Disagreeing Without Contention

I find the following is something I need to remember constantly:

When emotion rules, things get dicey. I have trained myself over the years to overcome much of my natural inclination to argue in a way that attempts to win, but I still find myself doing so occasionally when I’m not careful. On group blogs (and in general), I have found that the faster I respond, the more likely I am to begin contending in a way that is described in the scriptures as "of the devil". (3 Nephi 11:29) I have said some pretty hard-edged things occasionally, and sometimes I should not have done so, but generally I have tried to do so carefully and thoughtfully and slowly - to do so without the heat of emotion that stokes the fire of contention. I force myself to employ a deep breathing technique and to re-read and edit what I type prior to submitting it when I am particularly passionate about an issue.

On the other hand, disagreement, in and of itself, is NOT contention - and I believe that is the biggest misconstruing of the scriptural concept that "contention is of the devil" within the Church. Also, sometimes we must "contend" if our core values and principles truly are being attacked. It is the discernment necessary to distinguish between honest and basic differences, unintentional attacks, intentional attacks, etc. that is difficult to have and maintain.

Summary: If you or someone else or both are listening to each other, sharing honestly and learning from a conversation, there is no contention - regardless of whether or not you agree. If those conditions are not being met - if you essentially are talking past each other, then contention is present. I don’t always succeed, but I try to remove myself from that type of discussion as soon as I recognize that I (and/or the other participant) am not gaining anything new out of it.

Because He Was Dying

Sentimental Story - Amri Brown (By Common Consent)

The Influence of Culture on the Universal Family of God

My biggest concern whenever people discuss culture and race is that it is almost impossible to have a dispassionate discussion of the central issues that cause contention in the first place - because culture is so tied up in individual perceptions of value and self-worth and community. I really like the “culture as a coat” metaphor, but it is very hard for most people to shed a coat when they feel cold or in need of protection. In other words, people feel naked (or even not themselves) when you remove them from their culture (take away their covering/protecting coat), so they cling to that culture passionately - and often irrationally.

I was raised in rural, central Utah; served a mission in Japan; attended college in Massachusetts, with many friends and acquaintances from other countries around the world; taught high school in southern Alabama; currently live in Ohio. I have worked extensively in the rural Midwest and in the eastern inner-cities. I have been exposed to many cultures, both societal and religious. The one thing I have learned from this experience that is most relevant to this post is that is it next to impossible in a group setting to discuss cultural concerns and not be labeled a bigot or homophobic or a hatemonger, no matter how carefully and narrowly you attempt to do so - specifically because the natural (wo)man feels attacked personally whenever “criticism” is directed to culture.

One example from my occupational history: About 10 years ago, the Ohio legislature decided to enforce a mandate that all 4th Grade students demonstrate reading proficiency before being advanced to 5th Grade. The vast majority of politicians and citizens saw this as a simple attempt to make sure that students were being taught as they deserved to be taught - of holding the educational systems in the state accountable for their performance. However, there was a good-sized minority that saw it as a direct racial attack, since the districts that would have been impacted the most severely were the inner-city districts - and the Black students would have been affected disproportionately. This group felt that it was racist to punish the students for what they perceived as the historical inability of the system to provide them the same quality education that the predominantly White, suburban districts were providing their students. The issue became so contentious that it disappeared completely within one year.

My point is not what most might assume. Honestly, as someone who was knee deep in the issue, I could understand both arguments. There was a degree of validity to each. I believed that there were a number of options that could have addressed both sides’ concerns - that could have brought about an acceptable compromise. It didn’t happen for one reason and one reason alone. Each side took a defensive posture to thwart an attack against its culture and educational perspective - so both sides lost in the end.

I think it failed because of the simple natural man issue - one group feeling attacked and the other group dismissing that feeling as ridiculous simply because they didn’t intend their actions to be an attack. In that sense, there was incorrect evaluation going on in each camp. However, each group felt the other was being insensitive and dismissive - and they were correct in that regard to a degree.

What would have happened ideally? I don’t think the “ideal” was possible, and I don’t want to get into that. I also don’t want to turn this into a political discussion of educational funding and administration, so I can’t answer that here in practical terms. However, conceptually, all it would have taken would have been leaders of each group who were willing to set aside cultural differences, really listen to each other in order to understand and look at the central issues from strictly an educational perspective - to quit making accusations about motivation and simply work out the practical issues. The solution might not have been ideal, but it would have been much better than what happened - which in the end was nothing. I wish they would have spent less time trying to convince the other side they were correct and more time simply trying to understand the valid aspects of the other’s perspective. If they had done that, the outcome might not have changed, but at least nobody would have walked away mad; there would have been a level of racial and cultural understanding that had not existed previously - and still doesn't exist nearly 10 years later. That would have been a wonderful accomplishment.

There is a deep and profound Gospel principle in that example for those who have eyes to see.

Listening FOR the Spirit, Not Just TO It

This week has been interesting as I have focused on my resolution to bring forth fruits, not just works. One thing, in particular, has come to the forefront for me - the need to listen FOR the messages of the Holy Ghost, not just listening TO the Holy Ghost.

Professor Steven Robinson (BYU) wrote a book of which many members are aware entitled, "Believing Christ". The core concept he addressed is the principle that it is FAR more important to believe Christ (meaning to believe what he actually said) than it is to just believe IN Christ (that he is the savior and redeemer). This distinction is critical, since it is possible to believe "in" Jesus at a theoretical / intellectual / even spiritual level without really believing what he said in the scriptures. A good example of this is related to the concept of fruit, works, salvation, etc. - since it is CRYSTAL clear when one parses the Biblical Gospels that Jesus absolutely did NOT teach of easy grace ("confessing His name is all that is required to separate the saved from the damned") but taught openly and clearly and directly about the importance of our actions - that saying you accept Him but not doing what He said we should do is the most fundamental definition of damnable hypocrisy.

My insight this week about bringing forth fruits of the Spirit and not just dead works is that doing what God wants me to do requires MUCH more than merely living my life naturally amid the hustle and bustle of my life and doing whatever the Spirit is trying to say to me. Generally, if I am not actively listening FOR the still small voice - going throughout my activities consciously trying to hear that voice - the "noise" of my life will overwhelm a still, small voice. On the other hand, if my mind consciously is attempting to hear that voice every minute of my waking activities, I can be inundated with impressions that relate to many things - often in the most strange and random times and situations.

This is very similar to something I realized many years ago that has had a major impact on my life. There are some people who say, "I will anything that the Lord tells me to do." There are other people who say, "I will do anything that is good - unless the Lord tells me not to do it." The first is a passive tool - someone who is acted upon, albeit by God. The second is an active seeker of service - someone who is free to act and become an agent unto herself. I want to become the second type of person, and listening FOR the whispering of the Holy Ghost at all times is a part of that process.

The trick for me is to remember to keep my spirit open to inspiration even as my body is engaged in the normal activities of life - activities that often require extreme mental concentration and focus. Finding out how to do that more continually will be the central focus of my effort this week.

"We, the People" - in the Church

I believe that one of the most inspired aspects of the organizational restoration is that “we, the people” run the Church at the local level - and that one of the most dangerous aspects of the organizational restoration is that “we, the people” run the Church at the local level.

I agree that all of us will experience a lack of spiritual leadership at some level, to some degree and at some time in our lives. I believe the ideal is to become the spiritual leader we personally need, not only (or even primarily) for ourselves but also so others in our spheres of influence will not have to experience the lack we did.

When Pres. Hinckley taught - and repeated his teaching - that the strength of the Church is in the testimonies of its members, I believe he was stating not only a belief but also a hope.

All of Us Are Addicts in Some Way

The Sacrament is for Addicts - Tim Malone (Latter-day Commentary)

The Danger of "Should"

I have heard it said that perfection is the enemy of good, since the pursuit of perfection can lead one to be dissatisfied with being good. In my opinion, however, it is not “perfection” that is the enemy of good, but rather the mis-perception of perfection. If we define “perfect” as an absolute requirement of our daily existence and as doing absolutely everything that anyone possibly could do without ever making a mistake (as is the standard outlook in “the world” and many religions), then it really is the enemy of good. If, on the other hand, we define it as “complete” or “whole” (in accordance with the Biblical footnotes), then it becomes the ultimate, eventual result of our striving for good - not an enemy at all.

This perspective allows us to move away from the tendency to evaluate our actions and progress in comparison to what we see others do (and the natural, works-based, Law of Moses competitiveness that accompanies trying to keep up with Bro. and Sis. Jones) and, instead, to move toward a more “grace-based” evaluation of whether or not we are doing all that *we* can do - regardless of whatever anyone else is doing. It also allows us to accept those things we simply can’t change yet and continue to work on those we think we can. After all, we teach that the Atonement of Christ covers what we are unable to do even “after all we can do.”

I think the enemy of good is “should” - when it is applied to what we see others doing around us. We “should” do whatever we are capable of doing - nothing more. We “should” try to find ways to do more than we currently are capable of doing - without guilt or shame if that is not as much as we might want to do. We "should" allow everyone that same effort, without judging them for their incompleteness and imperfection.

So, what should each person do? “Pray for guidance” might sound trite, but it is the only thing that ultimately can determine what we individually “should” do. I can’t do that for anyone else, and neither can anyone else do that for me. All we can do is what works for us - what we feel we are being asked to do. Of course, we follow the general counsel of the prophets and apostles, but how we live our own lives individually is up to us to feel and follow.

Comparing Mormonism and Buddhism

How Mormons Are Buddhists & Vice-Versa - Andrew Ainsworth (Mormon Matters)

Inspiration Can Be Found in Many Places

Focusing narrowly on music, it’s hard to sing or listen to “I Stand All Amazed” or Handel’s “Messiah” or Alan Jackson’s “Where Were You When the World Stopped Turning” or Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s in the Cradle” (chosen to illustrate the wide diversity of genre) - for the first time, especially - and not feel awe and wonder and joy and peace and insight and love. It’s hard not to feel what have been called the fruits of the Spirit. It’s easy to dismiss it as an “emotional reaction,” but the Spirit touches our emotions as often as He instructs our minds. In fact, we are told that the Lord requires the heart and a willing mind. (D&C 64:34)

I think the key is:

Moroni 7:13 - “But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.”

That definition, coupled with the admonition that follows it to be careful not to reject that which fits this description, opens up a much wider scope for inspiration and the working of the Spirit than many people are willing to allow. It even opens up the kind of inspiration / confirmation that Brothers Eyring have mentioned from their days as scientists. (confirmation of “scientific” truth)

Producing Fruits, Not Just Works

My resolution for this month is taken from Matthew 7:17-20. It is to "bring forth better fruits through a stronger connection to the Vine".

Matthew 7:17-20 says:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

For the purposes of this first post this month, I want to draw a clear distinction I see between "works" and "fruits". While it is true that MANY verses in the New Testament state unequivocally that we will be judged by our works, I think FAR too many members don't stop and ponder exactly what that means - and I am convinced it doesn't mean just what those words ("judged according to their works") appear to convey when they are parsed in isolation.

An oft quoted verse in the Bible we use to show the need for "works" is James 2:17. It reads:

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

That verse is criticial to blunt the incorrect doctrine of "easy grace" (merely confess His name and be saved), since even the devils Jesus drove from the swine confessed His name, but it is easy to forget that Paul preached adamantly against "dead works".

Two verses (one from the Bible and one from the Book of Mormon) are interesting in how they illustrate the uselessness of "dead works".

Hebrews 9:14 says:

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Moroni 8:23, speaking of infant baptism, says:

But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of
his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

The point I want to make here is that there are "good works" and "dead works" - those that contribute to "life" and those that don't. Following that train of thought, it is important to distinguish between those things we do that are focused on "God's life" (eternal life) and "my life".

There are numerous passages that discuss the basic concept of living with an eye single to the glory of God - which is defined in Moses 1:39 as "the immortality and eternal life of man". I have come to beleive that the judgment will consist almost SOLELY of a measure of our willingness to let go of those activities ("works") that contribute only to "my life" ("my glory", as understood in mortal terms) and embrace those activities ("works") that contribute to "God's life" (His glory - lifting and raising and empowering and edifying others). I also have come to believe that the personal application of this concept is measured by how comprehensively we learn to listen to the Holy Spirit when it whispers to us - to follow our conscience - to do what we feel we should do when it is different than what we naturally want to do - to be dedicated to becoming more like Christ, no matter how difficult that might be at any given moment.

In conclusion, I would like to draw an analogy to a child in its mother's womb. It grows and develops and progresses when it is connected to its mother's nourishment. A mother, as a "vine", provides life and growth to her child - the "fruit" of her womb. She "produces" it - and to a large degree, she shapes her child's future by the substances she takes into her body and feeds to her child. Much of a child's life is a DIRECT result of the "vine" to which it is connected.

Those "works" that we do on our own are our own, and we "shall in no wise lose (our) reward" for them. However, the only "works" we can do that will have eternal impact and efficacy are those that are produced as a result of a connection to the Vine - that flow from the Spirit, are internalized into our very being and "produce" a more "perfect" (complete, whole and fully developed) soul. The challenge, in my opinion, is NOT to "do more". Rather, the challenge is to "do God's will" - to do what He wants us to do - to become what He wants us to become.

I also am convinced that this is a personal quest - that what he wants ME to do might be very different than what he wants YOU to do - and that I am forbidden to judge you if He produces peaches through me and grapes through you. That lack of judgmentalism (true charity) is one particular fruit of the vine - but my challenge this month is to be more able to understand and do what he wants ME to understand and do. In a nutshell, it is to be more in tune with personal revelation - and to follow it in my life to produce "good works" - the fruit he will share with and through me.