The Prison of Other People's Opinions

A friend with whom I graduated from high school is Buddhist, and he posts regularly on Facebook about thigns for which he is grateful. I enjoy those posts greatly. 

Recently, he posted a link to a short article about being constrained by other people's opinions. It is beautiful, and I am sharing the link, without commentary, in the hope that it will resonate with those who read it and, hopefully, help someone break free from this particular prison. 

"Living in the Prison of Other People's Opinions of You" 

Letting Go of "Should"

At some point, you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening. - Anonymous 

I love this, because you can live fully in what is happening and still work to change what you can, where you can. In Buddhist terms, it is called being fully present - not wallowing in the past and not obsessing about the future. One can be aware of both past and future, and use that awareness to guide the present, but, in the end, now is all that is real and true for each individual.

I love the concepts I learned in my youth that all is present unto God and that time is measured only unto mankind. A huge part of my peace has come through allowing myself to live in what is happening, not in the future or the past.

How I Stay Sane when Dealing with People Who See Things Differently than I Do

I was asked once how I stay sane when dealing with people, especially in church but also elsewhere, who see and do things differently than I do - and more particularly when they are a leader of some kind.  The person who asked already knew about my realization early in life that I see things differently, so he didn't want the typical, initial answer I give to that question.  ("I have been practicing for decades.")  I thought about it, trying to be as brief and concise as possible.  The following is what I eventually told him:

People are people. I don't expect more than that. 

I really do believe that we often over-think things and make them far more complicated than they need to be.  In this case, simply remembering that all of us are human and, therefore, make mistakes (even serious ones), can make sanity a given and free us to find peace and joy. 

Dealing with Other People's Expectations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem with Universal Shoulds

Some people benefit greatly from being asked (even pressured in some way) to do things, while others aren't benefited by such an approach and actually can be harmed by it. In terms of church callings, there is an inherent contradiction in both extremes - always accepting assignments and never accepting assignments that aren't appreciated or wanted. Many people benefit from each approach in different situations and different times of their lives.

The real conflict occurs when the word "should" enters the discussion - since we really should accept callings, except when we shouldn't. We really shouldn't put limitations on service, except when we should. We really shouldn't dictate the terms of our service, except when we should. Sacrifice really is a great principle, except when it isn't. We really should give until it hurts, except when it hurts too much.

We really should submit to the will of God (and, to a degree, to our mortal leaders) - but we should never stop being agents unto ourselves.

"Should" is a two-edged sword that is incredibly difficult to wield properly and helpfully, and most of our deepest disappointments are centered on expectations more than actual actions in and of themselves.  (If you don't understand what I mean by that, think about it a bit - and ask in a comment, if necessary.)  Thus, I generally try to avoid "should" and expectations.  Rather, I try to deal strictly with trying to choose desired consequences. 

Some Non-Traditional Reasons I Am at Peace

I make goals - but am willing to change or scrap them if life gives me different outcomes.

I have no expectations of myself and others - except effort, and even that can't be judged perfectly.

I don't seek anything from the Church except a place for me to gather, commune and help others grow. Everything else is gravy - and the primary responsibility for everything rests with me.

I try to live my life with a clear recognition that "I am" - so I deal with "this is" and trust life/God to lead me to what will be. An important part of "what is" for me occurs as a result of my church membership, and a huge part of who I am is a result of the paradigm I learned growing up in the LDS Church - but, as I've said more than once, I have been an oddball since as long as I can remember, so not fitting in totally and not being like everyone else isn't an issue for me. I am who I am, and I can testify of how liberating and empowering that is. I am not defined by others, including not being defined by opposition to others.

I simply am, and, for that reason, I am at peace.

A Long, Frank Post about Porn and How We Often Mishandle It in the LDS Church

From my own experience in various responsibilities dealing with the issue of pornography over the years, the following are some important points I think need to be understood when talking about pornography:

1) There are many Victorian attitudes that mess up people's understanding of what healthy sex can include. I can't stress that enough at the beginning of this post, since it's a huge problem in our current religious culture.

2) I believe there are lots of things that are perfectly fine and healthy that are repressed generally in our modern Mormon culture (far more than was the case in the early days of the LDS Church).

3) Talking about pornography constantly from the pulpit often stimulates those who are struggling with it in some way.  It's like talking with an alcoholic about alcohol every day. 

4) Having said that, there are many elements of pornography (hard-core porn, especially) that are not examples of "healthy" sex - and, in many cases, marital issues arise when a spouse (a husband or wife) begins to want and expect the other spouse to act like the people in the porn - or, knowing there is no way the other spouse is going to act like the people in the porn, uses porn as an outlet for fantasies revolving around those unhealthy practices.

5) Mainstream porn (as opposed to specific sub-categories) tends to portray extremes in sex - and I don't just mean "extreme activities" when I say that. There is never "average sex" - sex that isn't "perfect"; there is never sex that is a compromise when one person really isn't feeling it; there is never a statement of "No, I'm not comfortable with that" and an acknowledgment and acceptance by the person who is wants what the other person is unwilling to do; there never is anything that involves real discussion and "middle ground" of any kind. At the most extreme, there are lots of things that are "extreme", in and of themselves, by any reasonable definition - including things that are cruel, controlling, sadistic and, literally, based on the elimination of agency and love. Lots of porn is "dehumanizing" in the sense that it removes individuality and focuses solely on the animalistic nature of the physical activity to the exclusion of everything else that involves intimacy and being human.

6) This restates #4 and builds on #5, but the extremes that are the norm often lead to unrealistic expectations, and that can put enormous pressure on spouses to accept things they naturally wouldn't accept - and enormous pressure on the one with those expectations to find an avenue for those expectations to be met. That combination can be very destructive in a relationship.

7) Finally, porn as an industry is brutal for many of those who are involved. I won't go into details here, but it is as repulsive as anything I've ever researched.

It is very similar to prostitution in some ways - the disease rate, the lack of decent health insurance, the lack of long-term employment (for lots of reasons), the preying on people who get into it out of desperation or to make money while pursuing other dreams that never materialize as they get "used up" by the industry; the huge underground reliance on runaways and youth, in general, especially in other countries but even in the USA. The celebrities in the industry get all the attention and make it look glamorous, but those who constitute the "fodder" pay a huge price - and, again, that's even here in America. The porn industry in other countries is nearly unspeakable and truly vile and evil.

Seriously, the research is horrific.

Again, using prostitution as an example, I live in Nevada - where prostitution is legal and "ladies ranches" are common. There is one just outside Carson City, where I live, that is the focus of an HBO show. Apparently, the show makes prostitution at that ranch look somewhat glamorous - but I know a woman who wrote a book about the industry in Nevada who visited lots of ladies ranches, interviewed owners and the women who work there and talked about what life actually is like for them. They often are forbidden to leave without supervision (since the owners don't want them to leave or to get paid for anything that can be hidden from them, thus cutting into their profits); the managerial take is comparable to what pimps get through illegal prostitution; women are discarded immediately, with no financial security, if they get AIDS or any other "serious" sexual disease; "minor" sexual infections are overlooked and not disclosed to the "customers"; etc. One owner, portrayed as a benevolent father figure publicly, referred to the women who work there as "my stock" - literally, in the exact same way a rancher speaks of his cattle. In many cases, pimps from California transport their "stable" to Nevada and employ them at the ranches - taking their own cut on top of the owner's cut - leaving the women with next to nothing except a roof over their heads until they go back to their home turf.

Finally, pornography can be highly addictive - and it's created specifically by its producers to be as addictive as possible. There are ranges of porn (soft-core vs. hard-core and lots of degrees all along a scale), but, just like any other commodity in our society, it has been researched extensively to be marketable. I view pornography as perhaps the best example we have of addiction peddling and the result of "evil which does and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the latter days" - and I've done enough research and known enough people over the years to feel strongly about that, even as I also recognize how screwed up our view of sex is and how much that contributes to the problem with pornography that exists in our culture.

The biggest reasons we have a difficult time addressing pornography correctly, in my opinion, are the conflation of nudity with porn and the Puritanical attitudes about and obsession with sex in general. There is nothing wrong with sexual urges and thoughts, in and of themselves, but we have created a culture in which almost anything that is sexual in nature is being repressed. Repression doesn't work; it only leads to explosion - and explosion is seen as gross iniquity - which leads to depression and extreme guilt - which perpetuates a cycle. 

Finally, we tend to view issues with viewing pornography much more harshly than other issues with addiction or varying levels of consumption.  We feel badly for an alcoholic and generally don't "punish" him; rather, we feel sorry for the person and do everything in our power to love her - including referrals to Alcoholics Anonymous or other professional help.  In the LDS Church, we do not excommunicate someone for struggling with alcoholic consumption - or even disfellowship him or require probation.  On the other hand, official discipline and punishment often is the track taken in dealing with viewing pornography - even if there is no abuse or other actionable issue involved (and, as a commenter pointed out, even though the Church Handbook of Instructions says clearly that discipline is NOT appropriate for those struggling with pornography, masturbation or the Word of Wisdom).  Thus, many members who struggle to any degree with pornography face the very real possibility that their struggles will not be met with love and compassion and professional referral but, instead, formal punishment and, in some cases, threat of divorce and the destruction of their lives - even in situations that would not be classified as clinical addiction.


How we treat these people (with direct punishment [both organizational and individual] and social shaming) contributes directly to most of them never confessing their problem and seeking help, which contributes to a vicious cycle of attempted repression as the only viable solution, which rarely succeeds over the long haul. 

So, what is my advice?

Preach against pornography, but don't hammer away constantly.  Understand the similarity for many people to those who struggle with alcohol consumption, and treat each person with the same foundation of love and compassion.  Provide opportunities for confession and therapy (whether with a counselor or through an addiction recovery program) without automatic, official punishment.  Encourage spouses not to threaten or consider divorce automatically, except in cases of severe addiction or when it causes other serious issues in marriage.

There is more, but what is outlined above would be a wonderful starting point. 

Repentance and Lowered Expectations

It has been said by many, including me on this blog, that lower (or, for me, more realistic) expectations are an important key to happiness - that letting go of unrealistic expectations is critical to finding joy in our own individual journeys. I want to take that idea and discuss it relative explicitly to theology - and to draw an important distinction between unrealistic expectations and the type of hopeful expectations that are central to what I see as empowering faith and true repentance.

I think it's interesting that those who argue a "confess-only-and-be-saved" position basically are employing the lowest PRACTICAL expectation for themselves. Of course, everyone who argues it will say that relying totally on Christ and de-valuing our own actions is the highest form of worship and trust in Him - but, from a purely practical standpoint, it really is the lowest possible expectation for their own actions.

On the flip side, those who argue a "personal-works-only-earn-salvation" position do the exact same thing - but with an opposite focus. They use the lowest possible expectation for Jesus' actions and the highest expectation for their own efforts.

**Both are extremist positions, and both are inconsistent with how I read the Bible.**

Both bring a form of happiness (complacency), imo - since they are simple and give no real reason for what I believe to be "true" repentance. I see repentance as the result of a perceptual balance, that makes it harder to simplify into one fairly brainless formula, that leads to a degree of angst and concern and contemplation, that leads to self-reflection and effort to change - which is the definition of repentance.

It is basing that repentance on faith in Jesus as the Christ that creates the balance I see when I read the Bible - the type of balance that James teaches when he says that faith without works is dead, being alone, AND that Paul teaches when he talks of the need for faith and not just reliance on "dead" works. James seems to emphasize works, while Paul seems to emphasize faith - but they both teach a balance of the two.

Lower (more realistic) expectations of others (and even God, as described by others) is one thing - something I endorse, even as I try to help people improve in whatever way they can; lower expectations of EITHER God OR one's self as His child is quite another thing altogether, in my opinion.

General Conference Expectations: A Short Thought

As General Conference starts today, I want to reprise something I wrote a while ago about leadership in general.  I think it applies to General Conference, as well - and I think not understanding it and having unrealistic expectations contributes greatly toward some people's disappointment in what they hear at General Conference.

What do I expect from the speakers at General Conference?  

That they try their best to deliver messages that will enlighten, uplift, help or touch as many people as possible - or a particular portion of those who listen and/or watch. Period.  End of answer.  

I believe that, generally, those who are called as leaders are inspired more often than not, but I believe that's because they are sincere and try to seek inspiration. At the root, however, all I expect is their best effort - since that's all I can promise when I'm on the receiving end of the expectations.

After all, in the LDS Church, our leaders are us.

The Atonement Covers Those Who Leave and Those Whom We Drive Away

[NOTE: I understand the fine line I am about to walk in this post, but I believe it is important to strive to walk it - and to err on the side of charity rather than judgment. My request is that anyone who reads this post recognize the disclaimers ("some, many, multiple, sometimes, etc.") I am using and not jump to any conclusion not articulated clearly in the post itself.]

I have unshakable confidence that "pure Mormonism" doesn't condemn automatically those who leave the LDS Church - that, in many cases, God will credit to them the fact that they are acting "according to the dictates of their own consciences" in the decisions they make. Those decisions are not made in a vacuum, and, often, we (the average membership who are not aware of intimate details) simply have no idea what factors lead to someone leaving.  Personally, I am aware of multiple situations where I cannot argue with a decision to leave - nearly all of which involve circumstances that can be characterized legitimately as people being driven away by other members.  I wish badly people would not leave, but, in some situations, I actually agree that leaving is better in the moment than staying. 

The ideology of an Atonement wrought by someone who actually understands rejection and unfair treatment is FAR more powerful and expansive than is the Church and the membership, and that is a comfort to me - even as I mourn for those who suffer needlessly and unjustly. In fact, I think the power of the Atonement is most visible in just these cases - where the LDS membership can't quite grasp that some people who leave will be blessed every bit as much as those who never leave. We expect so much of "our own" (often so unrealistically) and see through our own glasses so darkly when it comes to how WE let them down and drive them away - and, while I realize how natural that tendency is, I wish badly that we all could rise above it.

Until that time when we can, I am comforted by the assurance that they will be judged by One who sees, understands and loves them fully - in the same way that He sees, understands and loves me.

We Can't Ask of Others What We Aren't Willing to Give Them

I am involved with some members who are struggling with some sort of faith crisis, and I point out to them regularly that they can't ask of others what they aren't willing to give those others first - without being hypocrites. Particularly, they can't ask more orthodox members to accept their heterodoxy as legitimate unless they are able and willing to accept those members' orthodoxy as legitimate.

That's not an easy balance, especially since I'm NOT advocating a totally relativistic view of truth. What I'm saying is that "loving someone" often involves accepting their differences in thought and perspective and realizing that ALL of us see through our glass, darkly - and extending charity by not judging and being narrow-minded.

It helps if everyone has some sort of orthopraxy around which they can rally (which is one of the geniuses of Mormonism, in my opinion), but it can't apply in some areas of heteropraxy - since there are some actions which simply cannot be tolerated.  I just believe the list of intolerable actions is a lot smaller than many people are willing to accept. 

Dealing with Members Who Let Us Down

Perhaps the greatest irony or paradox within the LDS Church is that the foundational theology of Mormonism allows for exaltation of those outside the faith throughout time (and that's pretty easy for nearly all members to accept, since they don't see and live and are hurt by and deal with those people's weaknesses on a daily basis) - and that same theology also allows for the exaltation of those inside the faith (but it's harder for many members to accept that - since we tend to judge most and most harshly those whose weaknesses we see most clearly and are hurt by most directly, with ourselves often at the top of that list).

Perhaps the greatest test of real charity inside the Church is how we deal with members who have let us down from inside the Church - who can't live up to our expectations of them. Think about that in relation to how someone sees you who does not approve of your beliefs or actions - perhaps a less active or inactive friend, or perhaps a family member, or perhaps an evangelical co-worker - someone who can't seem to understand and accept and value you fully for who you are - someone who seems to judge you as being "less than" she is.

Are you doing the same thing to her?  


In a very real way, each and every one of us has let God down.  He could judge all of us as being "less than" He is - and He would be justified in doing so.  He knows our faults and weaknesses even better than we do - and, yet, He loves us regardless and is patient with us.  If we are striving to be more godly - more Christ-like, this is one thing we should strive to emulate above almost all else. 

Joseph Smith Was Not Infallible, and He Would Be the First Person to Say So

If there is one prophet of the Restoration who would roll around screaming in his grave at the idea that he was infallible, it is Joseph Smith. It is SO easy to forget that he is the most chastised person in the D&C - and it's not close! If he was willing to record those chastisements - and if he was willing to say what he said often about his own failings, we are judging him by a vicious standard if we turn around and expect him to be some super-genius, infallible wonderkind. I think we owe it to him to recognize his faults but honor him regardless for all the extraordinary qualities he really did have.

Along those same lines:

Brigham Young had major issues as I look at him (and I do not believe a number of things he taught, most obviously, from my multiple posts about it, that the Priesthood ban was appropriate or of God), but, seriously, who else could have held the Church together in those hellish times? When I try to look at the big picture with a charitable eye, I thank God "Brother Brigham" was around to lead the Church when he did - even with the baggage we inherited as a result. I truly believe the Church would have shattered and disappeared without him - as it was threatening to do after Joseph's death.

Life is a two-edged sword, and it's very easy to criticize even those who did remarkable things - since nearly all who do remarkable things fail mightily before, during and after the remarkable. I've been a history teacher, and that is true throughout history. Those in the lead fall often, and the ones I admire are the ones who keep getting up and living a life guaranteed to knock them down eventually every time they rise. When you fall from greater heights, it's much more visible to those around you; when you get back up and climb again to even greater heights every, single, stinking time . . . I will be the last one to condemn.
 
Criticism of specifics? Absolutely fine, as long as it's done charitably and with humility. Dismissal and condemnation? Absolutely not.

A Different, Simple Look at Unrealistic Expectations

I think we set ourselves up for failure when we set others up for failure.

"Unrealistic expectations" is just another name for judgment.

Often the Gospel Shines through and Overshadows the Class Members

I enjoy Sundays largely because I really have no expectations, so I am pleased by whatever good I feel and truth I learn. There are times when I don't get much out of talks and lessons, but I'm not expecting to learn anything new or be spiritually fed - so it's cool. However, often I really am inspired and taught.

For example, in Sacrament Meeting a few years ago, a young couple spoke on "Focusing on Christ and Spiritual Resolutions". It was awesome. The wife had been inactive for about 5 years; they have been married for about 2 years; the husband has been a member for 1 year; they were sealed a week before they spoke. They both talked about the process of their efforts to "come unto Christ" and the resolutions that were required to change their lives - and it was incredibly touching.

Also, I remember a time in High Priest group when a former Bishop and a former Branch President both said, essentially:

Even if I find out in the afterlife that the Church isn't true, I really like how it makes me a better person now.

Both statements were in the normal flow of conversation and only stood out to me because of other discussions in the Bloggernacle around that time. The lesson was on Christian Courage, and someone mentioned how it takes courage for those who have been persecuted in the past to risk further persecution from within the Church itself by defending others who are being mis-characterized and bad-mouthed - "like in a church meeting when someone says something bad or wrong about someone of another faith". He said, "We need to be willing to stand up for those people who aren't there to defend themselves."

I wish every week was like that (and it happens at some point most weeks at some point in my current ward), but I am encouraged that sometimes (often, in fact) the Gospel really does shine through and overpower the class.

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.

The Danger of Universal Expectations

I want my children and church friends to fast fully once they turn eight, but I can't turn that into an unbendable expectation for all of them. For example, there might be situations of which I am not aware that make fasting for 24 hours medically dangerous for one or more of them - like my son's diabetes. Also, I can't project a desire for perfect obedience onto them in areas where they simply aren't capable of that obedience yet. Furthermore, I can't impose an even stricter standard than the Church's basic standard and expect them to be able to live it - simply because I am able to do so. I might see it as a "higher law" and a good thing, when, in reality, for someone else it might be just as unrealistic expectation - and a very bad thing.

I know siblings from a family to whom I was quite close growing up who still struggle to this day with deep feelings of failure and inadequacy because they were expected to be perfect as children. They were taught that good kids did (fill in the blank) and bad kids did (fill in the blank) - and that good kids felt (fill in the blank) and bad kids felt (fill in the blank). One child was chastised simply because she was vivacious - so the boys liked to be around her. Everything that was said to them could be justified in some way as "just teaching the Gospel to my kids", but the black and white, all or nothing, same expectation for all approach did serious harm to those children.

My point is that we need to do the best we possibly can to teach correct principles, but we can't ever lose sight of the fact that not everyone is going to be able to internalize every principle (or a particular one) and live them (or it) fully - right away, certainly, but in many cases not ever in this life. We have to be founded first on a charitable base and not primarily on a judgmental one.

Raising the (Uneven Parallel) Bars

I was involved in a Stake Leadership Training Meeting a couple of years ago, and I felt compelled to remind those who were in the Aaronic Priesthood Leadership group that "raising the bar" for the youth, leaders and parents does NOT mean establishing the bar at the same height for all Young Men. Rather, I believe it should mean helping each individual Young Man jump a little higher than he was able to jump previously.

If the bar is set at 7'6" for everyone, there will be much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth - and failure; if it is set at 3'0" for everyone, there will be much boredom and daydreaming and drifting away. The key is to know each Young Man well enough to raise that individual Young Man's bar just high enough so that clearing it is possible but requires increased effort and growth and strength.

Admit It: We Don't Have All the Answers By Ourselves

We often believe we know what is best for others without bothering to get to know them intimately and ask them what they want for themselves. I have seen that way too much in my administrative meetings over the years. I believe that if we stopped making this assumption and simply asked others for their input, most of these problems would disappear - sometimes because the "solutions" would be manifest, but other times because we will realize that they really aren't major problems in the first place.