Treatment of the Garment

A friend of mine asked me once why we aren't supposed to let the garment touch the floor.  I knew that wasn't the actual wording in the Church Handbook of Instructions, but I also knew some members think that is what the CHI says, so I looked up the actual wording.  I decided to use that experience as the foundation for a post here, largely because I think it illustrates why I believe is it critical to parse what actually is said and taught - and it also shows how twisted things can get when we work strictly off of memory or try to impose personal views on others as rules or commands.

The CHI does not say that garments should not touch the ground; rather, it says the garment should be "kept off the floor".  It's not "ground" vs. "floor" that is the issue for me, especially since the ground and the floor are the same things in much of the world.  It's "touching" vs. "kept off" that is the difference.

I don't see anything disrespectful about garments touching the floor or the ground, but I do see disrespect in throwing / dropping them on the floor and leaving them lying around the house with other clothing that is scattered on the floor. When I read "kept off the floor", I picture something like a laundry basket or hamper - instead of a pile of clothes or clothing scattered on the floor.  When I see "kept on the floor",  I see them treated as nothing more than the soiled underwear that got kicked under the bed and turned into something really nasty.

Frankly, I don't like that this kind of detail is included in the CHI, but I really do think I understand why it is - especially as worded. I think the leadership knows that the garment is underwear, in practical terms, but I think they really, really, really don't want it to be treated like underwear - so we end up with things like this. I understand that.

One solution I think is just fine, even though I don't wear the garment that way:

Wear regular underwear and the garment over it. That alone would change the way it is viewed by many people from "underwear" to "symbolic clothing worn beneath outer clothing".  Many women already do that when they are menstruating and nursing, so I don't see any way it could be anti-doctrinal - and it would keep the garment cleaner than the way it is worn traditionally.  Also, if the regular underwear is skimpy enough, nearly all of the garment still can be "next to the skin" - and it wouldn't be nearly the sexual turn-off it is for quite a few members.  Seriously, even with most modern, traditionally "modest" underwear, nearly all of the garment still will be next to the skin. 

Learning from the Innocents: Or, the Beauty of Youth Baptisms for the Dead

I was performing baptisms in the temple a while ago for youth and new converts, and it hit me DEEPLY and profoundly how beautiful the concept of such work is to those who still are fully (or close to fully) "innocent" and "pure". In particular, as two new converts, one young man and one young woman, entered the font (each for the first time in their lives), there was almost a glow of anticipation that was awe-inspiring. (There also was an adult convert doctor who had been a member for a few years but never done temple baptisms, whose wife's face simply glowed as she stood on the steps and watched him be baptized.) One of the women had been baptized into the Church just the past weekend, and another woman was the still-recent convert who had introduced her to the Church. The young man's family recently had returned to activity, and the young woman's family still wasn't fully active (and, technically, neither was she).

It's moments like that when it hits me how much I really don't care, fundamentally, about nuance and intellectual distinction. Of course, I do care about the ability to understand nuance and to make intellectual distinctions, especially as a coping mechanism and as a way to understand and accept myself and others. However, at the most fundamental level, there is a beauty and grandeur and mind-blowing simplicity about "pure Mormonism" that still reaches up and grabs me by the throat and brings tears to my eyes in moments like that - when you see people whose lives have changed SO much or are so hard in very real ways dressed in white trying to do something for those they love in such an innocent, simple way.

The young woman I mentioned lost her father to cancer six years ago, and it literally tore apart her family in many ways. She was 12 years old when it happened (with siblings ranging from 4-18), and she hasn't been active in the church since then - due mostly to the extra pressure exerted on her mother to deal with the death of her husband and her children's father (including the need to work long hours to support the family) and being the only members in a town 25 miles from the church and in a different state. Work for the dead means something powerful and wonderful to this young woman, since her father was not a member of the Church but was a very good man who supported his wife in her attendance and beliefs. She doesn't care about fine detail; she just wants to show how much she loves other people and how much she wants to help them in some way - any way she feels she can. Temple work is truly cosmic for her. She was visibly excited and nervous and in awe the whole time we were traveling to the temple, and she said to us afterward that when she finally got dressed and went into the font room:

"A sense of peace hit me, and I knew God is aware of me and loves me".

I love baptisms for the dead. I love the symbolism and the over-arching theological meaning. I love how I feel like I've been standing in holy water when I leave the font. I love how clean and pure and simple the whole thing is - when I let go of my need to think and simply allow myself to experience and just BE - when all that matters is that I AM.

I can parse the wording of verses and statements and talks and try to understand concepts as well as possible on an intellectual level, but, for me, it all pales in comparison to seeing the faces of the innocents as they enter a baptismal font and as they leave.

Original Meaning vs. "Liken All Things Unto Ourselves"

This probably is going to sound a bit strange coming from someone who is a hardcore parser in so many instances, but I have heard some people argue against the practice of likening all things unto ourselves, based on the idea that changing what people meant originally does violence to their understanding and twists meaning to fit whatever we want it to be.  I understand and appreciate that concern (especially given how strongly I feel about parsing), and I've written here about my issue with how parables often are distorted beyond recognition, but . . .

"They become agents unto themselves, to act rather than to be acted upon."

This pretty much sums up my philosophy when it comes to life and these things. I care deeply about what quotes meant originally to those who said them. However, IF there's a better way for me personally to take them with regard to my own life and circumstances, I can recognize and accept what I perceive to be the appropriate meaning for me now without having to agree with the original meaning of the speaker - even in cases where the original speaker was a prophet and apostle.

In that sense, I intentionally choose to act rather than be acted upon. It's a fine line, but it's an important one to me.

The Importance of Being Charitable in How We Interpret Others' Words

I am a parser by nature, but I also choose to parse specifically to avoid "getting the impression" and "reading too much into (people's) comments". I have found in my life that when I don't parse, and especially when I rely on reading between the lines for what people "mean to say", I often end up being wrong about what they really meant to say - and sometimes I end up being radically wrong. I have learned this the hard way in too many situations, and I determined quite a while ago not to have it happen again. I have not succeeded completely in that, especially because all of us really do mis-speak occasionally and partly because I don't always follow my own commitments, but I believe MANY of the things we castigate people for saying and believing are things they don't say, don't believe and would be mortified to know that someone thinks they have said and believe those things.


My own general rule is to believe that someone doesn't mean more than what they say. I know enough liars (including those who will say anything) to know that's not a universal rule, but I still choose to believe that about someone until they prove me wrong. I also grant people the right to change their minds about things, so I try not to pull out old quotes to dismiss newer ones. (Now, if the "old" quote is only a week prior to the "newer" one . . .)

My point is quite simple:

I take a lot of time and spend an inordinate amount of effort trying to make sure I say only what I mean to say - and that I actually say what I mean to say. Seriously, it probably takes me FAR more time per word to write these posts than it does for anyone else who posts and comments here. I use all kinds of disclaimers and qualifiers to avoid extremes and overly-broad generalizations. (Just as an example, I have reworked and reworded this paragraph at least three times already - just to make sure it is worded as well and clearly as I am capable of wording it.) I still screw up sometimes and write something that doesn't convey exactly what I mean, but I almost never write something that requires someone to read between the lines to find what I really mean.

I think lots of people are like that - but their ability to accomplish that objective varies radically. I still grant them the consideration of only holding them to what they actually say - since that is what I desire from them. I don't want to be held accountable for what someone thinks I am implying or assumes I probably mean; I want my words to be taken on their own merit and addressed for what they mean in and of themselves.
When I do that, I find I am offended less often - and I am able to pinpoint more precisely exactly why I am offended when it does occur. I also am able to converse with the other person more productively - since they don't end up getting defensive over my misunderstanding of their words. There is not much else that can derail a conversation more quickly than insisting that someone said what they themselves "know" they didn't say.

Why did I write this post?

Mostly, it was to encourage everyone who might read it to slow down a little when they communicate (especially online), focus solely on what others actually say and look for ways to view what is said charitably - even if they then move on to real disagreement with what it said or written. In this case, I believe the Golden Rule is about as universal as it can be.

Some Thoughts on the Importance of Parsing

I've mentioned in the past that I am a hardcore parser.  I believe that approach is very important whenever we deal with things others have said - and the following is why. 

In the spirit of parsing (*grin*), the actual, dictionary definition of "to parse" is:

"To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components; to make sense of; comprehend."

 
I believe in parsing, because I believe in verbal and conceptual precision - and parsing is the only way other than deep conversation of which I am aware to get at the heart of what people actually say and write. This is true especially with people with whom it is not possible to converse directly about something. Since I've had countless experiences where someone (including myself) has said, "No, that's not what I said (or meant)," I believe strongly in identifying exactly what was said and allowing modification, where necessary, to clarify. Without the benefit of clarification, I simply must rely on parsing if I am to be both fair and charitable. 

I want others to parse my words (to examine them closely and subject them to detailed analysis - to make sense of and comprehend them), simply because I don't want to be misunderstood. I want to be judged by what I actually say, NOT by what others assume I must have meant. That has happened to me - people saying, "You can't have meant that, no matter what you said." My response always is, "I said it; I meant it." If I mis-speak, I want others to point out the meaning of what I actually say, so I have a chance to correct my mistake. However, I don't want them to jump to erroneous conclusions based on their assumptions of what I just had to have meant.

What others read into my words that isn't there is NOT my responsibility. I only can say what I mean, as clearly as I am able to say it in that moment. If it is misunderstood, I have no responsibility for that - IF I have done my best to express myself as clearly as I can. In that situation, it is up to the person who hears or reads my words to put as much effort into undertanding me as I put into trying to be understood - to parse my words for their actual meaning and grant me the consideration of believing I tried hard to write or say what I meant.

To me, that's nothing more than common courtesy and charity - not judging, not jumping to conclusions, not assuming to know one's "real intent" hidden cunningly behind one's words, not dismissing the parsed meaning and inserting other meaning instead. Again, I've been the target of enough non-parsing interpretations that I refuse to do it to others. Hence, I parse - carefully and consciously and as charitably as I can without intentionally twisting and distorting.

Misinterpreting the Parables of Jesus

I've heard some really wacky "hidden messages" from the parables in my life, and they generally have been presented as Truth - you know, for those who "get it". Given the extremes, I tend to limit the interpreting I do of parables to the obvious stuff. I don't look for hidden meanings; I parse what actually is written.

In a nutshell, here's why:

Jesus was teaching mostly common folk, and he was using images from their lives that they would understand. I don't accept that he was "hiding" anything; I just think people who didn't (and don't) understand the image he used tend(ed) to look for ways to interpret them in ways that often aren't consistent with the intended meaning. They get twisted, for example, by urbanites who don't know crap about farming - or modernites who've never used an oil lamp with a wick that needs trimming, in an era when it was impractical to carry excess oil around on your person. The story makes absolute sense to someone who has used such a lamp in such a situation (like a hike, where every ounce you carry is planned carefully).

Limits on Likening to Ourselves

I parse things I read and hear first, then I interpret. I believe it is important to grant the writer or speaker the benefit of the doubt and believe the words they actually use before looking for a way to interpret what they say. If for some reason I don’t feel confident that I have found the author’s original intent, I don’t mind getting more than one possible meaning or lesson or interpretation out of a text - even if only one of them was meant by the writer.

I believe in likening things unto myself - when the original intent doesn’t seem obvious. There are some times, however, when doing so can create some doozies. For example, I personally am not going to try to call down fire from heaven on anyone in the near future, even though that might be a simple way of likening Old Testament scripture to myself.