Star Wars and Church Membership: Balance and Opposition

There is an interesting element of the Star Wars theology, if you will, that parallels one of my favorite verses in the Book of Mormon - and constitutes a non-doctrinal reason I am as active as I am (completely, including being a temple worker and coordinator). Interestingly, both the Star Wars element and the Book of Mormon verse tend to be simplified by most fans / members with whom I have spoken.

In Star Wars, there is a dark side and a light side - and there are subtle points when it is clear that the duality within each person is central to "balancing the force". In a real way, without the dark side there would be no true light side - and the light side eventually would become the dark side.

There is a Book of Mormon verse that says there has to be opposition in all things, but few people consider that enough to realize the implications of that all-encompassing wording. "All" things includes each person - and it also includes the LDS Church (and every other religion) itself. There MUST NEEDS be opposition in the LDS Church.

I stay, in one way, to provide balance to the LDS force - to provide opposition in all things - to keep my people diverse. However, I try to do so in a way that truly constitutes a balance - moderation - unity despite difference - charity - etc. I am NOT trying to be the one true voice that corrects and contradicts and, in the ideal end, converts and, in practical terms, silences opposing views; I am not convinced I understand everything well enough to be confident I am right and others are wrong in many cases, and I don't want my view to become the new, exclusive orthodoxy.

I just know balance and opposition in all things are harmed when I (and every other individual) is absent and/or silent - so I stay partly to help others feel comfortable expressing their own views, as well, even when I disagree with them.

How Do You Remain United in the Body of Christ When A Leader Abuses Power?

I have a good friend who was hurt quite badly by a pastor who initiated a harmful program and insisted that my friend help him administer it.  When my friend refused, he faced serious consequences at the practical level within his church community.

That friend asked me, after the fact, the following - and my response follows his question, with a nod to Mormon-speak for this blog:

The reality is that church leaders are just regular people. As such, sometimes they abuse their power in their leadership positions. Generally this is minimal or not a problem - however sometimes it can be extreme and even abusive.

How do you deal with this? How do you reconcile it with the command to be united in the body of Christ?

1) by recognizing and admitting exactly what you just said. There's nothing "magical", in and of itself, that changes someone who is in a position of leadership in a church - man or woman. The only thing that changes automatically is the power and influence they are able to wield - the scope of their potential unrighteous dominion.

2) by recognizing that increased responsibility pushes "the natural (wo)man" toward increased unrighteous dominion. It pushes "the unnatural (wo)man" forward to greater at-one-ment. It pushes most people who live somewhere between those extremes either or both ways.

3) by defining "unity in the body of Christ" as "doing my best to help the entire community" - and realizing that sometimes the best help I can provide is a different perspective - or a simple refusal to do something.

4) by not being a jerk about it or refusing to do anything for the person but continuing to do everything I feel I can do in good conscience and balance.

5) by going above the person's head in extreme situations, if possible - always calmly and meekly and humbly, but clearly and precisely (and pointing out that I take my commitment to sustain God and the overall church community above my commitment to any one person).

Within the structure of my own religion, if I were to go to a Stake President, for example, about a Bishop, High Priest Group Leader, EQ President, etc., I would make it crystal clear that I am doing so out of genuine concern for the Stake President, the other person and the LDS Church itself - that I believe the problem I am trying to address is serious enough to be talking with the Stake President AFTER I've tried to talk with the other person. Again, as I say a lot, tone, attitude and appearance mean a lot in situations like this. I won't contribute to someone being stomped on, but I'm not doing any stomping on or punch throwing at any point in the process.

We Need to Experience Misery in Order to Serve Properly

I used to work with some non-profit, charitable organizations. Someone I like very much said, to the best of my memory:

Misery hurts only when it’s experienced. The challenge of charity is to experience misery on a regular basis without becoming desensitized to it – since nobody desires to experience it. Nobody wants to feel pain and despair and grief that they do not need to feel. Since we naturally shy from misery and pain, if we are not careful, we will insulate ourselves from those we say we serve and begin to value the process of giving over the receiver of that giving – and that is a dangerous result.

One of the worst effects of not searching actively for and serving those in pain and misery is the type of insulation it breeds.  I believe "knowing God" often occurs in direct proportion to how well we come to know His children - especially those like the ones Jesus served with such single-minded intensity during his mortal ministry.

There Must Needs Be Opposition in ALL Things: We Don't Take That Seriously Enough

I believe the principle that “there must needs be opposition in all things” requires that many things be legitimate choices which do not result automatically in punishment – and I believe it also means there will be individual leaders, at all levels, who will get some things wrong (even some important things). Otherwise, there really isn’t opposition in all things. In general, I don’t think members take that verse literally enough.

Also, I personally look at D&C 1:38 in the following way (copied from a post I wrote back in July 2009 – The Word of God in Modern Times):

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice (SINGULAR) of my servants (PLURAL), it is the same.”

I believe this verse says “it is the same” when the servants speak collectively (plurality of individuals over time) as a united body (singularity of message) – not when any one or two or six speak as individuals. That’s worth considering.”

There are relatively few things that “the servants” collectively have said with one united voice over time – and I accept those things as God’s will. I believe I am responsible to try to understand everything else to the best of my ability and act “according to the dictates of my own conscience”.

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.

Heaven Is Not a Place or Destination

One of the things about the concept of eternity in Mormonism that is radically different than any other Christian theology - and is one of my favorite aspects, frankly - is the idea that "there must needs be opposition in ALL things".

I know that can be discouraging to some people who just want to rest from all their cares and troubles, but I just can't accept eternal laziness with no opposition or personal growth and effort. (the sitting around on a cloud forever playing a harp and telling GOD how wonderful he is - pardon the snark, but I just don't like that image) To me, that would be Hell. Thus, I believe we become "heavenly" by being able to create "an internal heaven" no matter our external circumstances. Iow, we become Celestial Beings - to put it into more traditional Mormon verbiage. Ioow (in other, other words - *grin*), "heaven" is not a place or destination; it's a condition - just like "God" is not a person or Being; it's a condition.

Please, nobody take that as a beating stick to add guilt if you aren't heavenly inside. I don't mean that at all. I just believe it can be an empowering goal and process - as long as it's understood upfront that not being there is FINE. Again, it's the effort and the journey, not the current situation.

It's much like the Elizabeth Edwards quote I posted recently, which I would recommend reading if you haven't already.

The Danger of Seeing Patterns as Formulas

A friend of mine once shared the following with me, and I want to pass it on to everyone who reads my blog.  I thought it was profound when I received it, and I still think so now.  I have added some of my own thoughts into his words - modifying his pattern a bit, if you will:

A formula, by definition is a series of inputs that result inevitably in a predictable output: A + B = C. 
A pattern is a plan, based on experience and/or observation, for producing a predictable output. A pattern however, can be modified by lots of varying circumstances outside the control of the "creator" and end up producing radically different "outputs".

It is efficient to use patterns for one's life, and we use them all the time in the Church. There is no reason, for example, to burn your finger on the stove, if someone else has already had that experience and you can learn from it vicariously.  Thus, following the principles articulated in the Word of Wisdom can be much safer than insisting on understanding addictions fully by becoming addicted then overcoming the addiction.  Even though not all who partake become addicts (there is no firm formula for addiction to some substances), there is enough of a discernible pattern to warrant many people treating the pattern as if it was a formula. 
There are issues, however, to doing that - to seeing patterns as if they were formulas:

First, to some degree, as we rely on patterns or formulas, we give up our ability to experience life personally and up close. Obviously, we want to avoid unnecessary dangers, but is it really life if we engulf ourselves completely in patterns and formulas? Maybe we risk not seeing the sunrise differently that someone else - and that would be a shame. Maybe we risk closing ourselves to the whispering of the Spirit - and that would be an even greater shame. 

The second thought is that as an LDS culture, we tend to take a pattern and think of it as a formula.  (In fact, this tendency is deeply rooted in the "natural (wo)man".)  For example:

- Marrying a returned missionary will make you happy.

- Marrying in the temple will lead to the Celestial Kingdom.

- If you marry a returned missionary in the temple, you will be happy and end up in the celestial kingdom.  (A + B = C)

Any time that we think of a pattern as an absolute formula, we are eventually BOUND to be gravely disappointed by: the returned missionary who goes 'astray' - the temple marriage that goes bad - the general unhappiness we might feel.  Perhaps, some of that general unhappiness (or shattering disappointment and disillusionment) might be because we feel we haven't really experienced "our own" lives and, instead, simply lived a pattern believing it to be a formula. 

I think it is important to understand the heart of what my friend said - that we can follow a general pattern (and that it's important to do so in many cases), but that it's just as important to find and follow our own paths and the promptings of the Holy Ghost that can tailor and alter a general pattern to one that is right and inspired and directed for each of us as an individual.  We need to understand how few formulas there are in mortality and, instead, see and adapt patterns that have meaning to us - and that will not shatter our perspectives if they do not act as formulas that create "C" and lead us instead to "D" - or "L" or even "Z".

Why Many Truths Are Not Self-Evident

I don't think it's strange that growing causes growing pains. The old saying, "No pain; no gain," really is true.

If you look at it from one angle, the War In Heaven and Garden of Eden narratives draw two distinct alternatives: struggle vs. ease. I see the verse that says, "There must needs be opposition in all things," as much more literal and comprehensive than many people - that when it says "all things", it means ALL things.

So, I would say that truths are not self-evident simply because they aren't - and they can't be if we are here to grow and become on an individual basis.

A Different Way to Define Zion: Unity Despite Differences

To follow-up on my last post - 

If there must needs be opposition in ALL things, that would include Zion.  How can that be?  

In the third verse of the entire Book of Mormon, in introducing his record, Nephi says:

"And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge."

Jacob follows that later in Jacob 7:26 with:

"wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge"

In Mormon 9:32. Moroni says:

"And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge"

Finally, Mormon sums up his abridgment by describing it in Mormon 8:12 with the phrase:

"the imperfections which are in it"

Every one of these verses relates "truth" directly to what each person "knows" individually. In other words, the "truth" is critical to each and every person, but it also is defined by each and every person according to "the best of (my) knowledge." To say it differently, every one of these passages speaks of "knowledge" through the lens of personal experience - not as some academic, intellectually-defined, universal, "perfect" or absolute standard.

My take away from these verses is simple:

Being absolutely certain that we know universal Truth isn't critical for everyone, is destructive for many and important for others. So be it. I'm in the first category, but that doesn't make me any better or worse automatically than someone in the last category. I also have no right to shatter someone's certainty if that certainty is crucial to their peace of mind and well-being. That's just selfish. However, finding something in which I as an individual can believe as truth "according to my own knowledge" is absolutely critical to my happiness, peace and well-being - and I think that's true for every single person who lives on this earth.

I can't live my life "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine". I need to have something to which I can cling during the storms of my life - something that can provide the safety and security of a kite-string while I let my kite fly anywhere I want to explore. I might not be "absolutely certain" of much on a universal level, but it's vital that there be some foundational things that I personally, for myself, independently can say I "know for myself" - that is "true" for me.

My own conviction is that there is PLENTY of room in the LDS Church for people whose "personal knowledge" varies radically, as long as there is a common desire to understand, progress, journey, grow, search, believe, etc. For me, it's MUCH more about accepting on-going and personal revelation than it is about agreeing on every point of current doctrine. Coming to grips with that paradox (the need for an element of unity within a broad diversity of personal perspective) is what I see as the core definition of "Zion" - people who are very different in many ways overlooking those differences and uniting anyway. I've seen it happen at multiple levels, so "according to my knowledge" I can state it is possible.

Learning to Dance in the Rain

One of the students with whom I was communicating as part of my job a while ago had a tagline for her e-mails that I absolutely love - and I think it encapsulates beautifully and succinctly something that really is profound.

All of us are born into a world of struggle and turmoil - of some sort and to some degree. In the middle of all of that, I hope we can understand and remember something very simple yet profound:

"Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain!!"

The Dance of Opposition Within Us

When we begin to awaken to the light of the soul, life takes on a new depth. The losses we have suffered, the delight and peace we have experienced, the beauty we have known, all things belong together in a profound way. One of the greatest treasures in the world is a contented heart. When we befriend the twilight side of the heart, we discover a surer tranquility where the darkness and the brightness of our lives dwell together. We gain the courage to search out where the real thresholds in life are, the vital frontiers, the parts of our life that we have not yet experienced. Beyond work, survival, relationships, even family, we become aware of our profound duty to our own life. Like the farmer in spring, we turn over a new furrow in the unlived field. We awaken our passion to live and are no longer afraid of the unknown, for even the darkest night has a core of twilight. We recover within us some of the native integrity that wild places enjoy outside. We learn to befriend our complexity and see the dance of opposition within us not as a negative or destructive thing but as an invitation to a creative adventure. The true beauty of a person glimmers like a slow twilight where the full force of each color comes alive and yet blends with the others to create a new light. A person's beauty is sophisticated and sacred and is far beyond image, appearance or personality.  - John O'Donohue, "Beauty: The Invisible Embrace"

2 Nephi 2:11 says that there must be opposition in ALL things.  "All things" would include the Church, would it not? It also would include opposition within each individual member.

Perhaps the lack of struggle we crave so much isn't a good thing in the long run - or even possible. Perhaps learning to be at peace with external AND internal opposition is one of the great liberators of the Gospel ("Good News") - the idea that the inherent turmoil that "must needs be" is unavoidable and reconciled ("atoned for") already in the eternal scheme of things. 

In that light, a good friend of mine once wrote:

We devour the beautiful and enticing fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It is no longer on the tree, shining in appearance. Have we destroyed it? No. We took it inside ourselves. We digest it, and it is assimilated into our being, into every cell. The experience is described as the assimilation of opposites. In order to truly live, we must also die. In order to have joy, we must weep. It's a tension of opposites that plays out like a fractal diagram expanding, creating a life experience. We can fear this. We can find beauty and wonderment in it.

I say we are on a hero's adventure, not sitting in a study hall taking a pass/fail proficiency exam.

"By Common Consent": Validating Those Who Sustain AND Those Who Oppose

When I am at the stand asking for a sustaining vote and any who object, I make it a point to look over the congregation thoroughly - and, for the objection part, look behind me at those sitting on the stand, as well. I just think I should do what I can to make sure everyone knows I take the time to look and grant the possibility that there might be someone who would object.

In most situations, with most callings, the sustaining will be automatic and almost unthinking (which is not the ideal, but is what it is) - but there can be situations where someone knows something not available to the person extending the calling and hidden by the person accepting the calling, and I believe that such a possibility is important to validate in the minds of the members.

"By common consent" should not be an empty phrase.

To Persecute Others Less

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to persecute others less - taken from Alma 5:54, which says:

Yea, will ye persist in the persecution of your brethren, who humble themselves and do walk after the holy order of God, wherewith they have been brought into this church . . .

My overall resolution goes beyond the parameters of this verse a bit, since this verse focuses on those who persecute faithful members of a religion or denomination, but for this first post I want to focus more narrowly on the actual message in the verse - and examine if I do, in fact, "persecute" the humble who walk righteously before God.  It's a sobering subject, and it's one that I initially brushed aside without much thought - but as I was thinking of how to begin my contemplation and efforts this month I was struck by the thought that, perhaps, the actual question in the verse itself might apply in some way to me, as well. 

I certainly don't intend to persecute anyone, much less those who are humble and share my general beliefs - who have "been brought into this church".  I generally am quite tolerant and accepting, so it has taken some serious introspection to realize areas where I do, in deed, "persecute" fellow church members. 

In my case, it isn't so much an active, stereotypical persecution that concerns me about myself.  There are two primary definitions of the word "persecute" - and I have little or no inclination to inflict the first one, which is:

to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

That simply is not in my nature, but as I read the second definition, I was struck by a thought I'm not sure I had considered in quite that way before beginning to think about this month's resolution.  That second definition is: 

to annoy or trouble persistently.  

As those who regularly read my blog (or my comments around the Bloggernacle) know, I am heterodox in some of my beliefs.  I believe deeply and passionately in the Restored Gospel taught in the LDS Church, but there are many areas and topics about which my personal views are quite different than many other members.  I am a "thinker tinkerer" by nature, so I spend perhaps an inordinate amount of time considering multiple possible interpretations of almost everything I believe.  I also am not exactly shy about sharing those views with others - although I do try to be aware of others' sensibilities and not push any particular interpretation on those inside the Church who see things differently than I do.  

What struck me this week as I thought of the idea of persecuting fellow believers is that sometimes I am prone to phrase things (verbal statements and written comments) in somewhat forceful ways - and I know that sometimes this general tone leads others to feel criticized in some way and, perhaps, even attacked occasionally.  I rarely mean to come across this way, but it struck me that if I am aware of this tendency and fail to be even more careful than I am inclined naturally to be, I am, in a sense, allowing myself to "persecute" those with whom I disagree.  At worst, I am "annoying and troubling persistently" other LDS members (especially when I continue to read and comment at sites where I know my views will be annoying to the author); at best, I still am allowing others to feel persecuted - and, in practical terms, sometimes perception truly is reality.  

So, my first focus this month will be to take even more care in how I write here and how I comment in other arenas - both online and in person - to try even harder to ensure that I do not "annoy or trouble persistently" those within the LDS Church whose views are different than mine.  I can't stop sharing what I believe, but I can strive to word what I share as charitably and non-annoyingly as possible.

Within the Church, Be the Change You Desire

When I lived in the Deep South, invariably a black investigator would join the Church, face intense pressure from family and friends for joining a "white church", stay active for about 3-6 months then fade into inactivity - sometimes citing the fact that no other black people were joining the Church. Just as invariably, about 3-6 months later another black investigator would be baptized - and the cycle would repeat exactly.

After a few years, if those black members would have stayed active, there would have been a thriving black membership in the Church in that area.

I'm NOT blaming them for leaving. I mean that sincerely. I actually understand how difficult it is to remain active in an organization when you feel like a token member - especially when you feel like the others in the organization don't really understand you. For many reasons, I get that completely. Furthermore, there still is residual racism in some members of the Church, and that is more than regrettable; it is shameful.

All I'm saying is that when someone leaves they automatically contribute to the stereotyped self-fulfilling prophecy against which they complain. They also reinforce, unfortunately, the stereotyped view of those who are unlike them - that black members, or liberal members, or gay members, or feminist members ad infinitum never make life-long members.

Being a pioneer or Christlike rebel is hard, but leaving only exacerbates the problem at both ends. "Be the change you desire" is great advice, as long as that desire doesn't include bitterness and harsh confrontation and self-righteousness. It's a tricky balance sometimes, and it requires serious humility and meekness, but it's worth it in the end for those who can do it.

[Postscript: I am not saying in this post that nobody ever should leave the LDS Church. I understand there are situations from which some people should flee - situations that are toxic and harmful. I also understand, for example, that it is brutally hard to be a homosexual member of the LDS Church. I believe in the principle about which I wrote in this post, but I also believe there are exceptions to every rule.] 

Marriages Fail Because of the Good Times

When my wife and I were sealed, the sealer said something very profound. He said that most marriages don't fail because of the hard times, but rather that they fail because couples don't unite during the good times - and the hard times tear these couples apart. Those that unite during the good times actually grow even closer during the hard times.

I've never forgotten that statement, and I see it in so many applications in our world.

Leaving is Only Temporary; Loving Lasts Forever

I didn't write a New Year's Resolution post last night, because I had been at a professional conference most of the week without access to the internet (don't get me started) - and when I got home, I went with my family to the Nauvoo Pageant last night. We had gone twice already this summer (opening with our oldest daughter's boyfriend and our extended family when they were here for our youngest daughter's baptism and later with our children and our son's girlfriend), but some friends from Cincinnati (Jungkunzs) were in Nauvoo yesterday - so we decided to go again to see them, especially so our kids could see their daughter again. It was great to see them, but it also reinforced how small the Mormon world is.

We were walking into the area where all of the pre-pageant activities occur (the stilts-walking, the sack races, the dancing, etc.) when we started to pass a young boy in period costume. As they are taught to do, he asked where we were from - and, for some reason, Mama mentioned both MO and OH. He told her, "I live in Ohio." She looked more closely at him and realized she recognized his face. His family attends the ward (Hamilton) that meets with our old ward (Fairfield); we know his parents well (mother sang in Christmas programs with us and father served on the High Council with me before being called as the Bishop of their ward just before we moved); I've mentioned his father on this blog in a post about when the former Bishop died unexpectedly.

This young boy took us to where his parents were setting up to run the youth sack races, and we were able to talk with them for a few minutes before the pageant started. It was wonderful to see them again, and the thoughts that struck me immediately were two-fold:

1) What were the chances that we and their son would have crossed paths like we did last night, since we never would have realized they were there otherwise?

2) What were the chances we would have been there a third time this summer, since I have no motivation generally to see or attend the same event even twice within a few weeks?

We finished talking with the Foisters and moved on to find the seats that Jungkunzs had saved for us, placed our stuff on the chairs, and everyone else left to enjoy the activities. As I was standing there looking around (people watching as I often do), I noticed another familiar face - and the white shirt, tie and missionary name tag that accompany his current calling. It was Elder Moore, a full-time missionary who had served in our ward in Quincy, IL. He saw me at the same time, so he came over and talked for a few minutes. He is leaving to return home today, and his parents had come out to pick him up and drive home with him. They decided to attend the pageant before leaving, and his Mission President gave him permission to do so. We were sitting within about five rows of each other, so we had seen each other right away.

Again, the same two questions popped into my mind as I mentioned with the Foisters - with the first question modified to be:

What are the chances that Elder Moore and his parents would be sitting within a few rows of us - directly in front of us - and able to see us amid the crowd?

If they or Jungkunz's had chosen almost any other location, we probably would have missed each other completely.

Now, I'm not saying there was any kind of divine intervention in the course of these events - particularly since I do not believe in a micro-managing, puppetmaster God. All I'm saying is that it made me stop and think about things that naturally appear to be random accidents - coincidences that defy statistical probability - and realize that they occur more frequently in a small, tight-knit community where strong attachments are common. There might or might not have been a bit of Spirit-directed activity at play last night, but it is instructive that we met a family and an individual we knew well and loved largely because we belong to a religious community that promotes such close ties and creates ways for us to make deep, lasting friendships outside of "Sunday worship" services. Our ties to the Jungkunzs, the Foisters and Elder Moore were not forged in church on Sunday; they were created in extra-Sunday associations - musical events, Stake callings, visits to our home, etc.

That is powerful - much more powerful, in my opinion, than merely believing (generally) the same core principles and doctrines and sitting near each other each Sunday. In fact, it emphasizes something I believe strongly - that the importance of the exact nature of the nuances of our individual beliefs pales in comparison to the ties that we create through the lives we live. It is FAR more important to me to share unity in the activities of our lives (to be unitedly orthoprax, if you will - living alike) than to share unity in the small details of our faith (to be unitedly orthodox, if you will - thinking alike).

I would be bored to tears in a world where everyone thought exactly alike (and it would be a pretty good approximation of Lucifer's ideal, imo - since there would not be an opposition in all things); I find great joy and peace and enlightenment in a small community where people live in unity and love even while thinking and believing quite differently about almost everything imaginable. That, to me, is Zion - unity of purpose and shared living despite differences, not exact unity of thought and the elimination of differences. Zion also is reuniting with those we have loved and left - and realizing the leaving was only temporary, but the loving lasts forever.

Charity Thinketh No Evil: Harming Not One's Self

In my first New Year's Resolution post this month, I discussed the idea that evil is seen properly more as action in relation to others than in a vacuum - that, in and of itself, it is not merely an intellectual idea. This weekend, I want to describe something else that has struck me as I have contemplated this idea - first by quoting a very commonly referenced passage in the Book of Mormon, then by focusing again on the idea of "evil" being defined best as that which harms or would cause harm if acted upon - but in a different way.

2 Nephi 2:11 says:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

In my own words, the rest of this verse goes on to talk about how no ideal can exist in a vacuum - that something can be CREATED only in combination with its opposite - that it exists originally only as a reflection of that which it opposes.

2 Nephi 2:12 then says something incredibly profound and important about the theoretical condition of the lack of opposition - something that gets overlooked too often when opposition in discussed. It says:

Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation.

To what "purpose in the end of its creation" might this verse refer - a purpose that would have become "a thing of naught" if opposition did not exist?

Verse 13 expands on this theme, then says:

And if these things are not, there is no God.

This, then, is the ultimate "end of its creation" - the ultimate purpose that would be frustrated by a lack of opposition and cause the entire creation to be a thing of naught (of no worth or value) - ensuring that there can be God.

Verses 14 & 16 take this idea (that the entire end and purpose of creation is to provide a way for God to exist as God) and bring mortals into the picture in a way that describes perfectly our status as His children. It says that he created:

both things to act and things to be acted upon . . . Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself.

All of this points to the idea that we, as children of God, have been created to act "for ourselves" independently - rather than merely as objects to be acted upon.

In Last week's New Year's Resolution post, I discussed the difference between pornography and nudity as they relate to thinking no evil (inflicting no harm) - but this week I want to expand that idea to its full conclusion and include thoughts that harm one's self (only or along with others).

As I have considered what has come to me this week, I have realized that much of what I deem to be indefensible pornography not only represents actions that, if acted upon, would harm others, but that it also harms those who participate in its creation in a very real and critical way. I mentioned last week that the worst harm done by pornography might be the objectification it encourages of those who are the "receivers" of the actions portrayed, but I did not explore the objectification of those who are the "givers" or "perpetrators" of those actions. Even if they play the part of those who act, in reality they are used as objects every bit as much as those they use in what is created - almost always as commercial goods to be exploited for financial profit, but also as images upon which others act. That objectification is in direct opposition to the great plan of creating children to act like their parents - to take responsibility for acting in such a way that opposition is identified, extremes are separated, and new creatures are created who are capable of acting perfectly (wholely, completely and in a fully developed manner) on their own.

This post is not about pornography - which is nothing more than one example of something that frustrates the purpose of creation by removing our ability to act independently as free agents. It is about understanding that the thoughts we allow to carve out a place in our minds are "evil" not only if they lead to the harm of others but also if they lead to the harm of ourselves - if they increase our dependence on forces that act upon (and eventually control) us and decrease our ability to act of our own will and according to the dictates of our own conscience - if they decrease our ability to change our original nature ("repent").

There are myriad applications of that principle - that "fresh view of repentance", and I will try to highlight a few in my post next week. I probably will focus most closely on how our actions must not restrict others' ability to experience this process of repentance, as that is what has come most forcefully to my mind as I have written this post.

Losing as Part of the Atonement

We live in a society that has a problem with winning - simply because it requires losing, as well. What they fail to realize is that it is just as important to learn to lose graciously (to accept defeat with grace even after your best effort and endure to the end as you strive to improve) - as it is to learn to win graciously (to accept victory with grace and humility even if your victory is lop-sided and "worthy" of conceit).

There is a deep connection to how we view the Atonement in there, but most people never consider that aspect of the need for “opposition in all things”.

Give Freely; Revile Not

Matthew 5:38-42 says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

My resolution for November is taken from these verses. I have translated them for myself as:

Give more freely and do not revile as quickly.

To "revile" means: "to address or abuse with contemptuous language". The clear focus is on the abusive nature of the language being used. I chose this wording to highlight what I see as the central point of "turning the other cheek" - that of not returning abuse when being abused. As I do not anticipate being in a situation to be abused physically, I am focusing on verbal abuse, instead.

These two areas (generosity and being slow to revile) are natural strengths - things that come more naturally to me than many of the other things on which I have focused this year. I learned both of these traits by watching my parents - my father, who would give anything to anyone in need, and my mother, who (we joked) would say, upon seeing our bare house stripped by a gang of thieves, "They must need it more than we do." Furthermore, I don't remember one time in the 19 years I lived at home hearing my father say something abusive or ridiculing to someone else, and I never heard my mother even say anything negative (in any way) about anyone else.

I know how hard that is to believe, but I saw these characteristics modeled to perfection by my parents, and these particular things rubbed off (although not completely) on their oldest son. I am grateful, so very grateful, that, in this way particularly, I am the spitting image of my father and am my mother's son.

This is perhaps the best example of how I want my resolution each month to focus not only on my weaknesses but also on my strengths. Of course, I want to have the Lord turn my weaknesses into strengths, but I also want Him to make my strengths become perfect - whole, complete and fully-developed. Since these characteristics already are strengths, I will look this month for ways to exercise them more regularly - to see opportunities to give more freely (especially of non-monetary resources) and to be even less prone to revile in my conversations with others.