Ward Boundaries and Divorce: Irreconcilable Differences vs. Tolerance and Charity

I like the use of geographic boundaries to define wards and branches. I know there are issues in individual cases, and I know it causes grief sometimes, and I have NO problem whatsoever with people attending another ward, where geographically possible, in cases where real harm is occurring . . . but I really like that the default is geographic boundaries, rather than allowing people to congregation shop.

There is an element of learned tolerance and charity in having to try to worship with people who wouldn't normally be one's associates that I don't want to lose. I don't want us to adopt the individual salvation of much of the rest of Christianity; I want to maintain the principle that Zion is the goal and that "atonement" is a communal process. Those things are jeopardized when people can change congregations for any reason whatsoever - like "irreconcilable differences" now means almost nothing in divorces. Divorces should occur when there truly are irreconcilable differences, so I'm fine with people changing wards and branches in truly exceptional circumstances, but I want it to happen only in those exceptional circumstances where there really are irreconcilable differences no matter how hard the person tries to make it work. In other words, I don't want "common problems" to morph into "irreconcilable differences" - and I am positive that would happen without the geographic boundary default.

As a rule, I don't like making policies (in anything, not just the Church) based on exceptions. I like allowing exceptions in exceptional situations, not changing the default based on exceptional situations.

All Truth Claims Are Arrogant to Someone Who Disagrees with Them

I have heard quite a few people over the years describe Mormonism as arrogant because of its claim of exclusive truth and authority.  Whenever I hear that, I can't help but laugh inside - because every person who has ever lived has believed, in some way, about something, that they were right and others were wrong.  

I was on an agnostic discussion board a couple of years ago trying to explain how Mormons view baptisms for the dead to people who hated the very thought of it. I told them all upfront that I understand it sounds arrogant to those who don't accept and believe in it, but I wanted them to understand why most Mormons don't see it as arrogant - and I also pointed out that it isn't any more arrogant for Mormons to believe they are right and others are wrong than for others to believe they are right and Mormons are wrong.

That's worth considering, imo - and I think it's important to remember when talking with people who disagree with me.

Let me phrase it this way:

At the extremes, a "liberal / progressive" position is no different than a "conservative / fundamentalist" position - in that both are based on inclusion vs. exclusion and both are absolutes. The conservative / fundamentalist position says, "I am right to hang onto tradition, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong." The liberal / progressive position says, "Nobody is wrong / everything is relative - unless you disagree with me." The circles each position draws are smaller or larger than the other, but the core position is the exact same:

"I'm right; you're wrong."

An individual perspective is hard specifically because it requires rejection of easy extremes, and "the natural (wo)man" gravitates toward easy extremes. Biterness also pushes toward easy extremes, which is why I intentionally try to avoid cancerous activities and associations to the greatest extent possible. I have no desire to frequent anti-Mormon sites and engage in conversation with the admins and commenters there.  Been there; done that; learned better; don't need or want it at this point in my life.

More Often than We Admit, "They" Aren't the Problem: "We" Are

It's always easier to blame someone else for problems than to face the fact that they aren't someone else's fault.

Marriage is falling apart? Blame the gays.

Morality seems to be declining? Blame the infidels.

Job productivity is decreasing? Blame Facebook.

Promiscuity is rising? Blame the media. 



I don't see it that way. 

If those things are happening (and I"m not convinced they are happening, since, as a history teacher, I am well aware of how weak marriage and morality and job productivity have been and how rampant promiscuity has been for thousands of years), they are happening because "WE" are dropping the ball - not because "THEY" are corrupting our wonderful society.

I believe we should try to fix our own house before complaining about the conditions of other houses. If America is being killed, the current descendants of immigrants who came here earlier are doing the killing - not the immigrants who come here now.

If marriage is failing, it's heterosexuals who are causing the failure - not homosexuals.

If morality is failing, it's Christians who are causing the failure - not Muslims and atheists.

If promiscuity is rising, it's the religious who are fueling that rise - not the non-religious.

etc., etc., etc.

If this country (and others) fall, it will be "we" who make it happen, not "them".

Accountability and charity are powerful principles, and we cut the heart out of both of them when we insist on blaming others for our own problems. 

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.

Religious Tolerance and Exclusive Truth Claims

I think it’s interesting that religious tolerance often is weakest in those who demand it for themselves the most vocally. They cry out for tolerance and acceptance, but they turn around and stereotype others - condemning them to Hell without really understanding their beliefs. The “tolerance of condescension” still is better than the “intolerance of competing conviction”. Given the stereotyped attitudes of the irreligious liberal and the evangelical conservative, I’ll take the irreligious liberal any day - and, ironically, twice on Sunday. 


We walk a fine line between the type of tolerance Joseph Smith preached so passionately (allow all men everywhere the same privilege, let them worship how, when or what they may) and the claims of truth he made simultaneously (the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth). Unfortunately, it is far too easy to cross that line and allow the claims to temper our tolerance.

My Birthday Wish for All: More Love, Patience, Tolerance and Care

The following is one of my favorite quotes from any General Conference talk I have heard in my lifetime.  I quote Elder Wirthlin's "Concern for the One" often, but I absolutely love this quote just as much.  I want to share it today, as a birthday wish for all.  

If we could look into each other’s hearts and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care.

Marvin J. Ashton (April 1992 General Conference, "The Tongue Can Be a Sharp Sword")

May we try to do so is my wish. 

I Really Dislike Labeling People, Largely Because I Defy Most Labels

I don't like labels - at all. I just don't care about them, since they always misrepresent some people in their stereotyping net. I'm a great example of that, frankly.

I'm as active as it gets in every way that matters - but I don't call myself a "TBM". At some online discussion sites, I'm considered conservative; on other sites, I've been called borderline apostate. One commenter on my personal blog thanked me for being one of the key catalysts in her conversion and baptism into the LDS Church; a couple have chastised me for leading people astray. I'm not a label; I'm ME - and I'm a quite unique me, thank you very much.

To me, being LDS means that I walk my journey within the LDS Church - and I can bear testimony of lots and lots of wonderful experiences while doing so. I'm not just "active" in the Church; I'm about as "believing" as it gets - but that doesn't mean I'm stereotypical in many ways. I'm an orthoprax member who has some fairly heterodox views - and some radically heterodox views - and some very orthodox views - and some views that aren't fully formed yet.

I'm not a Mormon who is Ray; I'm Ray who is a Mormon. I am my own "I am" - and it's an LDS "I am". It's just uniquely me. I believe in my own "middle way" in the Confucian sense - in finding meaning, balance and personal harmony as I'm pulled by opposites. I don't believe in "A Middle Way" (as I've said in other threads), but I do believe in the concept of walking in harmony with my own conscience - which Joseph Smith preached very clearly.

That's me - but I respect, honor and support anyone in the pursuit of living according to the dictates of their own conscience. I hope that's accomplished while being LDS, but each person has to make that call for herself - and it's not my place to judge or label in a derogatory manner anyone who sincerely makes a choice that differs from my own. 

Charity: Really Good People Can Believe Really Bad Things

I had an experience a long time ago that is a great example of why I try so hard to understand people as well as possible and not reject them, even as I reject things they say and believe. I was thinking about it again recently, and decided to post my thoughts about it here. 

I have a long-term friend, someone I admire greatly in many ways, who is a wonderful, caring person - overall. She would do anything for family and friends in order to try to help them. She has had many experiences that I accept as profound, spiritual, enlightening, etc. There is so much to love and respect about her. I really do love her dearly - but it's hard for me to be around her for any extended period of time. A recent experience with someone else brought that up in my mind again.

She is a political extremist, and her extreme is on the other side of the middle from where I am politically. She will corner people and explain, in dire terms, what is coming if her political agenda is not established - if the wrong candidate is elected (in whatever election is next, at whatever local or national level). The world isn't just falling apart; the end of all we hold dear is imminent. Frankly, I believe she is over the paranoia line in that area - and listening to her conspiracy theories is nearly unbearable for me.

I really do love her - and she really is, at heart, a kind, caring, loving, dedicated person. It's just hard to remember that in the moment as soon as she inevitably starts on a political diatribe. It's not worth answering her openly, especially since she doesn't talk in church like she does privately (as she understands that church isn't the place to discuss politics at her desired level for private conversations).

I have learned a lot from her over the years I have known her. She is intelligent and insightful in many ways.

My point is simple:

My dear friend is fully human, and I can't blame or castigate her for that. I love her as deeply as I do only because I've stuck around long enough to see, to some degree, the full person she is - even as I want to run away screaming quite often when she launches her soap box missiles. If we weren't members of the same church, I wouldn't have gotten to know her as well as I do - and that would have been a shame, even as it hasn't been easy to deal with her regularly.

I try to remember that whenever I start expecting others to be all that I would like them to be - and I try also to remember everyone who talks with me and walks away shaking their heads at my own beliefs, but who also continue to talk with me, regardless. It's easy to forget how many people there are in that group - and it's important for me to model the charity and patience so many people have shown and continue to show me.

Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

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.

Who Advocates for the Outcasts of Our Culture?

“Who advocates for the outcasts of our culture?”

[Angie C wrote a thoughtful post on By Common Consent a couple of years ago that made me stop and consider something in a way that I appreciated.  It was titled, "Who are the Anti-Mormons?" - and it included the question I used as the title of this post.  The following is my comment in that thread:]

This was a great post, Angie – but that line above jumped out at me. Who are the “publicans, sinners, lepers, etc.” within our own Mormon culture, and how are we treating them? Further, how many people, including those whom we have treated as outcasts, who now legitimately can be called “anti-Mormon” would be anti-Mormon if we were treating them as Jesus showed us how and told us to treat the outcasts of society and those who persecute and despitefully use us? (The anti-Mormon comments on newspaper article threads hurt my head sometimes, but the responses by LDS members often hurt my heart.)

At heart, I believe most anti-Mormons are sincere people expressing sincere beliefs that reflect a real concern for the welfare of Mormons’ souls. Many speak from a history of deep pain from when they were part of "us".  I think, in general, they “hate the institution, but love the member” – as well as they know how, which in some cases is badly. I think, however, that the same can be said by others about many LDS members – that they “hate other denominations (generally not other religions), but love the members” – as well as they know how, which in some cases is badly.

Often, given their theology (or their move from Mormonism to atheism, which is common), that’s to be expected of them; given ours, it shouldn’t be expected of us. So, who is under greater condemnation for being “anti-others”? Who is more responsible for eliminating internal “outcasts”? (and by that I don’t mean at all the elimination of core doctrinal standards and an acceptance of everything as fine and dandy, even as I believe the recent explanation of the Priesthood ban and its justifications makes it clear that we, as fallible mortals, often turn theories and "the philosophies of men" into doctrine where it ought not be)

Is it any different for them to reject us as Christians for believing differently than we do than it is for us to reject “our own” as Mormons for the exact same thing? 

I believe it is worth asking the question:

Who are the outcasts of our culture, why are they outcasts, what part did we have in making them outcasts, and who advocates for them?  

After all, charity suffereth long and is kind. 

Accepting My Own Differences in Cases Where I am Different than Other Mormons

A good friend asked me recently how I embrace the LDS Church as being "my church" in a way that is fulfilling - that helps me feel a sense of personal "ownership" without any angst when I see some things differently than others.  I told him I would think about it and respond once I had the time to contemplate his question and give it the thought it deserves.

The following is my response to him: 

I think, for me, it boils down to the fact that I have been the odd duck all my life. I had to be OK with being different and seeing things differently than everyone else from the time I was . . . probably consciously . . . about seven years old, when I read the Book of Mormon on my own for the first time and realized I was getting different historical conclusions from it than I was hearing in Primary and Sacrament Meeting. If I couldn't be comfortable being different and not caring if others agreed with me or not, I would have been a basket-case at an early age.

In other words, I've been heterodox in some ways and had to "own" my different perspectives and my place in "my church" for as long as I can remember. I was where you are now as an adult before I was baptized at age eight. I'm not saying it was easy, and I'm not making any statement other than it's just a matter of accepting yourself for who you are when it comes to these things and learning to be fine with your best effort. That attitude helps because it eliminates the angst by focusing, ironically, on what I would call "pure faith and hope". I'm really weird in some ways, even within a peculiar people, so the only way I can be at peace within that peculiarity is to realize that all I can control (and even that not fully) is myself and living according to the dictates of my own (moral and intellectual) conscience.

Nobody else can make be happy, if I am not happy within myself. Once I am happy within myself, nobody else can make me unhappy. They can frustrate me, but even that is fleeting - when I can turn around and grant them the same privilege I have granted myself.  

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.

Dealing with Differing Understandings of God's Love

I believe love is the principle upon which all else hangs, and I believe actions that mirror what we believe to be God's love are the manifestation of our love for others.

If someone interprets God's love as the words of the prophets and apostles, fine. If someone interprets that as some of the words of the prophets and apostles, fine. If someone interprets that as none of the words of the prophets and apostles, fine. If someone interprets that as a combination of the words of the prophets and apostles and the voice of God to them directly, fine. As long as the person is following "faithfully" what s/he believes to be the word of God, fine. I can disagree with them, in some cases vehemently, when it comes to points of doctrine and the actions that follow from those points of doctrine, but I can't disagree with their sincere efforts to live God's law and exhibit God's love. 

It's not my place to judge, and I agree with Joseph Smith that, in the end, God won't punish anyone for erring on points of doctrine. That statement is one of my favorites from any prophet. 

I understand that most people have a huge issue with that idea when it is taken to the logical conclusion (think the Twin Towers bombers, for example), but I personally am fine with that logical conclusion. I think God really is that powerful, and I think God really is that merciful - and I think "redemption" and "salvation" (two VERY different things) really are that expansive.

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.

Loving Others with Whom I Disagree Is a Great Lesson for My Children about How I Love Them

I am convinced - absolutely convinced - that there is nowhere I can go and/or worship where everything taught by everyone in every position of authority will match what I believe personally. Therefore, no matter where I might choose to worship there would be times when I would feel the need to talk with my kids about what they've heard at church - to give them my own perspective, while trying to do so in a loving, accepting, non-condemning way.

I have that experience relatively often, but it generally is about the minutiae - the details - the cultural crap. My kids know when I don't agree with what someone says, but they also know I love, sustain, support and serve the person who says it. They also know I don't obsess over what is said, although I do correct occasionally if I feel like it's necessary.

I've learned over the years to chill more often now than I did in the past, and it has let me have WONDERFUL discussions with my children. It also has taught them that they don't have to agree with me to get my love, sustaining, support and service - and that is an important lesson, in my opinion.

Intolerance: Who Is to Blame in the Case of Mormonism?

I think intolerance generally is subject most powerfully to three things:

1) Individual personality, including genetics - I know some members of the same families who are at about every point on the tolerance scale, so it's not just upbringing.

2) Upbringing - Visiting the sins of the fathers upon the heads of the children to three or four generations is a practical statement, imo, of how long upbringing generally can and does affect children.

3) Cultural domination and/or isolation - When both are combined, it is very easy to slip into an us vs. them mentality - ESPECIALLY when there actually is a real history of persecution and reviling.
Mormons really are "hated and/or condemned" broadly in some places. Some of it is brought on by our own beliefs and actions; some of it is fueled purely by bigotry; some is taught and inculcated from the earliest ages.

I'm saddened by that, but I'm more saddened when Mormons hate and/or condemn others - and I've seen that, as well.

Finally, defensiveness almost never helps. A good sense of humor has worked best for me.

"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.

To Persecute Others Less

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to annoy or trouble persistently.  

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

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

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