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.

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).

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.

Teaching Our Children When We Disagree with Something that is Said at Church

I try to be honest with my kids about my own views whenever there's a conflict with what's taught or said by someone at school or church. They know I don't agree with everything that's said, but they also know I genuinely love the people who say the things with which I disagree.

We just disagree; no big deal.

I'm going to disagree with lots of things lots of people say in my life, in every organization of which I'm a part. I know it's really hard to take the emotional reaction out of the picture, especially when it deals with a dad or mom or sibling or other loved one, but it is a skill my children are going to have to learn at some point, no matter what, if they are to be happy.

That's the central message I try to convey to my kids - that's it's fine to disagree, but it's not fine to reject or disparage.  It's fine to disagree, but it's not fine to let disagreement void love.

Charity: Really Good People Can Believe Really Bad Things

I had an experience a long time ago that is a great example of why I try so hard to understand people as well as possible and not reject them, even as I reject things they say and believe. I was thinking about it again recently, and decided to post my thoughts about it here. 

I have a long-term friend, someone I admire greatly in many ways, who is a wonderful, caring person - overall. She would do anything for family and friends in order to try to help them. She has had many experiences that I accept as profound, spiritual, enlightening, etc. There is so much to love and respect about her. I really do love her dearly - but it's hard for me to be around her for any extended period of time. A recent experience with someone else brought that up in my mind again.

She is a political extremist, and her extreme is on the other side of the middle from where I am politically. She will corner people and explain, in dire terms, what is coming if her political agenda is not established - if the wrong candidate is elected (in whatever election is next, at whatever local or national level). The world isn't just falling apart; the end of all we hold dear is imminent. Frankly, I believe she is over the paranoia line in that area - and listening to her conspiracy theories is nearly unbearable for me.

I really do love her - and she really is, at heart, a kind, caring, loving, dedicated person. It's just hard to remember that in the moment as soon as she inevitably starts on a political diatribe. It's not worth answering her openly, especially since she doesn't talk in church like she does privately (as she understands that church isn't the place to discuss politics at her desired level for private conversations).

I have learned a lot from her over the years I have known her. She is intelligent and insightful in many ways.

My point is simple:

My dear friend is fully human, and I can't blame or castigate her for that. I love her as deeply as I do only because I've stuck around long enough to see, to some degree, the full person she is - even as I want to run away screaming quite often when she launches her soap box missiles. If we weren't members of the same church, I wouldn't have gotten to know her as well as I do - and that would have been a shame, even as it hasn't been easy to deal with her regularly.

I try to remember that whenever I start expecting others to be all that I would like them to be - and I try also to remember everyone who talks with me and walks away shaking their heads at my own beliefs, but who also continue to talk with me, regardless. It's easy to forget how many people there are in that group - and it's important for me to model the charity and patience so many people have shown and continue to show me.

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One example to illustrate my point:

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

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

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

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 Is Individuality Respected in Some Wards and Branches and Not in Others?

I've been in wards where individuality wasn't appreciated much, and I've been in wards where individuality was appreciated greatly. What tended to be the difference?

Room for individuality depends almost entirely on the local leadership in the units, but the biggest factor that affects local leadership tends to be the diversity of the membership. A more diverse membership tends to necessitate more tolerance of individuality. Nobody has to be confrontational in any way, but hearing different voices and perspectives makes a difference - to widely varying degrees. On the other hand, it can be vary hard to appreciate diversity in thought and perspective in a ward or branch where nobody ever expresses a differing opinion, much less where everybody sees everything essentially the same way. 

That, perhaps, is the worst result of those who are different leaving the Church or becoming inactive. It solidifies the "norm" and lessens the likelihood that individuality will be appreciated and encouraged - that everyone will learn from hearing multiple views. I'm not "blaming" people for leaving if they feel different (and I LOVE Elder Wirthlin's point in "Concern for the One" that it is the membership's responsibility to act in a way that encourages those who are different, those who are tired and those who have strayed to return), but I am saying that leaving only exacerbates the problem about which those who leave complain.

Intolerant people who prompt people to leave contribute to our inability to build Zion, but so do those who leave. I know for a fact that my own insistence on staying actively involved has been a blessing to others who might have left or faded away into inactivity without my voice, and I am glad I stayed for that reason even if there had been no other benefits for me. There have been such benefits - great and glorious benefits, but, still, that would have been enough.

I'm not saying I have been responsible for the fact that my last two wards, especially, have been and are wonderful wards - but I am saying I have been and am a PART of the reason. I speak up and contribute in a unique way, and that helps others feel comfortable doing so, as well - especially those who see things similarly, but even those who don't. I talk openly about the need to value diversity, and the diverse appreciate that and respond. I am seen as totally faithful and not a threat or a challenge in any way (since I am faithful and am not a threat), so "The Church" where I live is not seen the same way it is seen in some other units.

Again, I'm not alone in that, but I AM a part of it. Granted, I don't face this to the degree that some others do in their units (where the majority of members don't want to hear differing views, for example), but I have been in situations where I appeared to be the only voice saying what I was saying - only to have someone come up to me afterward and thank me for saying it.

I believe that is worth considering - truly contemplating and internalizing.

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.

Teaching Children to Build a Faith that Will Last: Disagreeing with Something Said at Church

I teach my kids what I believe - and that it's what I, personally, believe - and that others believe some of those things differently than I do - and that it's ok. I teach them that they can believe what makes sense to them - and that it's their responsibility to figure out what makes sense to them so they can be agents unto themselves.

My kids know when I don't agree with something that was said at church - because I mention it and we talk about why I don't agree. I don't go into great detail quite often, but when things are said that I see differently . . .they know about it.

However, they also know how much I like and love and sustain whoever said it. That is a critical aspect of any discussion I have with them, since I also want them to know that I will like and love and sustain and respect THEM when I learn about ways that their beliefs end up differing a bit from mine.  

I hope and pray my children love the Restored Gospel as much as I do, and I hope all of die as active members of the LDS Church - but I also hope and pray they do so because of a deep, personal understanding of the Gospel and the Church that will sustain them when I am gone.  Part of that, I believe, is learning to disagree but still love and sustain those with whom they disagree.

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.

How Many Activities Does Someone Have to Attend to Be "Active"?

I decided early on in life that I would participate in all the church activities I could - without sacrificing something more important. That works wonderfully for me - and I am confident that God understands and loves me for the desire of my heart.

For example, before our latest move I lived just over 30 minutes from church - but, more importantly, I was on a strict budget. I started a new career a few years ago, and I had to do so at the bottom end of the ladder. Therefore, I still am not making much money - with three children in college and three daughters still at home. 
This means that my family simply couldn't afford to go to most of the church activities that are held on days other than Sunday and Wednesday - and that we couldn't make it to the ones that occur on Sunday evenings.

Furthermore, since I was serving as a High Councilor and needed to drive pretty significant distances for my speaking assignments and stake meetings, some of the things we might have attended previously were not possible at that point.

Fine. We didn't attend them.

We do what we can, and I don't stress about not doing what we can't. My family comes first, and I use my own situation regularly to teach others that we can't judge others at all, in any way, by how active they are in non-essential activities. For example, I've mentioned in Stake Leadership Meetings that I don't attend the temple as regularly as I would like because my and my wife's work schedules don't match, and it's hard to afford extra trips to the temple right now.

Summary: I am comfortable doing what I can, when I can, to the extent I can. Period. If that's good enough for others, fine; if it's not, fine. Period. It's what they are going to get, and once they realize that they are fine with it. (with a few exceptions, but there are people like that everywhere in life)

God loves me, and that really is enough in the end - although I've found that people generally love and accept me when they know I genuinely love and accept them and am willing to worship with them as much as I possibly can.

"Coming Out" with Regard to Differing Beliefs

I'm about as "out" as it is possible to get when it comes to my beliefs - but I'm firmly "in" the Church. I don't hesitate to share my opinions, as everyone in the entire Bloggernacle knows - but everybody also knows I'm fully committed to the Church. I don't lie; I don't hide my beliefs; I don't mince words; I don't let harmful or really, really stupid things go unaddressed; I regularly express my view in public and privately with individuals. Some people are "out" - while I am "way out there" in some ways. I also am "in" in many other ways.

It doesn't have to be one or the other - "in" or "out". That's part of the black and white worldview that causes so much of the dissonance experienced by those who struggle to feel like they fit in and belong.

Let me try to put it this way:

Why could Elder Wirthlin serve in the same quorum as Elder McConkie and Elder Packer? Why can Elder Packer serve in the same quorum as Elder Andersen and Elder Cook? Do you really think that they pull punches with each other about their beliefs on topics they discuss? Believe me, it doesn't happen that way - and it never has. They hash it all out openly and honestly among themselves - and generally don't move forward until there is a consensus.

What's the difference in a ward or stake? It is absolutely vital to ask this question and understand the answer.

The difference, primarily, is people who are less willing to grant that others can disagree and still be fine, faithful, dedicated members of the Church. When Elder Wirthlin begged that we allow ALL instruments in the orchestra to be heard, he was saying that it's OK to be different in the way one thinks and sees lots of things (and even "sounds" to others) - to be "out" of the normal range, if you will. The key is being "in" the orchestra - actively playing your own instrument - not sitting on the sidelines worried about sounding different or letting others exclude you due to your different instrument and its sound.

In the Church, Invitations Usually Are More Appropriate than Challenges

For what it's worth, I really don't like the culture of "challenging" that is rampant in the Church. I just don't like the attitude it presents. For example, it's NOT "Moroni's challenge". That word isn't there. It's "exhort" and "invite" - not "challenge".

So, I personally don't "challenge" people very often.  Rather, I extend an invitation - since that removes all of the "machismo" associated with a "challenge" - and since invitations can get turned down all the time when they simply aren't appropriate without any need to "save face" in some way. Appropriate invitations, on the other hand, are seen as a wonderful gesture - even in those times when they still can't be accepted due to reasonable conflicts.

We Are Responsible, Largely, for the Experiences of Others at Church

[Normally, I would proivde a link to a good post from somewhere else today, but I felt impressed to share this memory, instead.  I hope that decision was inspired - that this post touches someone, somehow today.]

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.

As I expected, 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 (thoughtful, uplifting, enlightening, spirit-directed teaching and sharing). 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 is simple:

If you want to deal better with some of the things that cause you to struggle 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 outside of church time, if you aren't getting it directly at church from others).

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? .

Friendship and Fellowship Should Not Be Temporary Assignments

A little over a year ago, I posted this - and I feel like I should re-post it now.  I hope that decision was inspired and that it helps someone:

I don't reach out to anyone any differently than I reach out to everyone - unless I feel impressed to do so on an individual level. I smile at everyone; I talk with everyone; I hug or shake hands with everyone; I flirt with all of the older widows (and many of the older non-widows, whose husbands love it); I play with all the kids; etc.

I am bothered more than I can express whenever I hear someone talking about someone else as a "project" - as the focus of something that has to be done. I believe the best help I can give anyone is to get to know them and sincerely befriend them. That's when I can usually get the best inspiration about how I can help them.

I think if we truly knew, loved and accepted everyone simply as a natural extension of our "love orientation", "activation efforts" would be simply a part of that perspective - not separate activities that need to be carved out of our schedule. That is the ideal.

To be clear, I have NO problem with thoughtful and careful consideration about how to reach and help someone - or to whom to reach out and try to help, but I don't like ulterior motives. "Coming back to church" will happen when someone feels drawn to return, for whatever reason, but it generally happens best or most lastingly when it's not a temporary focus that stops when an objective has been achieved.

If I were in charge of activation efforts, I would say, basically, "I feel like __________ needs a friend right now. Go be that friend. If she is interested in returning to activity or not, be a friend. No matter what happens with other callings and assignments, don't stop being her friend. This isn't a temporary assignment; treat it like a life-long request."

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.

The Words of Normally Quiet Members Often Are the Most Profound

In his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", Elder Wirthlin said we shouldn't value just the piccolos in our orchestra. Something to consider:

Piccolos are the most easily heard instrument in almost any orchestra, since they are pitched so high. (I view piccolos as mutant flutes - designed specifically to be heard above the other instruments.) So, we shouldn't value only those who are heard the most or the most easily. (e.g., Just because I talk a lot, doesn't mean anything I say is more valuable than something a more quiet, reticent commenter says.)

Many of the most profound things I have heard in church have come from the quiet members whose experiences make what they do share incredibly touching. There are many members from whom I would LOVE to hear more than I do, but when to comment is up to them individually. That's one reason why I enjoy Sacrament Meeting, even with the duds. The format gives me a chance to hear from those who normally don't contribute in an open discussion setting. I generally learn more from them than from an hour long class.