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?

God Is Not More Important than Wife and Kids

I read recently (and hear fairly often) the statement that our priorities should be:

1) God;
2) Family;
3) Church;
4) Community ("others")

I believe if you separate God from family (and even from "others"), you’ve missed the heart of the Gospel. The account in the Gospels that is used to justify that separation (Mark 10:28-30) is misinterpreted badly – taking something that was said to disciples / apostles called on specific “missions” and extrapolating it to everyone.  That passage says:

28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

I believe it is critical to read this passage in context - not reading more into it than is there. 

Peter was married.  We know this, because Jesus healed his mother-in-law.  (Matthew 8:14)  We don't know from the record, but it is likely that he and his wife had children.  It is likely the same was true of the other disciples who traveled with Jesus.  Therefore, it is correct for Peter to say, "Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee." 
 
However, it is a HUGE stretch - an erroneous assumption, imo - to think that they literally left their wives and children for good - that they "divorced them", per se.  That runs counter to everything else that Jesus taught - and that was taught after his death by those apostles.  It is much more likely that they left them to serve a mission, if we translate it into our modern terminology - and that Jesus was assuring them that if such a decision led to their family divorcing or disowning them they would be compensated richly for their sacrifice. 

Finally, as I've said in others posts, Adam had a choice in the Garden of Eden: Leave God to stay with his wife, or leave his wife to stay with God.  He chose his wife over God, trusting in faith that, by so doing and truly becoming one with her, he would not be leaving God at all.  I believe that is one of the primary messages of the Garden narrative, and I think we devalue our theology when we devalue marriage by placing God above it. 

My priorities are:

1) My wife and kids;
2) Others.

God is the constant that runs through and binds all of my priorities, not a separate priority in and of itself. 

There’s a lot more I could say about that, but I believe the idea that God is more important than wife and kids is a pernicious misconception that is tied to the Protestant, apostate idea that our highest divine hope is purely individual.  That ought not be taught among us.

Meetings Can Be Bad, Mediocre, Good, Better or Best: Prioritization Is Important

I have a friend who is serving in a Bishopric.  We were talking about how easy it is to let meetings multiply to the extent that they become overwhelming - and about how both of us have heard some people say we ought to eliminate Sunday School and use the extra hour to do service or hold the "extra" meetings we tend to schedule.  He said the following, and I want to comment on it here:

The rule for me is sometimes to do what it takes to maintain sanity and a healthy family, even if it means having to skip meetings. There are other meetings that bishopric members are supposed to attend that don't add much value in my opinion or that are more of nice to do if possible.

I agree totally.

I don't believe in attending every single meeting possible just because the meetings have been scheduled, and I and my family have skipped lots of meetings and gatherings that others consider to be important or even mandatory over the years. I believe in being active in the Church, but I also believe in prioritizing meetings and eliminating, consolidating or shortening so many others. When it comes to meetings, I believe in good, better, best - and we ought to eliminate some meetings that are good (and, in too many cases, not even good) for things that are better and best.

In terms of our meetings, I think Sunday School actually can be a better thing, at least, and even a best thing, in some wards. I know I don't want the teenagers in my ward to miss the Sunday School class I teach, and I don't want our leadership to miss the Gospel Doctrine class being taught by a wonderful teacher. I understand that experiences in different wards and branches vary in quality and impact, so I understand it's much easier for me to say that in a ward in which Sunday School instruction generally is excellent, but that's an issue that needs to be considered before anyone talks of eliminating Sunday School. Seriously, eliminating Sunday School for many members would eliminate the only chance they have to "study the Gospel with the Saints" - and that opportunity to learn from each other is important to me, especially when it comes to new converts and the youth.

I hear some people complain that the Church doesn't do enough to teach everything it could possibly teach about the scriptures and its own history and that it needs to do a better job of teaching these things to the youth, but eliminating Sunday School literally would reduce the available time significantly to do that. For new converts and youth who are the only members in the families and have no support at home, that's a very significant change - and not a good one.

I understand that callings can get in the way of life in negative ways, but eliminating the only meeting in the Church that is designed as a communal study opportunity isn't the way I would approach the issue. I would eliminate so many others things, instead - and, ironically, Elder Packer, of all people, has said the same thing numerous times over the years. (and he's not the only one)

Avoiding Becoming Weary (or Burned Out) in the LDS Church

In his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", Elder Wirthlin mentioned that some people stop coming to church and become "lost" because they are weary.  I was struck by that when he said it, and I have thought a lot about it since then - as anyone knows who has read this blog for some time, since I reference that talk quite often.

I want to share how I avoid becoming weary in the way that Elder Wirthlin describes, and I want to use my situation while living in Missouri specifically because it highlights how I easily could have become weary - or "burned out", as one friend described his experience to me years ago.

1) I keep from getting burned out by limiting what I do to what I can do without getting burned out. I know that sounds a bit silly and obvious (and very difficult for many, given the assumptions held my some members), but it works for me. It "helped" in Missouri that our finances and distance from the church created automatic barriers to doing too much, but I held to the principle even when we used to live 1.5 miles from the church and I made plenty of money. Bottom line: It's a hard-core commitment I've made - to do as much as I can but not get burned out by trying to do too much - to not try to do everything.

Some people don't like that I do that, and some people don't get it, but most people (the large majority) really do understand.

2) Having said that, I am MUCH more open to making an exception for unique service opportunities than for "regular, run-of-the-mill" stuff. I couldn't drive 40 minutes there and 40 minutes back - and pay for the gas to do so - just to be involved in an activity where there are plenty of other people there to handle it. Financially, I just couldn't. However, I could do that - occasionally - to help someone who needed my individual help. I could do that largely because I wasn't doing all the other stuff that would have sapped my time and money and energy - and that's really, really important to understand.

It's a balancing act, and it's MUCH harder in many ways than trying to do everything - but I believe it's important to be the one doing the acting and not just be acted upon.

The Beauty and Danger of Pure Mormonism

I have a friend who had been raised in a home where he was taught that every single policy, rule, commandments, word of counsel, request, etc. was of exactly equal importance - that in order to be a "good member" he had to do everything, all the time.  He had not been taught about the many instances within our scriptures that talk about "a time for ____ and a time for ____" - or "it is not requisite that (you) should run faster than (you are) able" - or all the other ways to teach the principle of balance and prioritization. 

He asked me the following questions, and I am including my answers to those questions. 

First, I need to make it crystal clear that the following is my take only - the world according to Papa D:

Which "laws" do you think are necessary for becoming like Him?

The ones that deal with internalizing love, including some that aren't obvious at first glance. Probably not much else, since everything else hangs on love.

Do all LDS policies, rules, etc. fall into that camp?

Absolutely not - and I guarantee there is unanimity in the top leadership of the LDS Church with that answer.

Are some laws more important to keep than others if we are to become like Him? If so, which ones?

See my first response. (Wow, that was easy. *grin*)

Which laws from God (as defined by the LDS church) have unintended consequences, and when (if ever) do those unintended consequences outweigh the benefits?

All laws, policies, rules, etc. have extraneous consequences, some that are not "ideal". The policies, rules, hedges about the laws, etc. have unintended consequences - all of them. The consequences outweigh the benefits whenever they do. 

I really don't mean that last answer to be flippant. Each one of those policies, rules, hedges, etc. will have different consequences for different people - and even for the same people in different circumstances, which means each of us ultimately has to answer that question for herself.  I simply would add that distinguishing between God's law and man's best attempt to figure out God's law is not an easy exercise, which is why personal revelation, agency and accountability are such a central part of Mormon theology. 
 
That's both the beauty and the danger of pure Mormonism.

What's Best for ME Isn't Always What's Best for US

When I graduated from college, I interviewed for a job that, through a very clear answer to a direct prayer, I thought I would be offered. I knew it was the best job available for me - and it was. However, I was not offered the job - and I was grateful quite quickly in short-term hindsight. When I questioned why my answer had been SO clear (that the job was the best one for me) and yet I had not been offered the job, I was able to understand that the job would not have been best for my family - and the answer I had received was the correct answer to the question I asked. ("Is this the best job for me?")

The issue was that I was more than "me" at that point; I was part of "us".

I had a wife and three children. Looking back on the job I was offered later, it was perfectly clear that we were where we needed to be at the time - even though that job lasted FAR more briefly than I had anticipated. You see, we discovered one of my sons had a speech issue that could have caused major problems - but the mother of two of my students happened to be a renowned specialist in that exact area. She worked with him free of charge as an expression of thanks for what I was doing for her children.

What is the "miraculous" or "necessary" part of this?

This is the same child who was told in his baby blessing, for no apparent reason, that none of the physical trials he would face in life would have the power to derail him from his appointed mission in life - and the job that was best for ME would have derailed him in a significant way. My job at that point, and every job I've had since then, primarily was not about me as an individual; it was about me as an individual AND husband and father and associate and friend.

My life hasn't turned out anything like I thought it would while I was attending Harvard. My grandiose dreams from those years lie dead on the floor of my life - but I wouldn't trade my life for those dreams or anything else. I've created my life, and it is a joyful life - but it's only a joyful life because I'm committed to making it so in the context of my entire, full, complete life that includes my family, my community and my church.

Would I be more invigorated or more enlightened or anything else like that if I left my family or my community or my church? On a purely individual level, sure - I can see that possibility. I don't think I'd be happier, though - because I've created the life I want and love. I also don't know of anything I can experience outside of my faith that I can't experience inside my faith - at least nothing that I want to experience that would compromise my full life.

Name something you might want to do and ask yourself:

Can I do this without compromising my full life - and without harming those I love?

If the answer is, "Yes" - then do it. If the answer is, "No" - then ask yourself why not. If you can't articulate a good reason, then consider doing it. If you can, then don't do it.

I know that might appear simplistic, but I really believe there is MUCH we don't do that is fine to do - and there is MUCH that is pursued in the name of personal enlightenment that should not be pursued at a particular time by particular individuals in their particular circumstances.

Many of those things might be fine for others, but I'm not living others' lives. I'm living mine - which, in a very important way, is "ours".

Spotlessness Can Be Next to Manslaughter

Some people need to let go of something in order to stay sane and not beat themselves up over unrealistic expectations. I'm fine with the tornado effect that is my house, since keeping it "tidy" with all the traffic that parades through it is nigh unto impossible.

Cleanliness might be next to godliness, but spotlessness can be next to manslaughter. I'll take clutter and general disarray over the alternative.

I simply have chosen those things that I really want to do - what I consider to be the most important uses of my time - and focused on making sure those things get done. Everything else is garnish, and I really don't like garnish all that much.

There is a Gospel lesson in this post, so . . . "They who have ears to hear, let them hear."