The Measure of our Christian Conversion: How We Treat Others

At this time of extreme contention and lack of civility, particularly in our political and religious discourse, I find the following quote enlightening and the final paragraph important to consider:

It seems interesting that the first principles the Lord Jesus Christ chose to teach His newly called Apostles were those that center around the way we treat each other. And then, what did He emphasize during the brief period He spent with the Nephites on this continent? Basically the same message. Could this be because the way we treat each other is the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?  

During an informal fireside address held with a group of adult Latter-day Saints, the leader directing the discussion invited participation by asking the question: “How can you tell if someone is converted to Jesus Christ?” For forty-five minutes those in attendance made numerous suggestions in response to this question, and the leader carefully wrote down each answer on a large blackboard. All of the comments were thoughtful and appropriate. But after a time, this great teacher erased everything he had written. Then, acknowledging that all of the comments had been worthwhile and appreciated, he taught a vital principle: “The best and most clear indicator that we are progressing spiritually and coming unto Christ is the way we treat other people.”  

Would you consider this idea for a moment—that the way we treat the members of our families, our friends, those with whom we work each day is as important as are some of the more noticeable gospel principles we sometimes emphasize.  

- Marvin J. Ashton (The Tongue Can Be a Sharp Sword) 

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.

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.

Influencing vs. Nagging Applies to More than Just Marriage

Influencing occurs through example and kindness, expressed sometimes verbally as encouragement but always in an uplifting manner that is focused on the positive.

Nagging is verbal and judgmental, expressed in a negative way that conveys disappointment as the motivating factor.

It's a fine line - sometimes. Generally, it's pretty clear, however - and it almost always is defined by the recipient. If the person on the receiving end perceives it as nagging, it's nagging in every way that counts. If that person doesn't perceive it as nagging, it still might be nagging - because the recipient might have been beaten down enough to not be able to recognize its nagging nature.

Therefore, I believe it's up to us not only to avoid "objective" nagging (that which any normal person would understand to be nagging), but also to avoid that which causes someone else to react in such a way that we ought to be able to see they feel nagged. That has application not just to marriage, but also to our interactions with others in nearly all social situations - including how we interact with family and members at church and with regard to our religious views.  It takes conscious effort to learn how to eliminate nagging in our lives, and it takes a degree of humility often - since sometimes we have to ask if the person feels nagged and be willing to accept it when they say they do. That can be especially hard when we are in a position of authority, "as (we) suppose".

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. 

Why Mortal Suffering?: or, We Are Meant to Be the Gods of This Earth

Adam and Eve were told they would be "Lord of all the earth" - and "Adam" and "Eve" are generic terms for "man" and "mother".  Thus . . .

I believe we have been given the power and authority to "be God" on this earth - that our decisions and actions (our allegiances - whom we follow and emulate) determine who is the God of this earth.

So, why does God allow terrible suffering and abuse?

Maybe it's because we aren't willing yet to step up and assume our intended roles - and we allow it to continue and be so pervasive. We like to blame God, but we aren't willing to see ourselves as the God we are blaming. In my own sphere of influence, I am that I am - but it's easier to shift the blame to the great I AM and not tackle what goes on around us in our own kingdom of embryonic gods.

Yes, there must needs be opposition in all things, so suffering is inevitable.  How we deal with it, however, is up to us.  If we know someone is being abused and do nothing to stop it . . . if we know people are starving and do nothing to feed them (or simply over-consume and keep resources from them) . . . if we know women and children are being forced into prostitution and sit back without trying to stop it . . . if we know of evil and don't fight it . . .

We can believe that such things are a result of the Fall and part of the Plan, so, in a way, we can say God is responsible for their existence - but WE, collectively, are responsible for the degree to which these things flourish, and we have examples of peoples who banded together and simply refused to allow them to continue within the spheres of their own influence.  They stepped up and represented God, in a very real way - and they changed the world around them.

Charity Suffereth Long, and Is Kind

As I have begun this year's resolution, I have had a few thoughts about how it all begins this month. I have thought about the "what" of this month's goal (to suffer longer in kindness), the "why" (of its importance) and the "how" (the specifics of suffering and kindness). For this first post, I am going to concentrate on the first question:

What does it mean, in practical terms, to "suffer in kindness" - explicitly as it relates to charity?

I also want to tackle what I believe it does NOT mean, in the context of practical, real-life examples where suffering might not be something that should be done "long".

As I tend to do, my first thought was to define the possible meanings of the word "suffer" - and this led me to an interesting epiphany that I want to share as I begin the month.

There are two distinct meanings of "to suffer" that have direct application to the way that word is used in the New Testament. The most common definition (the one we automatically understand in the context of charity suffering long in kindness) is:

to undergo, be subjected to, or endure (pain, distress, injury, loss, or anything unpleasant): The patient suffered greatly from his illness.

Based on this meaning, charity involves being able to be kind to others who are afflicting me - or to be kind while some aspect of life afflicts me (like an illness, disability, unemployment or other financial hardship, misunderstanding, extreme or unpleasant living conditions of some kind, separation from family, divorce, etc.). It is not lashing out in anger over those things that make us suffer - that bring "pain, distress, injury, loss or anything unpleasant" into our lives. Not succumbing to this natural tendency is a noble goal, and it is part of my resolution this month to succumb less often in this way - but there is another meaning of "suffer" that is just as important, in my opinion, to a fuller understanding of what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 13:4.

to tolerate or allow: I don't suffer fools gladly.

This specific example from the dictionary itself ("I don't suffer fools gladly.") is a perfect counter-example of what charity includes - and it stands in direct opposition to the best example from the life of Jesus where "suffer" is used to mean "tolerate or allow". Mark 10:14 says:

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

This verse clearly indicates that part of charity is "suffering" things that one would rather not "suffer" - tolerating those whom it is hard naturally to tolerate (like little children in a setting often associated with worship or teaching or any other setting where they might disrupt attention and lead to feelings of irritation) and allowing those situations to continue (or even encouraging them). By extrapolating a little, I believe it is valid to extend this meaning to ANYONE with whom irritation is natural - to those who see or believe differently, those whose personalities are different, those who are socially awkward or lack interpersonal skills, those who are blinded to their own irritable character traits, etc.

My main point about this type of "suffering" is NOT that we merely tolerate those who are different and allow them to stick around us, but rather that we strive to see them also in such a way that we can say "suffer (them) to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven". It is developing a feeling inside that allows a place for them in our own lives, both here and in the here-after -that allows them to be themselves and still be loved and accepted - that allows them to be loved without condition or requirement of change - that allows them to continue to irritate and distract without being condemned or kept from our company. (This has critical implications about how we treat members of our own religion and congregations whose views and beliefs about some things differ from our own.)

Finally, a word about the limits of this view of charity:

In theory, there is no limit to charity as it is presented here. In theory, ALL should be loved and accepted and tolerated and allowed to be seen as worthwhile children of God. In practical reality, however, there are some things that simply cannot be tolerated or allowed - some things that are egregious enough that change must be demanded and, if necessary, separation enforced. Serious abuse is the easiest example of this need. (I use the qualifier "serious" carefully, since I believe all who have not mastered charity [including I, myself] abuse some others in some way - but I also believe too many suffer serious abuse by defining it solely as "extreme abuse". There is serious abuse, and there is extreme abuse - and I am speaking of not tolerating or allowing serious abuse even if it is not extreme.)

To suffer long does NOT mean to allow serious abuse to continue. Jesus allowed his abusers at the end of his life to continue, but that led to his death - and it didn't last "long". Alma and Amulek allowed their abuse to continue, but that also was to seal an indictment on an entire community and didn't last "long".

Coming full circle to the two definitions of "suffer" discussed here, I believe there is an important distinction between the first type of suffering (pain, injury, loss, etc.) being caused by situations and circumstances and being caused by other people - and that distinction is critical to whether or not allowing it to continue is right or not. The key to suffering imposed by others, in my opinion, is suffering it in kindness while the suffering lasts - NOT prolonging the suffering simply for the sake of suffering. I believe that interpretation has led to more suffering than is right, good and necessary - and I believe it is NOT what Paul intended when he wrote of charity.

This is a fine line, and I understand and appreciate that it is a difficult line, but I believe it is a line that needs to be drawn.

Refocusing on the Beatitudes

My resolution for this month is to refocus on the Beatitudes, taken from Matthew 7:24-27. To set the tone for this post, I want to highlight only the first phrase from this passage:

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them . . .

It is critical to consider that the last words we have in the Sermon on the Mount are a very clear call to ACTION - a re-statement of the idea that not all who cite His name actually do His will and produce righteous fruit of the true vine. In that vein, as I recap the Sermon on the Mount at the end of this two-year resolution, I want to focus specifically on what "these sayings of mine" are - to identify exactly what Jesus meant in the final four verses of this wonderful sermon and, for the rest of this month, excerpt some of the things I have learned about some of those things. I also want to highlight each one in a way that draws it back to the exhortation to be someone who not only heareth but also doeth them.

So:

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Are you a little more humble than you were a year ago?

Blessed are they that mourn.

Do you mourn (particularly with those who mourn) a little more than you did a year ago?

Blessed are the meek.

Are you a little meeker (more gentle, forgiving and benevolent) than you were a year ago?

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness.

Do you crave righteousness a little more than you did a year ago?

Blessed are the merciful.

Are you a little more merciful (more compassionate, more willing to not punish others for their actions, more ready to let things go that bother you) than you were a year ago?

Blessed are the pure in heart.

Is your heart a little cleaner and more purified than it was a year ago?

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Is there a little more peace in your own soul, and do you bring a little more peace to those with whom you associate, than you did a year ago?

The time-line I have chosen is an arbitrary one, and I'm NOT suggesting that we must answer each and every question affirmatively in order to be following the admonition to do what we hear, but I believe strongly that we must be able to answer positively to at least SOME of the questions posed above (or others in the same vein) in order to be "faithful" and "repentant" as represented by the imagery of the wise man and his rock-built-upon house. I love Pres. Hinckley's plea to do a little more and be a little better, but I am convinced that the key is a constant and conscious movement forward - no matter the pace.

Teasing: Can I Do It While Following the Golden Rule

I am an instinctive tease. I was raised with five sisters and now have four daughters, and that hasn't helped curb my teasing nature. There are times when I have gone overboard very obviously, and I have felt real remorse at those times, but my resolution this month has made me ask the very fundamental question:

Can I tease someone else, even if I smile when I do so, and still follow the Golden Rule?

I have little time right now, so I only will leave my initial reaction:

Perhaps, but only if it is done in a way that causes NO pain to the person I am teasing.

That can be hard to determine, so I should be extremely careful in doing so - if I can do so at all.

I really would like input on this question from anyone who reads this post.