I have come to many clearer thoughts than I held before. I have learned a lot about myself and about others. I have come to some conclusions, one of those revolves around the image of stained glass windows.

Stained glass windows were common adornments in churches, especially cathedrals, but smaller ones had them, too. Even LDS churches have had them. The windows were depictions of sacred events or individuals. As the light fell through them they illuminated the surroundings and drew parishioners eyes to them. They were meant to uplift, to teach, to validate.

Stained glass windows don't exist in many churches any more. Many are not the works they once were. I miss them. But I realized as members of this complex religion, everyone of us carries a stained glass window in our hearts. We each have things that this religion symbolizes to us. We imagine, desire, cling to, and create a theology that answers our yearning. For one person it's the idea of a prophet - a living Moses or Elias. For another it's the links of eternity, keeping all that you cherish bound together. Still others love the covenant rituals performed. For many it's a combination of pieces.

Week by week, day by day, experience by experience we each select the pieces and colors we desire in our window. The process of creating the window is so subtle we don't even notice we are making it. But it means everything to us. Each week as we head to church to worship, we hang up our personal window. It encompasses us. I hear it in people's testimony - or their monthly confession, which ever it is that Sunday. I hear it in their lessons. They teach what they cling to or what rings true to them.

The windows are sacred. Each of us think we all have the same window, but we don't. If we listen and observe carefully they are all different. The reason we think they are the same is because we use the same words in describing them - glass, color, etching - but the product is individual.

Yesterday I threw a rock through some one's window. It was thoughtless. I was more concerned about my window, because mine looks different than hers. Together we will pick up the broken glass of our mutually shattered windows. We will each carefully graft back the images we see.

From now on, though, I will try to remember that the most beautiful edifices are the buildings with multiple different stained glass windows. And I will try hard not to put any rocks through others, because there are already too many broken stained glass windows to begin with.

"I know the Church is true, even when I wish it wasn't."

One of my local church leaders some time ago shared the following quote from a 16-year-old's testimony in a previous Stake Conference:

"I know the Church is true, even when I wish it wasn't."

The person who said it was struggling with some aspects of the Church, including attending regularly, but he had received an answer to a prayer that "the Church is true". He was saying that there were times he wished he hadn't felt what he'd felt, and that he sometimes wished he could just stop attending, but that he still believed what he had felt.

I understand that kind of conflict, although I wouldn't have worded it that way for myself.  Starting when I was about seven, I realized I see things differently than a lot of people. I would have worded it more like,

"I love the Church even while disagreeing with a lot of what others say. I wish more people believed like I do."

The leader who was speaking didn't go into any details of the young man's struggle, other than regular church attendance, but he ended his talk by listing some things he knows - and then he added:

"Even though there are lots of things I don't know and don't understand, I do know those things."

I could nit-pick words and definitions, but it was wonderful to hear the young man's statement affirmed by a church leader, even though his experience and wording was not the same. He is a good man, and his talk was an excellent one. He didn't get into specific concerns and issues in any of his talks, but it is clear he cares about people and understands that members struggle with various things at various times - and that he cares far more about effort and service than about uniformity of thought.  

If You Want to Be a Force for Good at Church: First, Don't Blame Those Who Struggle

There was a discussion in a leadership meeting I attended once that centered on the question of why members left the Church and what we could do about it. I knew how it probably would go naturally, so I piped up right at the beginning and said that most of the people who have left with whom I have talked personally mention being bored and feeling unfed at church - and that the best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to make our services and classes and meetings at all levels and of all kinds more spiritual and more spiritually filling.

Of course, there was an initial, immediate reflection of that onto the people who don't come prepared to feel the Spirit (as if it's their own fault for not feeling fed and feeling bored), but the conversation eventually ended up focusing on the "standard" idea that everyone needs a friend, something to do and nourishment with the good word of God. I agreed and simply pointed out that it is up to the leadership of each ward and branch to set the example of nourishing with the good word of God and insist that the membership do that, as well, to the best of their ability.

This is one issue where I agree completely with the "standard Sunday School answer". Everyone needs a friend (someone with whom s/he can talk honestly and openly without being judged or condemned), something to do (to not feel like a nobody and to serve others) and spiritual nourishment. One is social; the next is active personal; the last is spiritual.

If all three of these things were provided to every member, there still would be issues - but they would be much fewer, far between and less serious. So, my advice to everyone:

If you want to be a force for good at church, be a real friend to someone at church, find something to do at church that is important and meaningful to you (whether that is an official calling or not) and provide nourishment of the good word of God to those who need it (including yourself, if you aren't getting it directly at church as much and as often as you'd like).

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who Advocates for the Outcasts of Our Culture?

“Who advocates for the outcasts of our culture?”

[Angie C wrote a thoughtful post on By Common Consent a couple of years ago that made me stop and consider something in a way that I appreciated.  It was titled, "Who are the Anti-Mormons?" - and it included the question I used as the title of this post.  The following is my comment in that thread:]

This was a great post, Angie – but that line above jumped out at me. Who are the “publicans, sinners, lepers, etc.” within our own Mormon culture, and how are we treating them? Further, how many people, including those whom we have treated as outcasts, who now legitimately can be called “anti-Mormon” would be anti-Mormon if we were treating them as Jesus showed us how and told us to treat the outcasts of society and those who persecute and despitefully use us? (The anti-Mormon comments on newspaper article threads hurt my head sometimes, but the responses by LDS members often hurt my heart.)

At heart, I believe most anti-Mormons are sincere people expressing sincere beliefs that reflect a real concern for the welfare of Mormons’ souls. Many speak from a history of deep pain from when they were part of "us".  I think, in general, they “hate the institution, but love the member” – as well as they know how, which in some cases is badly. I think, however, that the same can be said by others about many LDS members – that they “hate other denominations (generally not other religions), but love the members” – as well as they know how, which in some cases is badly.

Often, given their theology (or their move from Mormonism to atheism, which is common), that’s to be expected of them; given ours, it shouldn’t be expected of us. So, who is under greater condemnation for being “anti-others”? Who is more responsible for eliminating internal “outcasts”? (and by that I don’t mean at all the elimination of core doctrinal standards and an acceptance of everything as fine and dandy, even as I believe the recent explanation of the Priesthood ban and its justifications makes it clear that we, as fallible mortals, often turn theories and "the philosophies of men" into doctrine where it ought not be)

Is it any different for them to reject us as Christians for believing differently than we do than it is for us to reject “our own” as Mormons for the exact same thing? 

I believe it is worth asking the question:

Who are the outcasts of our culture, why are they outcasts, what part did we have in making them outcasts, and who advocates for them?  

After all, charity suffereth long and is kind. 

My Biggest Problem with Homeschooling: Rhetoric

I’ve worked in education in one way or another almost my entire adult life, including years in “the trenches” trying to do something opportunity-changing in some of the deep trenches. I don’t mind homeschooling in principle, and I have no problem with the concept of people pulling their children out of public schools and teaching them on their own. I have friends who do that and are masterful at it. I also have friends who should be locked up for what they have done to their children in the name of protecting them from the world. I have observed that homeschooling runs the same gamut as public education when it comes to the quality of the education itself, so I can't criticize it at the personal, individual level.  It is a personal choice, and I am grateful for that opportunity in this country.
 
My biggest problem with homeschooling is the rhetoric I have heard and read. 

Too much of the homeschooling rhetoric writes off those who are in the public education system and casts the issue in adversarial and derisive tones. This is going to sound a little harsh, perhaps, but I have a hard time with someone who abandons someone else and then turns around and castigates those whom they abandon. Public school teachers and students alike lose MUCH when adults who care and children who care leave (especially when those people who leave are the very ones who could serve as examples and role models for those who have no choice but to stay), and they lose even more when those adults and children who leave turn around and criticize and condemn them verbally.  Much of the rhetoric I have heard and read over the years have been based in fear and criticism; too little has even attempted to reflect compassion and understanding, much less love.  

Again, I defend passionately the right to homeschool, but it’s easy to forget that the choice to do so is founded on a degree of luxury – of being “relatively rich” (meaning having something others don’t have, including simply opportunities and choices), and my heart hurts when those who can afford to homsechool (and I don’t mean that in strictly economic terms) criticize those who can’t and, in a very real way, dust their feet of the relatively poor in this regard.

No matter what decision one makes in this regard, I would prefer more compassion for the little ones who have no choice – and a little more ministry among them.

"May God in his mercy bless and preserve us."

The following is a summary of some of the events that led up to the deaths that occurred among the Martin and Willie handcart companies - with a focus on an amazing statement by one of its members.  It was written by a friend who shared it with me.

There are many ways to react to this quote, but I am choosing to emphasize the loyalty, love and compassion of a man who knew he might die as a result of his choice in Omaha, Nebraska - but who decided to take that chance in order to try to save others, if possible. 
-----------------------------------------
James Willie was the leader of the group. Levi Savage was a sub-captain. Having served previously in the Mormon Battalion, Savage was a valuable resource for the journey because of his knowledge of the trail. It was getting late in the year, and everyone knew they needed to head west. There was trouble obtaining wood for the handcarts, and they weren’t sturdy. Willie led a campfire meeting to discuss the departure and promised that God would be with them. He asked Levi Savage to give a few words. Savage expressed concern to the group that they were leaving too late in the year, and stating that he felt many would die along the way if they left. He encouraged everyone to stay put in Omaha.

Willie scolded Savage for a lack of faith and asked for a vote on whether the group wanted to head west. Most of the group responded that they wanted to go; approximately 100 people stayed in Omaha. Savage responded with a passionate speech. In a journal, James Chislett records that Savage said,

“What I have said I know to be true; but seeing you are to go forward, I will go with you, will help all I can, will work with you, will rest with you, and, if necessary, will die with you. May God in his mercy bless and preserve us.”

There's a complexity in this quote that is powerful and really resonates with me.

No Family (Biological or Ward) Should Exclude Homosexual Members from Participation in Its Circle

Thank you, Rich Alger, for linking to something Elder Quentin L. Cook said in a video posted on the LDS Church's website regarding homosexuals and the Church.  I am providing the link to Rich's post - and excerpting one part of Elder Cook's comments.

Be at the Forefront in terms of Expressing Love - Rich Alger

No matter how one feels about homosexuality (from one extreme to the other and at every point between the two extremes), I hope every member of the LDS Church someday understands, accepts and internalizes Elder Cook's message below:

I think the lesson that I learned from that is that as a Church nobody should be more loving and compassionate. No family who has anybody who has a same-gender issue should exclude them from the family circle. They need to be part of the family circle. Do we teach the Proclamation on the Family, do we teach Heavenly Father’s plan, do we teach the first chapter in the second handbook, yes we do. We have a plan of salvation. And having children come into our lives is part of Heavenly Father’s plan. But let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach to those and let's not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender. 

Inasmuch as we do unto (those whom we naturally see as) the least of these, our brethren and sisters, we do unto Jesus.   If we exclude them, we exclude our Savior.  Period.

Working with Those Who Are Struggling to Believe: Teaching Stillness

I've long believed that one of the primary focal efforts of those who are struggling needs to include an understanding of "Be still, and know that I am God" - but, unfortunately, we live in an age when there is a constant barrage of messages focused on always thinking, talking, debating, conjecturing and otherwise "doing something" and being stimulated actively. So many people go to bed tired, wake up tired and spend their lives tired, rushed and thinking about the next important thing - and they forget how to be still and feel. They can be emotional, but I believe there is a big difference between feeling emotional and feeling spiritual - and it's a fading art for many.

I think miracles fade away as much from sheer, voluminous busy-ness as from other things that drive away faith - since busy-ness makes things accumulate to the point where someone just can't deal with it all at once. In an online forum, we can't get people to slow down by physical means, but we can provide a place for people to take a breath, breathe calmly and slowly and start to re-learn how to "be still". We can model calmness, rationality and spirituality, even in cases where we have to express disagreement.
 
I believe most people who overcome deep crises do so more by a change of mind and perspective (and even character) than by finding the right argument, so online communication can't be primarily about arguments. For that reason, I try to focus on attitude, character, perspective and charity rather than winning an argument.
 
At least, that's how I see it after working for years with those who are struggling to believe.

Saying No; Asking Permission - A Powerful, Personal Experience

I normally don't link to current posts, preferring instead to highlight older posts that I believe deserve to be resurrected.  Today, I felt the need to alter that approach and post the link to a more current post that I think needs to be read, for some reason, by someone, now. 

I hope that feeling was inspired. 

Not a Legitimate Rape - Rachel Whipple (Times & Seasons)

My comment is #50.

You might want to skim over or ignore the comments that are focused narrowly on the legal terms for varying types of rape.  The main point of the post for me is incredibly important - a clear plea to withhold judgment in cases of trauma and paralyzing fear and/or dread.

We want so badly to understand and assign blame - even in cases where we can't accomplish the former and should run screaming from the latter.  In so many cases, our only response should be compassion and love. 

A Story that Broke My Heart - and Why

The second link to a thought-provoking article I posted here on my blog (way back in September 2007) was one that hit me really hard when I first read it.  It is about life in Africa and the practical application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I decided to re-post it now, since I wasn't able to work on my New Year's Resolution post this week.  I am providing the link and then my own commentary on what hit me so hard when I first read it. 

Little Street Vendor - Wilfried Decoo

I do not mean to call the teacher a Pharisee. I am much less bothered by the “buying something on Sunday” aspect as I was by this thought:

“We shouldn’t chase that vendor away, but if you don’t buy from her, SHE WON’T COME BACK.”

Those last four words are what broke my heart.

Not buying from her is one thing; not putting our arms around her and not talking with her and not thinking that perhaps God inspired a choice daughter to take up a post at our church and not inviting her into our fellowship but, instead, truly chasing her away - that breaks my heart. I want her there - where she is relatively safe, where she at least can hear that she is a child of God, where she can rest with faith that families with children of their own (relatively well-dressed, clean, happy children) will understand her plight the best they can and have pity on her, etc. Taking that away from her - that breaks my heart. She’s not an object lesson for Sabbath Day observance; she’s a daughter of God and my spiritual sister - and using her as the first instead of treating her as the second broke my heart.

I understand the overwhelming nature of poverty in Africa and the hesitancy to do anything that might encourage hundreds of poor vendors to flock to the Church, but I have a feeling that the astute businesswoman in that little girl would have recognized the benefit of keeping her spot hidden from competition. I wonder if anyone sat down with her and just talked with her about her life, about the Gospel, about the Restoration, about her divine nature as a daughter of God. Whether or not anyone gave her money or bought something from her, did anyone take the time just to love her and listen to her. Wonder of wonders, she can read!  I wonder if anyone even thought to give her a Book of Mormon or something else to engage her mind. 

“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these . . .” couldn’t find a more perfect application than this little street vendor - and would we really want to ignore Him, so He won't come back? .

For Those Members Who Feel Like They Are Living in a Secret World

I am a thinker tinkerer - someone who takes things apart mentally to see how they work. My wife doesn't care how something works, as long as it works - so she doesn't spend time and effort trying to see how it's constructed. Each approach works for each of us. I don't try to get her to examine the details, and she puts up with my analytical mind. I find a way to make it work, while she allows it to work as is. Together, we make a really good pair, since we don't expect to approach anything the same way - but both of us are focused on the fact that it works in the end.

I hope that isn't painful for those who are at odds with their spouses. It's just how my wife and I are, but I think the general principle of recognizing that all of us see things a little differently is important. If all members realized that, I think there wouldn't be a need to worry about being treated differently or have "secret worlds" in which we live. We would be much more open with and protective of each other. However, that recognition is not an easy thing - and differences can be scary and insecure; hence, secret worlds.

For what it's worth, although I don't feel like I have the type of secret world I have heard others describe, I certainly don't share all of my opinions and beliefs with everyone - since I know not everyone would be able to accept them. I have certain help I can provide due to my callings over the years, but, in the performance of those callings, I have to be very careful sometimes in order to be accepted as someone who can help. I still correct people when incorrect doctrine is taught or espoused, and I still share thoughts and ideas that definitely are outside the mainstream, but I have to be very, very careful how I do so - simply given the fact that I have not represented myself in many meetings I have attended in my life.

So, in a very real sense, I do have a "secret world". In my case, however, I accept that as an unavoidable aspect of my callings, so my secret world is different than most others.

Accepting Differing Levels of "Faith" and "Knowledge" in the Church

Perhaps those who "reject" a religion's truth-claims should withdraw; perhaps not. I tend to believe there are reasons for many to remain affiliated with a religion (in this case, the LDS Church) even if they can't embrace the truth claims. Those reasons might include things as simple as, "It's the best I know, even if I don't believe it's exclusively true," and as complex as, "My wife (or husband) and kids are happy in it, they embrace it, and I am willing to participate as a non-believing member of record in order to maximize their peace and happiness."

What really concerns me is any exclusion of those who believe truth-claims are "unknowable" - since I believe they actually ARE unknowable to many.

Our own scriptures say that some are given the gift "to know", while others are given the gift "to believe" those who know. I think there is great selfless service that can be provided by those who either believe those who know or even don't believe those who believe or know - if they stay in the Church. I have NO problem whatsoever with members who reject exclusive truth claims retaining their membership, as long as they don't fight the Church. I have no problem with those who think things are unknowable staying the Church - with no disclaimers whatsoever. I think they belong in the Church every bit as much as someone who feels they know everything - or even as someone who actually might know everything.

Fighting the Church is one thing; simply not accepting certain claims is quite another. Simply saying certain things can't be known is at a completely different level. Personally, I would hope that NOBODY whose only "issue" is an inability to accept truth-claims or feel they are knowable would face excommunication over it or be encouraged to leave. I would feel a deep sense of loss and injustice if that were to happen.

To say it differently, I don't think accepting all truth-claims (especially the exclusive ones) even is a requirement of worthy temple attendance (or even ward or stake leadership), much less regular membership. I know a highly visible member of leadership in a stake where I have lived who doesn't like the "only true church" phrase because of how it can be and is interpreted by many - inside and outside the Church. I understand his concern, and I share it to a degree. He is a faithful member, with a truly miraculous conversion story, and to think that he should give up his membership simply because he can't accept that particular "truth claim" is abhorrent to me.