Self-Respect Is Manifested Individually

Today's Vocabulary Lesson: 

Self-respect means acting in a way that allows you to respect yourself. It has been expressed in religious terms as living "according to the dictates of (your) own conscience". 

Self-respect does not mean acting in a way that allows others to respect you - or that conforms to others' view of self-respect. It has not been termed as living "according to the dictates of (others') conscience". 

Too many people mistake their own view of self-respect with a universal definition. If there is anything obvious in even a cursory understanding of history, it is that there is no universal norm that represents an objective manifestation through actions of self-respect upon which everyone will agree. 

Hence, the term is SELF-respect.

Disrespecting Jesus of Nazareth by How We Treat Others

There are no qualifications, limitations, or disclaimers on the commandment to love others. 

"Inasmuch as ye have done it . . . " means, literally, if I call someone a mocking or demeaning name, I have called Jesus of Nazareth that same name. It means if I won't try to listen respectfully to someone, no matter what they are saying, I am refusing to listen respectfully to Jesus of Nazareth. 

The commandment to "do good" to people includes those who curse, persecute, and spitefully use us. We are commanded to be "perfect" in this love - and, in the original, that means being "complete; whole; fully developed" in love. It means, in practical terms: 

There are no qualifications, limitations, or disclaimers on this commandment.

Easy Outrage: When Hearts Grow Cold

We live in a society where people get outraged far too easily. Some things truly are worthy of outrage, but when outrage is the foundational orientation . . . 
Honestly, I think this outrage-orientation is one of the most insidious and alarming aspects of our society (fueled by one-sided, 24/7 media programs (on both - or multiple - sides of every issue that are focused on stoking outrage for ratings and the attendant profit) - and I think it is a manifestation of the concept of hearts growing cold and real charity being lost. When we don't even try to listen to those whose views are different than ours, with real intent to understand and respect (even when we still don't agree), we lose an important part of our humanity. 
I could have gained a quality education from professors at a lot of institutions, but the students at Harvard gave me a deep respect for people who saw the world differently than I did - and a deep respect for their views, even when understanding and respect didn't create agreement. In a real way, they gave me the world. 
I try hard not to fall into that trap, but I have not been entirely successful lately while posting on Facebook - not so much in what I post, since there truly hasn't been real outrage for me in those posts, but rather in how I have reacted a few times to respondents who appear outraged and derail the posts completely. I have committed to practice better what I preach - so if all someone wants to do is argue, with no attempt at understanding and respect, please understand if I ignore their comments and/ or simply don't continue to engage. 
Hopefully, that won't happen often; hopefully, we can converse civilly and respectfully. However, if that is not possible, I will try harder to respect everyone by not perpetuating and fostering increased outrage.

Honoring the Faith(s) of Our Non-Mormon Ancestors

Pres. Uchtdorf gave a talk in the April 2008 General Conference called "Faith of Our Father". In it he said:

When my own family contemplates the phrase “faith of our fathers,” often it is the Lutheran faith that comes to mind. For generations our ancestors belonged to that denomination. In fact, my son recently discovered that one of our family lines connects back to Martin Luther himself.

We honor and respect sincere souls from all religions, no matter where or when they lived, who have loved God, even without having the fulness of the gospel. We lift our voices in gratitude for their selflessness and courage. We embrace them as brothers and sisters, children of our Heavenly Father.

We believe that it is a fundamental human right to worship “Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

and

As the restored Church of Jesus Christ blossoms throughout the globe—now with more than 13 million members—“the faith of our fathers” has an expanded meaning. For some, it could refer to their family’s heritage in one of the hundreds of Christian faiths; for others, it could refer to Middle-Eastern, Asian, or African faiths and traditions.

I know the rest of that talk was a pretty standard interpretation of the Restored Gospel, but I really love the quotes above. Notice how Pres. Uchtdorf said "faiths and traditions" - not just "religions". We really should honor "sincere souls from all religions" - and I would add, "sincere souls who profess no religion".

I Do Things because I Want to Do Things, for Whatever Reasons Make Sense to Me

I follow the rules / keep the commandments according to the dictates of my own conscience and for my own, personal reasons.

For example:

I do not pay tithing as fire insurance or as a measure / token of righteousness; I pay it to help fund the Church.

I do not attend church to be blessed in the next life; I attend church to be blessed (sometimes) and to bless others (always).

I do not attend the temple to hold any particular calling or to get to the Celestial Kingdom; I attend the temple to commune with God in a quiet, reverent place and to remember to seal my heart to all of God's children.

I do not wear the garment for physical protection (or, really, even for spiritual protection); I wear it to remind myself of my relationship to God and because I love the symbols they include - and, frankly, because I've worn it so long it's a habit.

I could go on and on, but the point is that I do things because I want to do things - for whatever reasons make sense to me. I really don't care if others agree with my reasons; I care that others find reasons that make sense for them - for whatever they do, even if their actions are different than mine.

If I ask others to respect my right to make my own decisions, and to be accountable for my own choices, I simply must "allow them the same privilege", regardless of whether or not I agree with the choices they make. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recaps: Serving Effectively in the Church; or, Focusing on Building Zion

The topic this month is "Building the Kingdom of God on Earth", and we focused last week on "Serving Effectively in the Church". We did so by talking about five things:

1) We talked about the meaning of "effectively".

Effective can mean efficient - meaning doing something with as little wasted energy as possible, but it also can mean "causing an effect" - meaning achieving a desired result. Both are important in the context of serving effectively in the Church, but I pointed out that all actions have effects. One of the critical aspects of leadership is to identify the desired effect and act in such a way that the desired effect occurs. I simply said that the ultimate effect from service in the Church should be a closer relationship with God and each other - or, in other words, the establishment of Zion. Anything that takes people away from that effect is not in harmony with the stated goal of service in the Church.

2) We talked about the importance of callings in the operation of the Church.

I asked the students to rank church callings in order of importance. After a brief discussion about the "natural (wo)man" view of callings, we talked about how the most important calling is the one that they are doing at the time. We talked about living in the present and valuing the contributions and efforts of all members - and I mentioned how much I like the fact that a Bishop can get released and serve next in the Nursery, for example.

3) We talked about the difference between being a leader and being a worker - not relative to importance but merely to emphasize the necessity of each type of calling.

Concerning leaders, we talked openly, with the Bishop in the room, about how some callings are through inspiration, some are through perspiration and some are through desperation. We talked about how callings are important no matter which category applies in each case - and how, as a leader, it is important not to present a calling as being in one category when it really belongs in another one. I told them they should never tell someone a calling was inspired, for example, if there wasn't clear, undeniable inspiration in the selection process.

Concerning workers, we talked openly about how their honest input is important - and how it's okay to say no to callings and/or give qualified acceptance, meaning doing the best they can even if it isn't ideal. One of the students mentioned living in a small ward where his mother had three callings (two of which were leadership callings) while being pregnant. When she was asked to do one more thing, she had to say no for her own health and the well-being of her family. I mentioned a couple of instances where I had said I would accept a calling, but I shared some things about my situation at the time that would not allow me to perform the calling the way they probably wanted.

4) We talked about councils and their centrality to the serving effectively.

We talked about the importance of input from council members - and I stressed that the best councils are those where the participants have differing perspectives and views, since that allows the leader to hear ideas and suggestions (and concerns and objections) that s/he wouldn't consider naturally.

5) We finished by talking about the need to respect others who are doing their best, even if that best isn't what the leader would like.

I told them bluntly that people are more important than numbers and that if they ever lost sight of that and started focusing on numbers over people they would lose effectiveness and, more important, hurt people and lose their support and respect.

I Admire and Respect Faith, Even When I Abhor the Focus of That Faith

 Within the LDS Church, there is a wide spectrum of belief concerning lots of things.  Some members are "conservative" in their religious views; some are "liberal" in their religious views; some (more than most people realize, I'm sure) are moderate in their religious views.  Some are absolutely convinced that their views are the one and only true views - to the extent that some appear to believe they know everything there is to know about God and all things religious.  Most, among all groups, however, have not "seen" in such a way that it is possible to say, scientifically and objectively, that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

In practical, scientific terms, they have a very strong belief in that for which they hope - to the point where they see it as knowledge instead of hope.  

That strong belief in the hoped for but not seen is the classic definition of faith, which drives their actions - combining faith with works - proving that they really, really do really, really, really believe it and aren't just saying they believe it.

I can admire and respect that kind of faith, even if I disagree with the details - and even if I believe the details are harmful, like, at the extreme, the case of suicide bombers. Everything about the specifics of that exact faith is abhorrent to me - except its existence. I respect someone who lives their beliefs fully and without apology, even if I don't respect the actual beliefs - and even when I would celebrate if the actual beliefs disappeared from the earth completely - and even if I support jailing them for living according to the dictates of their own consciences - etc. It's not the existence of a faith I abhor; it's the foundation and focus of the faith - and I abhor very few beliefs within all faiths.

I see the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as I understand them but not as many others understand them, as "truly" pointing to the "good" end I want. Thus, since I can't and probably won't ever see factual evidence of that hopeful end, I am left with faith - hopefully strong enough to allow me to live according to the dictates of my own conscience.

In the end, I might or might not know if my faith was factually true - but my faith points me to where I want to go, and, therefore, is my own truth. If where I want to go changes, I will craft a new faith that will be my own truth as long as that new direction lasts. Faith won't change; only the foundation and/or focus will.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Practical Ways to Strengthen Marriage and Family

We focused today on practical things that we can do to strengthen marriage and family in our own lives. Most of the kids in my class have two parents at home, and today all of the ones in attendance have traditional families, so I structured the lesson around a series of reflective questions and input from the students. Also, the Sunday School President attended the class, as did my wife. (She was called today to teach the younger class and wasn't prepared with a lesson, so we combined the two classes.)

I asked each question, gave them about a minute to think about it, and got their answers - talking about each one, if further discussion seemed appropriate. The following are the questions and the answers that were given:

1) What do your parents do to strengthen their marriage?

They help each other with the small tasks around the house.
They communicate with each other / talk about everything before making big decisions.
They work things out without arguing with each other.
They look for things to do together.
They still do silly, romantic things - like dancing in the kitchen while the food is cooking.
They go on regular dates.
They talk nicely to each other.
My dad made it clear he loves us but loves my mom more - that she is his top priority and he won't let us disrespect her.

2) What do your parents do to strengthen your family?

They make sure we read the scriptures as a family at least a couple of times each week and have family prayers most nights. (I loved the focus on regularly when "daily" just didn't work, especially since these parents are ward leaders and would be classified as traditional members by pretty much everyone who knows them.)
They try their best to put up with the kids.
They make sure we eat dinner together, even though my dad works 12 hour days.
They do fun family activities, including my favorite: rides after church on Sunday.
They had fun Family Home Evenings, including things like basketball in the backyard, tag, hikes, etc.
My mom helps everyone. She takes us to all of our activities and volunteers to help others, also - even though that leaves her little time for herself.
They spend as much time together as possible and work hard to have good relationships with us.
They show appreciation for us and compliment us more than they criticize us.

3) What sacrifices have your parents made to help their marriages and their families?

My dad took care of me when I was little and my mom was bedridden with her degenerative disease.
My mom got a job to help support our family, even though she wanted to stay home with us.
My dad started a new job during the day while trying to keep his business open. He would spend hours with us each evening, then, when we would go to bed, he would spend hours each night trying to save his business. We didn't know what he was doing until after his business closed, since he didn't want us to feel bad about the time he spent with us.
My mom gets stressed out easily. She tried to take medication for it, but it made her feel like a zombie, and she couldn't help us while she was on it. She gave up the medication and is trying to find other ways to cope with her stress, even though it's really hard on her. She told us she would rather struggle to be part of our lives than not struggle and not be part of our lives.

I used the responses to that question to reiterate again how we tend to talk about an ideal when we talk about marriage, but I pointed out (by asking the questions directly) that all of them know single, adult members of the ward - and divorced or widowed members of the ward - or members who are married to non-members and attend church without a spouse - etc. I told them that what we were talking about is important no matter what their individual adult lives end up being like - that it's much like in October when we will talk about "Becoming More Christlike".

I finished with one last question, and I told them I would NOT ask for their answers. I told them that it was something to consider now but also over time - and that it might be one thing or twenty-seven things or any number of things. I first reiterated the core definition of "repent" (which they all know by now is simply "change") and told them that this is a great example of a way to approach proactive repentance (making changes NOT because of mistakes / sins of the past but in order to grow moving forward).

4) What do you need to change about yourself in order to be a better husband / wife or mother / father when you are ready to get married and have a family of your own?

Finally, I told them not to try to find "the perfect spouse". I told them, for example, that the apostles and their wives weren't apostles and apostles' wives when they met, fell in love and got married. I told them if they are with someone who makes them feel worse about themselves when they are together to run away from that person and find someone who makes them feel better about themselves when they are together. I told them to find someone who will make them the top priority - who will be willing to sacrifice in some way to support them and to keep a strong marriage.

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

On this day of unabashed patriotism, I want to share the following that has application to that topic, as well: 

There is a fine line between zealousness and fanaticism. I think charity is the delineator of the two - and, unfortunately, people do many things "out of love" that aren't at all charitable.

I look at the Golden Rule, and I can't help but wonder how (the collective) we would feel if our non-Mormon acquaintances acted toward us the way we sometimes act towards them - or if we learned that they talk about us the way we sometimes talk about them. I look at how some people interact with their "wayward" children and wonder how they would react if their parents weren't members and interacted that same way with them (their own "wayward children").

I believe in zealousness when it is manifested in a righteous manner, but I also have to be able to look at my own actions (and the actions of others as examples) and see the difference between righteous zealousness and something else. For example, I am concerned whenever I hear or read anything like the following - which I read in a comment a couple of years ago:

(In order to be zealous,) we have to stop worrying about “the other guy” and worry about how God views us.

Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the other guy AND about how God sees us, specifically because if there is one lesson in all of our scriptures I believe it is that "concern for the other" is absolutely central to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ. I agree completely that concern for how others see us can't get in the way of doing the right thing, but I also believe that "doing the right thing" without regard for "the other guy" often (and I mean very often) leads to doing the wrong thing in the name of righteousness. I don't need to use extreme examples of that principle; regular, daily examples are all around us.

I believe that being righteously zealous is not a simple thing that can be measured by a universal checklist. I need to be concerned with my own zealousness and whether my own zealousness is acceptable to God - and, for me, that absolutely must include a deep, central, strong element of how my actions in the name of God impact "the other guy" - since charity is the heart of my own measure of my own righteous zealousness.

One example to illustrate my point:

I love and admire Captain Moroni, but he was wrong - 100% dead wrong - in his chastisement of Pahoran during the war he was fighting. He didn't write that letter out of righteous zealousness; he wrote it out of frustration over seeing his soldiers die unnecessarily. (Those are his own words, not my assumption.)  He wrote it in anger - and the condemnation in it of Pahoran was unfounded. Captain Moroni was described by Mormon in the abridgment as a "perfect man", but he erred in that instance when he wrote that letter (which does not contradict Mormon's assessment of him). The letter was not charitable; it was not accurate; it was not in line with the standard articulated in D&C 121; it was not sensitive to the plight of a friend, supporter and fully righteous man; it was not a righteous judgment; it was not an example of "being moved upon by the Holy Ghost"; it was not an example of righteous zealousness.

Again, I admire Captain Moroni deeply, but I admire Pahoran even more deeply in that example - since he easily could have reacted very differently. It was Pahoran, not Captain Moroni, in that situation who "saved the day" - and he did it explicitly by remembering, in a time of great stress and distress, to "think of the other guy" and not return threat for threat. He did it by remembering the pure heart behind the mistaken accusations and not holding Moroni's mistake against him. He did it by loving the man even though the man's words must have cut him deeply. He did it by not being zealous in the traditional, stereotypical manner but by being zealous in love and meekness.

I believe in zealousness, but I also believe it is manifested differently in different situations and that, for me, at the very core, it absolutely involves "worrying about the other guy" in a very real and important way. I believe charity is the balancing agent between righteous zealousness and unrighteous fanaticism - and, if I have to choose between one extreme or the other, I try to choose to be overly charitable rather than overly fanatical.

Discretion Is the Better Part of Just about Anything

Discretion is the better part of just about anything. It's important to recognize and acknowledge that.

I can't say everything I might want to say in any group with whom I associate. I weigh my words all the time, both to consider their effect on me and to be careful of their effect on those who hear them. I try not to be misunderstood, even if I'm not fully understood. I don't succeed all the time in that effort, but I try. 

That's just part of life. Anything else is selfishness and lack of charity.

It's easy to forget that and think that church life is or should be different - that it should be a place where we can forget discretion and just say whatever we think and believe without filters of any kind. It's not that way, and it can't be - since it's a gathering of people who are just as short-sighted and weak as I am.

I'm not looking to carve out any "otherness" in the Church for any group of people. I'm looking to be a Papa D Mormon - for John Doe to be a John Doe Mormon - for Whomever to be a Whomever Mormon, etc. That's all, but it's vitally important to me - and discretion is the better part of that - just as it is for our apostles and local leaders, I would add.

I think leaders really do try to accomplish that (use discretion) well over 90% of the time. Even in cases like I've described here in some threads, with decisions and actions that left me scratching my head in bewilderment and caused some people real pain, most of the time the leaders involved really are trying to do the best they can.

They're human. Life is pain, because we humans inflict pain - because even our best efforts are undertaken as we see through a glass, darkly.

That's all I'm saying - that, given our collective humanity, discretion is the better part of everything we do, in all situations, among the people in all of our associations. I can't control them; I try to control me, to the best of my ability; I hope that I will not be held to a higher standard than I can reach, so I try my hardest not to hold others to a higher standard than they can reach.

That's easy when I like the others and they aren't hurting me and others in any significant way; it's not so easy when I don't like the others and/or they are hurting me and others in real, significant ways. Sometimes, I need to bite my tongue; sometimes I need to speak out; always I need to exercise discretion and think before I act - including before I speak.

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. 

We Can Be "Wrong in Our Heads" as Long as We Are "Right in Our Hearts"

I've said multiple times in lots of places that our general inability to accept the truly "liberal" parts of our theology is the single biggest reason for much of the misunderstanding we experience from other Christians - and the idea that people outside of the LDS Church can have a "mighty change of heart" and a "true conversion" is one of those "liberal" aspects of our theology.

It's not hard to understand why other Christians get mad at us when the message they hear is,

"Your beliefs are wrong, and your conversion isn't real."

since we get upset at them when they say the exact same to us. 

I think we can believe the first part of that statement and still reject the second part - or, as Joseph Smith once said, I don't think anyone should or will be condemned for erring in doctrine. I believe, as our Article of Faith implies, that we will be judged by the intent of our heart and sincere efforts (for Christians) to "exercise faith in God, the Father, and Jesus, the Christ" - not by the specifics of our understanding of theology and doctrine. In other words, I believe we can be "wrong in our heads" as long as we are "right in our hearts" - even as I believe it is important to try, to the best of our ability, to be right in our heads, as well.

"We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow ALL men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

I believe we will be judged primarily by how truly we worship according to the dictates of our own conscience - and that God probably sighs in exasperation over our collective inability to be more charitable toward those who worship / believe differently than we do, especially since all of us "see through our glass, darkly".

Why Is Individuality Respected in Some Wards and Branches and Not in Others?

I've been in wards where individuality wasn't appreciated much, and I've been in wards where individuality was appreciated greatly. What tended to be the difference?

Room for individuality depends almost entirely on the local leadership in the units, but the biggest factor that affects local leadership tends to be the diversity of the membership. A more diverse membership tends to necessitate more tolerance of individuality. Nobody has to be confrontational in any way, but hearing different voices and perspectives makes a difference - to widely varying degrees. On the other hand, it can be vary hard to appreciate diversity in thought and perspective in a ward or branch where nobody ever expresses a differing opinion, much less where everybody sees everything essentially the same way. 

That, perhaps, is the worst result of those who are different leaving the Church or becoming inactive. It solidifies the "norm" and lessens the likelihood that individuality will be appreciated and encouraged - that everyone will learn from hearing multiple views. I'm not "blaming" people for leaving if they feel different (and I LOVE Elder Wirthlin's point in "Concern for the One" that it is the membership's responsibility to act in a way that encourages those who are different, those who are tired and those who have strayed to return), but I am saying that leaving only exacerbates the problem about which those who leave complain.

Intolerant people who prompt people to leave contribute to our inability to build Zion, but so do those who leave. I know for a fact that my own insistence on staying actively involved has been a blessing to others who might have left or faded away into inactivity without my voice, and I am glad I stayed for that reason even if there had been no other benefits for me. There have been such benefits - great and glorious benefits, but, still, that would have been enough.

I'm not saying I have been responsible for the fact that my last two wards, especially, have been and are wonderful wards - but I am saying I have been and am a PART of the reason. I speak up and contribute in a unique way, and that helps others feel comfortable doing so, as well - especially those who see things similarly, but even those who don't. I talk openly about the need to value diversity, and the diverse appreciate that and respond. I am seen as totally faithful and not a threat or a challenge in any way (since I am faithful and am not a threat), so "The Church" where I live is not seen the same way it is seen in some other units.

Again, I'm not alone in that, but I AM a part of it. Granted, I don't face this to the degree that some others do in their units (where the majority of members don't want to hear differing views, for example), but I have been in situations where I appeared to be the only voice saying what I was saying - only to have someone come up to me afterward and thank me for saying it.

I believe that is worth considering - truly contemplating and internalizing.

We Should Be Seeking for Goodness, Virtue, Loveliness, Etc. Outside of Mormonism

The Thirteenth Articles of Faith says: 

"if there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

Two things:

1) According to our own capstone Article of Faith, virtuous, lovely, good and praiseworthy things exist that we won't have or understand unless we actively seek for them.

2) This says clearly to me that the LDS Church does not have a monopoly on those things - that we have to seek after some of those things to find them.

I love that aspect of "pure Mormonism" - and remaining active in the Church while seeking truth from all sources is something that is very important to me. Some members think they are at odds, but as long as I can do both, there are no conflicts in my own life.

I believe that the ideal heart of one's journey in the LDS Church is getting to the point where there aren't personal conflicts between being actively involved in the Church and seeking virtuous, lovely, good and praiseworthy things outside the Church, as well.  I also believe the journey can be individual and institutional - and that growth occurs best and most conprehemsively when such recognition exists at both levels. 

Learning from People in Other Religions

I drove in rural Southeastern Ohio years ago on a regular basis, and the only radio options were farm-related stock exchange rates and religion - so I listened to the religious program. There was a Protestant minister who regularly preached openly about "Mormon cultists" and mentioned occasionally that nothing good ever comes from such devilish sources. Most of what he preached was stuff with which I disagreed, but some of it was inspired and made me think about and see some things in a new light - for which I was grateful.  At the risk of sounding dismissive (which I don't want to have happen), I had to sort through a lot of what I saw as doctrinal garbage to find the pearls of wisdom - but I really enjoyed the beautiful pearls when he presented them. 

I had to laugh one day as I heard him tell his listeners about a wonderful idea that James Hobson (Focus on the Family) had been inspired to teach. It encouraged Christians to set aside one evening each week to spend with their families - to share the Gospel, testify and engage in fun activities in order to strengthen the family and bring Christians closer to God. He said it obviously was prophecy for our time, and he thanked God for inspiring Hobson in such a manner - and he had no clue whatsoever that the idea was modeled after the Mormon program of Family Home Evening.

We certainly can learn things from others, but they certainly can learn things from us - even if they can't attribute those things to us.

Giving Each Other Some Wiggle Room

I have a friend who sees a lot of things very differently than the other members of his small branch.  It's hard enough to be different in a large ward, but in a small branch it can be even harder.  I was talking with him a couple of years ago, and he said the following, which I thought was profound:

I expect the other LDS members to give me some wiggle room (most do not, I admit), so the least I can do is give them a little bit, too.

As I have thought about that statement since then, I have come to frame it in the following way:

I think it's appropriate to modify the Biblical statement, "We love him, because he first loved us," to, "They accept us, because we first accepted them."

However, just as not all whom he loved, loved him in return, not all whom we accept will accept us in return - as my friend said in the quote above. Our job is to accept them anyway, since, "If ye love them only which love you, do not even the publicans also?"

I believe it is important for all of us to give each other some wiggle room - to be accepting of others who are trying their hardest to follow the dictates of their own consciences.  If we can't do that, we certainly can't expect those who believe differently than we do to accept us and value our opinions. 

This has application outside the Church, as well.  How many times have you bristled when someone dismissed you just because, as a Mormon, your views were different or strange to them?  How can we expect or ask for a change if we dismiss them as they are dismissing us? 

Whether it is those inside the LDS Church with whom we disagree or those outside of it, I really do believe wiggle room is important.

"Coming Out" with Regard to Differing Beliefs

I'm about as "out" as it is possible to get when it comes to my beliefs - but I'm firmly "in" the Church. I don't hesitate to share my opinions, as everyone in the entire Bloggernacle knows - but everybody also knows I'm fully committed to the Church. I don't lie; I don't hide my beliefs; I don't mince words; I don't let harmful or really, really stupid things go unaddressed; I regularly express my view in public and privately with individuals. Some people are "out" - while I am "way out there" in some ways. I also am "in" in many other ways.

It doesn't have to be one or the other - "in" or "out". That's part of the black and white worldview that causes so much of the dissonance experienced by those who struggle to feel like they fit in and belong.

Let me try to put it this way:

Why could Elder Wirthlin serve in the same quorum as Elder McConkie and Elder Packer? Why can Elder Packer serve in the same quorum as Elder Andersen and Elder Cook? Do you really think that they pull punches with each other about their beliefs on topics they discuss? Believe me, it doesn't happen that way - and it never has. They hash it all out openly and honestly among themselves - and generally don't move forward until there is a consensus.

What's the difference in a ward or stake? It is absolutely vital to ask this question and understand the answer.

The difference, primarily, is people who are less willing to grant that others can disagree and still be fine, faithful, dedicated members of the Church. When Elder Wirthlin begged that we allow ALL instruments in the orchestra to be heard, he was saying that it's OK to be different in the way one thinks and sees lots of things (and even "sounds" to others) - to be "out" of the normal range, if you will. The key is being "in" the orchestra - actively playing your own instrument - not sitting on the sidelines worried about sounding different or letting others exclude you due to your different instrument and its sound.

Why I Like the Jewish Custom of Not Using God's Name

The reason I personally like the custom of not using God's name is that it doesn't tie God to one name - allowing God to be all names to all people. I absolutely think God would allow and appreciate that - and I have a personal experience as to why I say that.

My name is Curtis Ray. I grew up as Ray to my friends and most family, since my father is Curtis. However, I also have an uncle Ray on my mom's side of the family - so my mom's side of the family called me Curtis Ray. Professionally, I often am called Curtis - and I sign using my full name. I was Dad to my kids until a few years ago, when my wife was the YW Pres. in our ward. One of the YW started calling her Mama DeGraw, and, by default, I became Papa DeGraw. My own kids now call me Papa most of the time, and my Google name is Papa D. (Which was a result of the abbreviated way Mama DeGraw ended up being used.)  At Church, I am Brother DeGraw or Ray - but when I served in a small branch in Ohio I was Brother Ray. When I taught high school, I was Mr. DeGraw - or Mr. D.

So, I am:

Curtis Ray
Curtis
Ray
Dad
Papa
Papa D
Papa DeGraw
Brother DeGraw
Brother Ray
Mr. DeGraw
Mr. D
etc.

I really don't care what people call me, as long as they are comfortable with what they use - and they are being respectful.

For Those Members Who Feel Like They Are Living in a Secret World

I am a thinker tinkerer - someone who takes things apart mentally to see how they work. My wife doesn't care how something works, as long as it works - so she doesn't spend time and effort trying to see how it's constructed. Each approach works for each of us. I don't try to get her to examine the details, and she puts up with my analytical mind. I find a way to make it work, while she allows it to work as is. Together, we make a really good pair, since we don't expect to approach anything the same way - but both of us are focused on the fact that it works in the end.

I hope that isn't painful for those who are at odds with their spouses. It's just how my wife and I are, but I think the general principle of recognizing that all of us see things a little differently is important. If all members realized that, I think there wouldn't be a need to worry about being treated differently or have "secret worlds" in which we live. We would be much more open with and protective of each other. However, that recognition is not an easy thing - and differences can be scary and insecure; hence, secret worlds.

For what it's worth, although I don't feel like I have the type of secret world I have heard others describe, I certainly don't share all of my opinions and beliefs with everyone - since I know not everyone would be able to accept them. I have certain help I can provide due to my callings over the years, but, in the performance of those callings, I have to be very careful sometimes in order to be accepted as someone who can help. I still correct people when incorrect doctrine is taught or espoused, and I still share thoughts and ideas that definitely are outside the mainstream, but I have to be very, very careful how I do so - simply given the fact that I have not represented myself in many meetings I have attended in my life.

So, in a very real sense, I do have a "secret world". In my case, however, I accept that as an unavoidable aspect of my callings, so my secret world is different than most others.

Seeing the Beauty in Other Religions and Denominations

I am "amazed" on a regular basis by other religions and movements - in a good and enlightening way. I think there is awesome value in them, and there is MUCH we as a church can learn from others.

I would love to see more passionate singing, more praise-centered talks, more diversity of activities for the youth, more focus on local, practical service for those not of our faith, etc. I am inspired by the Muslim dedication to prayer; I love the symbolism of Catholic mass; the meditation and focus on internal calm of Buddhism enthralls me; Confucius was an incredible prophet, imo; etc.

Comparative Religion was my favorite subject in college, specifically because I want to learn from others' perspectives. I even listened to the evangelical radio shows when I traveled in rural OH, since there almost always was something I could learn from the sermons - even those that included things that are diametrically opposed to some of the core principals that are taught in the LDS Church.

I believe Moroni's description of what comes from God as whatever inspires to do good and come to Christ includes much that can be found in other religions and denominations - especially when "coming to Christ" is understood as "becoming like Christ, even if there is no conscious understanding and acceptance of Christ". Given that belief, I love to study others and their religions and try to learn and grow from them.