Being Nothing without Charity and "Being Worthy": How We Miss the Mark

I interpret the idea that we are nothing without charity as being a refutation of the natural tendency to value things and create measurements that make us feel better than others. So many other things we tend to value highly separate us from others by elevating us above them and making us worth more (or, interestingly, "more worthy"); charity levels the field and truly sets us as equal in worth.

Someone publicly gives away lots of money out of extreme narcicism? Fine, they have their reward, but nothing else. Someone prophesies constantly but does nothing to give actual help to those who need help? Fine, they have their reward, but nothing else. Someone gives phenomenal talks in church, full of poetic and inspiring imagery, but is a selfish jerk otherwise? Fine, they have their reward, but nothing else. Someone serves their entire adult life in highly visible church callings but looks down on everyone else due to their pride? Fine, they have their reward, but nothing else.

Love as the foundation of all else (the glue holding everything else together) is something I like, so I am okay with statements that say everything else falls apart or crashes to the ground without that foundation. ("on this hang all the law and the prophets")

It helps that I view it as a process, not an event - a pathway, not a destination - an issue of effort, not full accomplishment. It's not that I need to be perfectly charitable right now or I'm worthless, but rather that I value charity above everything else and am trying to be charitable.

My Talk in Church Today: Gratitude

I spoke today about gratitude. My daughter is sick, so I don't have time to do a full outline or summary, so the following is a condensed version:

Colossians 2:6-7 - "abounding therein with thanksgiving"

Two-edged sword - (Ammonihah = gratitude on steroids; public acknowledgment can be boastful, especially when righteousness is implied, and can hurt those who don't share the same blessings [talk on marriage and family last month as example])

Gratitude does not mean constant happiness. Life is difficult and brings trials and grief - moments that make gratitude hard. Also, biological issues like depression, bi-polar disorder, anxiety, etc. can inhibit one's ability to feel gratitude and joy. None of those things constitute sin. I pray that nothing I say will add in any way to the burdens carried by anyone here today.

Being grateful also does not mean we have to be thankful for our trials themselves. Rather, it means being thankful for what we learn from those trials. Let me give two examples of what I mean:

My mother's schizophrenia (not grateful for it but grateful for what I learned as a result of it)

Friend whose daughter died unexpectedly (He wasn't grateful she died, but he was grateful he was able to draw closer to God as a result. Nobody should ever say he should be grateful for that trial.)

I hope nobody here feels unworthy in some way if you can't thank God for a particular trial, but I also hope you can be thankful, now or in the future, for what you will learn as a result of that trial.

Three degrees of love, gratitude and service: God = telestial; friends / same (including family) = terrestrial; enemies / different (including family) = celestial

Michelle's weekly blessing list that has helped her see and recognize her blessings as they happen, rather than only in hindsight

My blessing list (Due to time constraints, only "For the Strength of the Hills" and a description of John Daniel Malan's sacrifice for his testimony.)

Definition of praise and honor in our theology being centered on doing and becoming - need to show gratitude and not just to verbalize it (although saying it is critical, too)

Plan of Happiness works for some people; Plan of Salvation works better for other people. I pray I can help everyone be grateful as a result of their interactions with me, whether pursuing happiness or receiving salvation is more powerful to them.

Invitation to count our blessings every day and then work to bless others - to show our gratitude in visible, tangible ways

The Opposite of Pride Is Not Humility; It Is Self-Loathing

I believe the opposite of pride is not humility. I believe the opposite of pride (self-elevation) is self-hatred / self-loathing (self-lowering). The opposite of loving one's self too much (pride) is loving one's self too little / hating one's self. The cure is learning to love ourselves - and we can't do that if we equate loving ourselves with pride.

The second great commandment in the law starts with the foundation of self-love, which then can be extended to loving others as ourselves. That type of self-love comes from love of God - meaning, I believe, in this context, recognizing that God loves us for who we are - since, "We love Him because he first loved us." Thus, accepting that God loves us is the first step toward rejecting self-loathing - and accepting that God loves everyone else as much as He loves us is the cure for the other extreme: pride.

We are children of God, and HE loves us - he LOVES us - he loves US. That is the foundation on which everything else can be built.

Why I Don't Like "Faith-Promoting Stories" of Miraculous Saving when Others Die

The worst part of many "faith-promoting stories" when someone avoids death is the implication of unrighteousness or unworthiness of those who weren't saved from death.

For example, when the towers fell on 9/11, stories circulated about people who had been delayed getting to work or didn't take their scheduled flight for some reason - and many of those stories expressed thanks that God had saved them from death as a result. I appreciate those people's faith, but I also understand the subtle message that God did NOT intervene for the many people who died in that horrific event.

In nearly all cases, the stories are not malicious or intentional; it's just a case of not thinking through the implications - and not recognizing the prideful foundation (the Rameumpton) on which the stories are built. The irony is that most people who feel protected and tell the stories are coming from a place they see as humbly recognizing God's presence in their lives, but the way the stories are framed is not grounded in humility.

A Beautful, Powerful, Instructive Confession

A friend of mine once shared the following with me, and when I found it after all this time I immediately realized I wanted to share it here on my blog.  The highlighting and parenthetical comments are mine.  I hope it touches and teaches someone else like it did me when I first read it: 

I had a woman tell me I was an idiot. The entire mess landed all of us in the Bishop's office. It got kind of ugly. I think that's why tip-toeing happens. If I squeal or correct someone - I'm the one considered in the wrong - especially when it's a leader. We have this superiority / ranking system (in the Church sometimes), that covers for the "good" guy and discards the "bad" guy.

I've seen it with high councils, in Bishoprics, in wards (with who is "in" or considered "in"). It is another massive human failing. So it's not so much tip-toeing as deciding what course you want to take. 

In my case I had been arrogant. The woman who had a gripe was right. I didn't do anything blatantly wrong - like steal or hit, but I said somethings with an attitude that cut some people deep. But popularity was on my side. I was the Young Women President and beloved. Because of my image and calling I sort of out ranked her. Her comments were seen as undermining and so on. In the court of LDS appeal I was acquitted and sanctified. I really believed those judgements were true and that she was a woman with a jealous gripe. Then one day when the incident was far gone I witnessed another similar event - and suddenly as an outside observer I realized I had been just what she saw. Maybe I hadn't meant it, maybe she was overly sensitive - or maybe I was a jerk and idiot.

I don't to this day know how many people I have done similar things to over the years. I imagine more than I would like to count. I can be very zealous when I have a cause I believe in. I can be very animated, dramatic and effective. In those heady moments I am so self focused it's amazing. And if people like my energy and presentation they grant me miles of forgiveness - even are blind to my errors. They are on my side and it really helps in a war of hurt hearts. I've been there; I know. 

Varying Valiance in the Pre-Mortal Life: An Abominable Remnant of Apostasy

I started thinking about it because the premise that this life is a continuation of the pre-mortal life and that the state we are born into is a result of our valiance and effort in the last life.

I believe in a pre-mortal existence, but I think the idea that the state into which we are born into mortality is a result of valiance and effort in that existence stems from a faulty foundation and is a mutation that stemmed from the earlier attempts to justify the Priesthood ban and on-going attempts to claim that we in the LDS Church are special. I see both of those justification motivations as the result of pride, even as I understand how deeply attractive they are to the natural (wo)man.

I believe more in the concept of, "There but for the grace of God go I," than in the idea of, "There but for my superior diligence and righteousness go I." 

Those are two very different premises, and they address belief in a pre-mortal existence and rewards for varying levels of righteousness. The first one (a continuation of life from a previous existence) in no way depends on the second one (some kind of valiance determinant), and the second one is only stated directly in our scriptures about "the noble and great ones" (in Abraham). It can be read as implied about others in places like Jeremiah 1, Alma 13 and D&C 138, but it is not an automatic and obvious implication unless that belief is held prior to reading those passages.

There is no indication whatsoever anywhere in our scriptures to support the idea that someone born into poverty or with a disability of some kind was less valiant in the pre-existence than someone born into wealth or full health - or, just as importantly, vice-versa. In fact, in the one case where disability is mentioned in the same passage as a pre-mortal life, Jesus said the blind man was born that way to manifest the power and glory of God. (and that passage is crystal clear in its portrayal of Jesus' followers believing in a pre-mortal existence and Jesus not contradicting that belief)

So, even if we take the scriptural accounts literally, which I generally don't do, the idea of varying degrees of valiance in a pre-mortal life affecting birth into mortality for the vast majority of people who have lived and now live just isn't there. I believe that we, as a people, needed a justification to deny black people access to the temple (not just a Priesthood ban), so our former leaders bought into the whole curse of Cain nonsense that was being preached in the Protestant congregations of their upbringings (since they all were converts originally) and used that to develop a uniquely Mormon version that expanded the apostate belief to include valiance in the pre-mortal life. We also wanted a reason to claim special status as individuals (as pretty much all religionists have done since the beginning of time), so we took the Protestant idea of pre-destination and the general idea of the noble and great ones being fore-ordained and morphed that into the idea that every person who is born or baptized into the LDS Church was fore-ordained because of pre-mortal valiance.

In short, I believe in a pre-mortal life, but I don't believe in varying degrees of valiance in that life that are exhibited in this life. I don't believe there were fence-sitters in the War in Heaven.  I think our temple theology annihilates the idea of varying valiance (or, at the very least, that, if it did exist, it matters in any way whatsoever after this life), and I also like Bruce R. McConkie's statement after the Priesthood ban was lifted that said we need to forget every justification that was uttered by anyone, no matter who they were, to explain the ban - that "we" spoke from "limited light and knowledge". For me, that includes the idea that pre-mortal valiance played / plays any part in the objectively quantifiable circumstances of our mortal birth.

Helping Only Those Whose Plight I Can't Help but See

I have been struck by how we (the generic "we") ignore others who are different than we are - and how we justify that rejection by citing all the other things that crowd our lives and take away our time.

If someone had asked all those who passed by the injured Samaritan why they had done so, I'm positive they would have had "reasons" for why they didn't stop and help. At heart, though, I wonder if they felt superior to the man lying on the side of the road - if they felt like the man had brought it on himself - if they felt disgust or revulsion or fear or arrogance at a higher level than they felt compassion and concern and love and humility.

In the past I've dealt with some people who made it really hard for me to live what I preach and believe - and I wonder how I would react if I was in a hurry and saw one of them in such a situation. I'm sure I would stop - but I wonder what I would do if it was someone I didn't know who appeared to be a dirty, smelly, jobless, drunken bum. Would I be the good Samaritan - or would I be one of the others who found an excuse to walk by on the other side?

More broadly, should I be seeking more diligently to find and serve those who are the modern equivalent of the poor, the lepers, the publicans, the sinners, etc.? Am I missing the point of the parable even if I do stop and help one person whose plight I can't help but see - and is the reason I might only see "the one", perhaps, that I don't value "the ones" that are harder to see as much as I value myself and those I know and love?

Learning to Receive with Gratitude

Being unemployed three times in my life has beaten the pride out of me when it comes to receiving help from others.

Our oldest son served a mission because our former ward supported him fully - paying all the costs of his mission. The Bishop came to us, even though he knew we would be moving soon after my son left for the MTC, and said that multiple members had asked him if they could pay for our son's mission. Technically, our son wasn't a member of that ward for even one day after he left the MTC - but those ward members supported him, anyway.

Some time ago, a member of our Bishopric handed my wife an envelope on Sunday saying simply, "I was told to give this to you." It had a card ("Have yourself a merry little shopping spree.") and a fairly significant amount of cash in it.

The thing is, we weren't on church assistance at the time - and hadn't been for over a year, but some people knew how tight our finances were. It might have been easy in the past (before my periods of unemployment)to have my pride hurt and to argue or be offended somehow by the envelope - but life's kicked that crap out of me.
  
Now, I'm just touched and grateful for the gesture and the expression of love behind it.

Realistic Self-Confidence vs. Reckless Self-Confidence vs. Confidence in the Lord

There is a fine line between proper and realistic self-confidence and reckless self-confidence. The latter (recklessness) often appears in the religious as a belief that the Lord will not let anything bad happen to you - that you can do anything without concern for the potential consequences - that you deserve to have good things happen to you and that nothing is an un-necessary risk.

There is realistically being aware of one's strengths and weaknesses, and there is being aware of one's strengths and blind to one's weaknesses - and there is being aware of one's strengths and blind to others' weaknesses (which is a weakness, in and of itself). I do not advocate blind and/or all-encompassing confidence. Even Ammon, who was one of the greatest missionaries in our recorded canon, gloried "in the Lord" - and humans have a tendency to think the Lord will help them get whatever THEY want, rather than what HE wants to accomplish through them.

Elitism in the LDS Church

Elitism is probably the single strongest natural (wo)man tendency that exists. Therefore, it probably is the single hardest natural (wo)man tendency to eradicate. Therefore, it is the single most deeply rooted "bitter fruit" that corrupts the vineyard. (Jacob 5)

On the other hand, self-esteem and divine potential are necessary, wonderful, empowering principles. They are the only way to fight the opposite of elitism - defeatism. (and that's not an intuitive juxtaposition of opposites) Therefore, we simply MUST be taught that we are of infinite worth.

Mormonism is a fascinating combination of foreordination and universalism (UNIQUE chosenness among the chosen ALL) - perhaps the most fundamental paradox that exists within its theology. We are special, but just like everyone else. There is great need for the Church and the Gospel in this life, but those who don't have it here will have a chance to have everything later.

I don't think "The Church" encourages elitism; I think mortality encourages elitism, and "The Church" is a product of mortality. I think "pure Mormonism" discourages elitism - but it's SO hard to get rid of that blasted natural tendency to separate us and distinguish us and lift ourselves at the expense of others.

It's motes and beams and pruning trees.

"Sustain and Support" vs. "Obey"

If I am convinced God does not want me to do something, especially if I have received a personal answer of some kind, I won’t do it – no matter what mortal tells me to do it. I still will “sustain and support” my church leaders in their callings, even if I can’t do exactly what I’m asked or counseled to do, but that wording does not say “obey regardless”.

D&C 121 is crystal clear about demanding obedience simply because of one’s position of authority, “as they suppose” – and I’ve never believed we will be blessed for knowingly doing wrong. I just can’t accept that we will be blessed for sinning, and since “sin” generally is defined partially as “knowing right and doing wrong” – I don’t buy the argument that we should obey any leader unquestioningly if they tell us to do something we believe to be wrong.

Having said that, I’ve thought and prayed about counsel I’ve been given with which I disagreed, and I’ve changed my mind as a result more than once. I also have accepted and followed counsel I believed to be poor counsel but not morally wrong in many instances when I have offered my own counsel and the leader reached a different conclusion. That’s just life in a community / organization of any kind.

I don’t believe in reflexive dismissal, and I agree totally with Elder Oaks’ characterization in his talk during General Conference last year in which he said that reflexive disregard for commandments and counsel due to a feeling that one is an exception to rules does not originate from God. At the very least, I would say such disregard is born of pride.

Proving I Believe I Am Not Better than Others By Choosing to Interact with Them

In continuing to consider the idea that I am not better than others in the eyes of God, no matter my abilities in things unrelated to that eternal message, I have been drawn back to I Corinthians 13 - one of my favorite chapters in all of our canonized scriptures.  I have been drawn back to the fundamental principle of charity - and, more specifically, what it means in relation to not thinking of one's self as better than others in the eyes of God.

Tonight, I want to address how we can shake off the shackles that often bind us in regard to learning to understand, appreciate, value and, finally, love those we are not inclined naturally to see as equal in God's eyes. 

The most extreme example of this would be what Jesus addressed in the Sermon on the Mount.  Matthew 5:43-47 says:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

This passage talks about loving, blessing and praying for enemies - and those aspects are quoted and discussed often in the Church. However, the part that is not quoted or discussed nearly as much is the part that tells us to "do good to them that hate you".

Loving, blessing and praying for are things that can be done alone, away from those in question - those who are enemies, those who curse you, those who hate you and those who misuse and persecute you. At least, this is true when these words are defined as feelings or emotions, as is the case often in our modern world.  Doing good to someone is different; it cannot be done alone. The command is not to do good FOR others; it is to do good TO others.  This involves action, and it must be done WITH those whom you would avoid naturally. In other words, you must interact with others to do good TO them.

This flies in the face of two other common statements:

Be in the world, but not of the world.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

The first quote (which, by the way, is not scriptural as quoted) generally is used as a justification to avoid sinners. My only point is that all of us are sinners, so this usage, in practical terms, is to avoid sinners who are different than we are. Obviously, this has particular application to those who curse, hate, spitefully use and persecute.

The second quote is perhaps one of the most misunderstood scriptures in the entire Bible. In its original usage, it does not mean to avoid anything that even looks like evil - that appears to be evil. Rather, it means something like the following:

Abstain from evil no matter its appearance - no matter how it looks.

I bring this up specifically because I have heard it used to justify all kinds of things that keep us from doing good to our enemies - and even to those who are nowhere near our enemies. The focus is not on avoiding anything that someone else might perceive to be bad, but rather to avoid that which truly is evil.

If I am a Home Teacher, and if one of the people I am supposed to visit and serve is only "available" when he is in a bar, should I go into that bar to visit him? If a woman is walking home in the pouring rain and I have the ability to help her, should I refuse to do so simply because someone might see me and jump to an incorrect conclusion? If someone has misused me in some way, should I refuse to interact further with him? (There are certain cases where my answer to this question is an uncompromising, "YES!!" - but people use it to often in cases where the "misuse" does not rise to the level of abuse that justifies avoidance or shunning.) Can I really be in the world and not at least "appear" sometimes to be "of" the world - doing good to my enemies if I never interact physically with them?


I believe that one of the primary reasons we refuse to interact with specific others is that (specifically, with those who have not harmed us is a manner that justifies avoidance), at the most fundamental level, is a lack of valuing them as equal to us - that we define others in such a way that we can justify not serving and loving them in a way that shows we truly believe they don't "deserve" to have good done unto them.  In some way, we place ourselves above them and see them as "worse" than we are.  (The other primary reason is a devaluation of ourselves to the point where we don't believe we have anything to offer - but that is a discussion for a different post.) 

In conclusion, I believe that if we are to internalize charity fully, at some point we must be willing to step out of our comfort zones and interact directly, in some way, with those who fight us, curse us, spitefully use us and persecute us. We can't become truly charitable in isolation, and we can't become truly charitable through only an intellectual understanding of it. At some point, we simply must LIVE it - despite the very real risks associated with doing so. 

There is Nothing Noble in False Modesty or Self-Deprecation

In thinking about my New Year's Resolution for this month (to "recognize more fully that I am not better than others"), I batted around multiple ideas for this weekend's post.  In the end, I found a post I wrote almost exactly a year-and-a-half ago.  I am re-posting it, with some parenthetical modifications to fit what I have been thinking about for the past week - but I am copying a comment by Molly on that post, since I think it is profound.

In Screwtape Letters, Screwtape says true humility is not a pretty woman trying to believe she is ugly or a clever man smart (some sexism here, but I give him a pass for when it was written and that he was a bachelor for so long). True humility is building the best cathedral in the world and knowing it is the best, and rejoicing in that fact the same as if someone else had built it.

With that introduction:
----------------------------
The fundamental point of my resolutions posts this month has been that charity is measured largely by how one views one's own abilities and knowledge - but, more precisely, that "vaunting" one's self and being "puffed up" are manifestations of one's view of one's self relative to others. In summary, the lack of charity in the manifestation of vaunting one's self and being puffed up is measured by how one raises himself above others - how one views her own abilities and/or knowledge in relation to others - and, again, more precisely, how one must devalue another's abilities and/or knowledge in order to value one's own more than is "correct".

(This applies exactly to the idea of recognizing that, at the most basic level, in the eyes of God, I am not any better than others.) 

The following, I believe, is self-evident, but I still believe it needs to be said:

It is very easy when thinking of this juxtaposition to conclude that self-confidence stands in opposition to charity - that if one is aware of and admits to a difference in the abilities and knowledge among people, and if part of that awareness and admission is that one's ability and/or understanding is greater than another's, then one is not being charitable. However, this stands in direct opposition to both common sense and one of the central themes of scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, the key is not a recognition of differences in ability and understanding, but rather it is not allowing that recognition to lead to condescension and condemnation.

(This also applies to members of the LDS Church directly, as it is very easy and "natural" to equate understanding of "The Restored Gospel" and membership in "the only true and living church" with being "better than others".) 

In case anyone is tempted to dispute the title of this post, simply stop and realize that the parable of the talents explicitly ends in the Lord rewarding those who recognized their abilities to multiply what they were given - and in the Lord taking what he had given from the one who feared his Lord and did not magnify what he had been given. It rarely is phrased this way, but the two who were rewarded had the ability, understanding and self-confidence necessary to do what they knew the Lord desired of them; he who was not rewarded lacked the ability and understanding to do so - perhaps due directly to a lack of self-confidence, manifested in fear.

(I listened to someone speak in Sacrament Meeting recently and cringed inwardly when she said feelings of self-confidence were not of God - that "self-esteem" was a damnable philosophy of men that breeds pride and arrogance and distances us from our Father in Heaven.  First, I don't believe that, at all - and, second, it is guaranteed to be misunderstood and hurtful to many who hear it.) 

There is nothing wrong with me admitting and openly stating that I have been blessed with a natural ability to understand mathematical concepts - or to see how various pieces of a puzzle fit together (both physical puzzles and conceptual puzzles) - or to find joy in simple things - or to see the good in others. Those are personal strengths, and it would be dishonest or disingenuous to state otherwise - and, at the very least, I would be naive and misguided to think that all share those strengths equally. It is not the recognition of my own strengths that constitutes being puffed up and vaunting of myself; it is the over-valuing and/or over-estimation of my own strengths and the under-valuing and/or under-estimation of others' strengths on which Paul focuses in I Corinthians 13.

Part of the message of the Sermon on the Mount, on which I focused for two years, is the challenge to put conscious effort into understanding those characteristics that comprise completion, wholeness and full development - and to pursue acquiring them in order to glorify God. That entire process requires a level of confidence - and confidence is another way to phrase faith and hope. Of course, ultimate confidence in this process is pointed toward God, but one of the uniquely empowering aspects of Mormonism is the addition of an element of confidence in our own status as children of God - confidence that humans really are "worthy" of "the grace that so fully he proffers us" (based simply on our shared heritage of sons and daughters of divinity, not based on "individual worth" as distinguished from others' worth).

There is nothing noble, in my opinion, in false modesty or self-deprecation. Those things are not the same as meekness and humility. The former are facades; the latter are internal characteristics. The former are deceptive; the latter simply are descriptive. In that light, I believe it is much better to offer a simple, sincere "Thank you" when complimented than to deflect honest expressions with canned phrases that reject the sincerity of others' words - thus devaluing their praise. False modesty, as a way to avoid openly vaunting one's self, only masks the puffiness that exists hidden inside and is, therefore, hypocrisy.

Postscript: I have felt the need to add one "disclaimer" - and it is an important one, I believe:

There is a fine line between proper and realistic self-confidence and reckless self-confidence. The latter (recklessness) often appears in the religious as a belief that the Lord will not let anything bad happen to you - that you can do anything without concern for the potential consequences - that you deserve to have good things happen to you and that nothing is an un-necessary risk.

(The proliferation of multi-level marketing and bankruptcy in Utah points to this too common tendency to equate "perceived righteousness" with "being favored of God in ALL things" - and it is a reflection of twisted pride, imo.) 

There is realistically being aware of one's strengths AND weaknesses, and there is being aware of one's strengths and blind to one's weaknesses - and there is being aware of one's strengths and blind to others' weaknesses (which is a weakness, in and of itself). I am not advocating blind and/or all-encompassing confidence in this post. Even Ammon gloried "in the Lord" - and humans have a tendency to think the Lord will help them get whatever THEY want, rather than what HE wants to accomplish through them.

Simple Prayer Request

It's really intriguing how often my New Year's Resolution for the month has paralleled my actual life.  Actually, it would be more accurate to say that my life has paralleled my resolutions, as I will explain. 

I say it is intriguing, because I choose my monthly New Year's Resolutions at the beginning of the year - meaning most of them are chosen substantially before my life catches up to them and shows me why I was prompted to choose them in the first place.  I would say that each year I have been pursuing this resolution format, there have been at least two months where the resolution is so spot-on for the events of the month that I simply must conclude that my mind was inspired to structure my resolutions for the year in such a way as to be working on those specifics traits at the very time I would need most to be focused on them.

This has been one such month.

"To set my heart less upon the things of the world" has been . . . challenging . . . to say the least.  We probably have had a higher number of unique opportunities to internalize this resolution this month than at any time in the last few years.  In fact, it might not be hyperbole to say that there has been a unique combination of opportunities this month that, in a real way, has been more all-encompassing than perhaps at any other time in our lives - and it's not over yet.

In that vein, I simply want to ask anyone who reads my blog regularly (or anyone else who reads this post) to keep us in your prayers.  We are OK.  In fact, we are more than OK.  We simply need insight and clarity with regard to a few things still. 

We appreciate it greatly. 

Be Careful What You Ask For: or, What a Month This Has Been!!

My New Year's Resolution this month is to "set my heart less upon the things of the world".  I should have thought more about the implications of that resolution before I set it.  *grin*

Seriously, it's not been a good month, thus far, in many respects - and all of them deal at least in some way with my resolution.  It's like God said:

You want to set your heart less upon the things of the world?  OK, buckle up, 'cause when I get done with you this month, you'll have less upon which to set your heart than you ever imagined a couple of weeks ago.  

I'm not going to detail everything here, but higher than expected costs for various things aren't the biggest part of it - nor are they the hardest to handle emotionally.  Money?  That's been a trial.  Honor of the world?  Check.  Ego?  Check.  Recognition?  Check.  You name it, if it deals with this resolution, it's hit over the last couple of weeks like a personal resolution tsunami.

I still have two weeks to go this month.  I've never rescinded a New Year's Resolution since I started this effort almost four years ago, but . . . it's tempting this month.

All I can do at this point is strap myself in and hope I'm a better person somehow at the end of the month than I was at the beginning.  After all, that was the point of the whole resolution process when I started, so I probably shouldn't complain when I picked a resolution like this one. 

Any suggestions? 

To Walk the Path that Opens Before Me

As I come to the end of this month's New Year's Resolution to be more humble and less proud, I want to wrap it up with a short commentary that will be a bit more vague than normal - but as personal as pretty much anything I write.  It deals with my life right now and something I have understood through experiences previously but am relearning now.

There have been times in my life when cirucumstances have combined to make me prouder of myself than I should have been - not in the proper way that Pres. Uchtdorf highlighted recently, but in the uncharitable way that is the focus of so many scriptural verses.  Generally speaking, my own life has followed the classic scriptural cycle associated with pride: Periods of pride, followed by forced humility.  There are elements of my life currently that represent that cycle - and it has come into stark relief as I have focused on how to conclude my resolution this month. 

Therefore, as a result of this introspection, I have only one commitment that has come at the close of this month:

No matter what the Lord has in store for me in the future - whether it is what I naturally want or not, I will accept it and do the best I can to make the most I can of it.  I will do my best to forge the path I desire, but I will accept and walk any path that I feel is being directed by God. 

To Be Less Proud: The Danger of Over-Applying Fore-Ordination

I want to make and discuss one simple point this weekend, as I have been contemplating being less proud this month.  It relates directly to a long conversation I had once with a friend about pride.  It is this:

Pride has nothing fundamentally to do with one's strengths, weaknesses, material possessions, social status, or any other "objective", measurable criterion.  Pride is an attitude - an internal outlook.  The weak, poor, uneducated, lowly, incapable, etc. person can be just as proud as the strong, wealthy, educated, prominent, capable person.

 

Pride is not a recognition of one's strengths.  Rather, it is a valuing of one's self over the value placed on another - a view that I am better than someone else intrinsically.  ("vaunting" one's self above others)  It is not understanding that I am better "at" something than someone else; it is a belief that I, as a person, am better "than" someone else - that my strengths make me a more valuable person than someone who is not as strong as I am in those areas.  It is a focus on elevating myself over others - and it is every bit as prevalent in the religious as in the irreligious, unfortunately. 

My biggest concern in this regard is that members of the Church too often accept the natural tendency to adopt the philosophy of "the Prosperity Gospel" at the individual level and too often make value judgments based on financial success, career paths, callings in the Church, etc.  Most members I know don't do so consciously, but there is a current coursing through much of the Chosen People rhetoric that carries a constant temptation to succumb to the notion that God chose us for a reason - and that reason must be because of some inherent "betterness". 

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the way that too many members assume that those who are born in the covenant or who convert at some point from another religion or denomination were foreordained in the pre-existence to do so - the extrapolation of passages in Alma and Abraham, for example, to all within the Church.  The flip side of this coin is the unstated assumption that those who are not born in the covenant or who do not convert are not foreordained to that - that they are not deserving of it for some reason.I don't know for sure about such things, but I am concerned about the subtle, pride-inducing justifications underlying such extrapolations. 

Those same justifications were used to explain the Priesthood ban before it was lifted, and Elder McConkie's admonition to "forget everything we have ever said about it" with regard to the judtifications for the ban has a place, I believe, for consideration when we view how close our statements about special valiancy in the pre-existence are to those justifications we have been told to forget with regard to race and the Priesthood.   

I'm NOT rejecting the concept of foreordination - not at all.  I do believe in it - to some degree and for some people.  However, it's a fine line between foreordination and predestination, and it's a fine line between foreordination and arrogance - but it's not a fine line between a theology that offers salvation and the opportunity of exaltation to all and one that posits special status for some based on pre-existent "betterness" that elevates them above others in an important way. 

That is pride, plain and simple, and it's something of which we need to be aware and which we need to fight in all its manifestations. 

"Be More Humble and Less Proud"

My New Year's Resolution for this month is to "be more humble and less proud".  I have focused on humility in a previous month's resolution, and as I contemplated how to begin with this month's resolution, I decided to go back through my archives and re-read what I wrote in other posts about humility. 

It was an interesting experience to see the insights I had as I went through this exercise the first time, what things I have retained and what things I have "forgotten" as I have focused on other godly characteristics.  If nothing else, it has re-emphasized to me the importance of repeating some very basic things over time - and not letting myself think that I have mastered something even this fundamental. 

I want to excerpt in this initial post some of the things that jumped out at me as I reviewed those previous posts:

I find it fascinating that the end of Matthew 5, where it admonishes us to not revile, comes full circle back to the beginning admontion to be poor in spirit. Truly, life and progression is one eternal round.

This passage (Matthew 7:21-23) also is the ultimate definition of "taking the Lord's name in vain". This describes those people who claim to be representing the Lord but not doing what His Father wants them to do. "Vain" means "arrogantly and/or without effect". Therefore, those who use His name in order to justify their actions when those actions are not what God wants them to do are guilty of both definitions above - arrogance and ineffectiveness. 

Using the Lord's name without effect (like the non-thinking, reflexive, blasphemous usage that is SO common even among those who profess to be Christian) is bad enough. Doing so to justify improper actions is even worse. 

The important point to make is that NOBODY is immune from this temptation or tendency - except for those who follow the admonition earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:33-37) to "swear not at all, but let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." In that context, nothing should be done "in thy name" except for sacred ordinances that require such attribution (e.g., "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 28:19]) and prophetic statements that truly do express His will ("Thus saith the Lord.").

My understanding of the multiple statements in the Sermon on the Mount regarding claiming to speak and act for the Lord makes me very wary of doing so outside the parameters set in the these passages. I believe that it is important to be careful to give credit where credit is due and avoid arrogance, but also not to begin to claim reflexively to represent Him in all we do - thus embracing the opposite manifestation of the arrogance that occurs when we fail to credit him.
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3)

 
 

My dad was ecstatic to leave high school and formal education; he worked as a milkman, a type-setter handling hot lead that left his hands rough and calloused, a farm worker between jobs, etc. He retired after 20 years as an elementary school janitor.

He’s one of the most intelligent people I have met in my life, based on the D&C definition. He’s also perhaps the most selfless, humble man I know. I think there's a direct correlation, perhaps even a causation, between humility and spiritual intelligence.

 

I have found perhaps the truest measure of humility is how someone handles attempts at correction - BOTH correct and incorrect attempts at correction.

I think of pride as the inability to accept criticism as a chance for introspection. I think the truly humble hear criticism (no matter the content and context) and think, “Is that correct?” I think the truly proud hear criticism (no matter the content and context) and think, “Shove it, jerk!” I think most of us vacillate somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, often depending on how much we like and respect the person who is offering the criticism.

I think the truest test of humility is how we react to criticism from those we don’t like or respect - and I certainly need to work on that.

 

I would aprpeciate reactions to any or all of these quotes.   

New Year's Resolution - 2011

For the past three years, I have focused on the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (charity) as the center of my New Years' Resolutions. The posts introducing why I have done so and detailing my actual resolutions can be found at the following links: New Year's Resolution , New Year's Resolution - 2009 and New Year's Resolution: 2010.  This year, I am keeping the same basic resolution (to become more Christ-like) but changing the scriptural focus of my effort.

My focus this year will be on some of the specific things Alma mentions in Alma 5 as leading to being spiritually born of God.  Since I can't paste the entire chapter in the space available here, I instead will quote from the introductory overview in Verse 14 and summarize my resolution for each month - with the appropriate verse citation for those resolutions.

Verse 14 reads:

And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

There are thirty-three distinct questions asked in this chapter that deal directly with the outcomes listed in Verse 14 - three of which are in Verse 6, three of which are in Verse 14 and twenty-seven of which are in the verses following Verse 14 (some of which are re-statements of the root questions - like the multiple questions in Verses 15-18). Since I view the first three questions as preparatory to the central questions asked in Verse 14 and the questions following Verse 14 as the blueprint outlines to achieving the condition described in Verse 14, I am going to organize my resolutions for 2011 the same way I have for the previous three years - one per month throughout the year - focusing on the questions asked in Verses 15-59.

Thus, my resolution for this year will be:

January:  Exercise more faith in the redemption of Christ. (Verses 15-18)
February: Have a purer heart and cleaner hands, and project more the image of God. (Verses 19-25)
March: Feel more deeply to sing the song of redeeming love. (Verse 26)
April: Walk more blamelessly before God. (Verse 27)
May: Be more humble and less proud. (Verses 27-28)
June: Be less envious. (Verse 29)
July:Be less mocking of others. (Verses 30-33)
August: Set my heart less upon the things of the world. (Verse 53)
September: Recognize more fully that I am not better than others. (Verse 54)
October: Persecute other less. (Verse 54)
November: Recognize the needs of the poor more and share more readily with them. (Verse 55)
December: Watch over the flock more diligently. (Verse 59)

Just as I have for the past three years, I will post about this resolution each Saturday throughout the year.

Any thoughts at the beginning, before I start writing my weekly posts, would be appreciated.

Having Confidence is NOT the Same As Being Puffed Up

The fundamental point of my resolutions posts this month has been that charity is measured largely by how one views one's own abilities and knowledge - but, more precisely, that "vaunting" one's self and being "puffed up" are manifestations of one's view of one's self relative to others. In summary, the lack of charity in the manifetation of vaunting one's self and being puffed up is measured by how one raises himself above others - how one views her own abilities and/or knowledge in relation to others - and, again, more precisely, how one must devalue another's abilities and/or knowledge in order to value one's own more than is "correct".

The following, I believe, is self-evident, but I still believe it needs to be said:

It is very easy when thinking of this juxtaposition to conclude that self-confidence stands in opposition to charity - that if one is aware of and admits to a difference in the abilities and knowledge among people, and if part of that awareness and admission is that one's ability and/or understanding is greater than another's, then one is not being charitable. However, this stands in direct opposition to both common sense and one of the central themes of scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, the key is not a recognition of differences in ability and understanding, but rather it is not allowing that recognition to lead to condescension and condemnation.

In case anyone is tempted dispute the title of this post, simply stop and realize that the parable of the talents explicitly ends in the Lord rewarding those who recognized their abilities to multiply what they were given - and in the Lord taking what he had given from the one who feared his Lord and did not magnify what he had been given. It rarely is phrased this way, but the two who were rewarded had the ability, understanding and self-confidence necessary to do what they knew the Lord desired of them; he who was not rewarded lacked the ability and understanding to do so - perhaps due directly to a lack of self-confidence, manifested in fear.

There is nothing wrong with me admitting and openly stating that I have been blessed with a natural ability to understand mathematical concepts - or to see how various pieces of a puzzle fit together (both physical puzzles and conceptual puzzles) - or to find joy in simple things - or to see the good in others. Those are personal strengths, and it would be dishonest or disingenuous to state otherwise - and, at the very least, I would be naive and misguided to think that all share those strengths equally. It is not the recognition of my own strengths that constitutes being puffed up and vaunting of myself; it is the over-valuing and/or over-estimation of my own strengths and the under-valuing and/or under-estimation of others' strengths on which Paul focuses in I Cornithians 13.

Part of the message of the Sermon on the Mount, on which I focused for two years, is the challenge to put conscious effort into understanding those characteristics that comprise completion, wholeness and full development - and to pursue acquiring them in order to glorify God. That entire process requires a level of confidence - and confidence is another way to phrase faith and hope. Of course, ultimate confidence in this process is pointed toward God, but one of the uniquely empowering aspects of Mormonism is the addition of an element of confidence in our own status as children of God - confidence that humans really are "worthy" of "the grace that so fully he proffers us" (based simply on our shared heritage of sons and daughters of divinity, not based on "individual worth" as distinguished from others' worth).

There is nothing noble, in my opinion, in false modesty or self-deprication. Those things are not the same as meekness and humility. The former are facades; the latter are internal characteristics. The former are deceptive; the latter simply are descriptive. In that light, I believe it is much better to offer a simple, sincere "Thank you" when complimented than to deflect honest expressions with canned phrases that reject the sincerity of others' words - thus devaluing their praise. False modesty, as a way to avoid openly vaunting one's self, only masks the puffiness that exists hidden inside and is, therefore, hypocrisy.

Postscript: I have felt the need to add one "disclaimer" - and it is an important one, I believe:

There is a fine line between proper and realistic self-confidence and reckless self-confidence. The latter (recklessness) often appears in the religious as a belief that the Lord will not let anything bad happen to you - that you can do anything without concern for the potential consequences - that you deserve to have good things happen to you and that nothing is an un-necessary risk.

There is realistically being aware of one's strengths AND weaknesses, and there is being aware of one's strengths and blind to one's weaknesses - and there is being aware of one's strengths and blind to others' weaknesses (which is a weakness, in and of itself). I am not advocating blind and/or all-encompassing confidence in this post. Even Ammon gloried "in the Lord" - and humans have a tendency to think the Lord will help them get whatever THEY want, rather than what HE wants to accomplish through them.