"Love Thine Enemies" - Even Hitler?

Loving Hitler - Kevin Barney (By Common Consent)

Comment #31 by john f. (Elder Richards' g-g-grandson) is particularly insightful.

Broadening Our Understanding of the Restoration

If someone really wants to gain a better understanding of "The Restoration of the Gospel in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times", I’d suggest a look at how the eternal perspective within Buddhism (especially) and Islam and Hinduism and Shintoism and other world religions is so much closer to Mormonism’s than is Protestantism’s. I’ve always found it fascinating that, in many ways, Mormonism is closer to the other major world religions than it is to modern-day Protestantism. That adds a much broader meaning to “Restoration”, in my opinion, as well as a much more universal understanding of the power of the Atonement.

The Funniest Cake I've Ever Seen

Come to the Dark Side: We Have Cake (Cake Wrecks)

Respecting Our Right to Oppose

Whenever I am at the stand conducting any sustaining votes, I always look around the congregation slowly and purposefully - and I pause long enough after asking the question about dissent to make it obvious that I actually am allowing for the possibility that there will be dissent. I also explicitly turn and look behind me at all the people sitting on the stand - again, to make it obvious that I am looking at each and every individual in the room at the time. Honestly, I do not expect a dissenting vote, but I believe I owe it to the spirit of the process to take my time and make the possibility of opposition real in the minds of those in attendance.

The standard wording is, “It is *proposed* that we sustain . . . All in favor . . . All opposed . . .” My vote is a sign that I am willing to sustain the *proposed* action - or not to sustain it. Any construct that limits or denies that right to object to a proposal makes it something other than a proposal.

Since we don’t believe in infallibility in the issuing of callings, and since there have been and continue to be instances where a dissenting vote has changed a calling, I have a hard time accepting a sustaining vote as anything less than a sustaining vote. I can accept the idea that we are not “electing” someone, but that doesn’t mean that my vote always should be seen as automatic or a test of my faith. If I know nothing that would disqualify a candidate for the office to which s/he is being called, I accept fully my need to accept it on faith - if as nothing more than my public statement of trust in the person who issued the call. If I know of something that would disqualify the candidate, however, I feel it is my duty to make it known to the proper person - even if that means I have to raise my hand in opposition to the calling / action.

Charity Vaunteth Not Itself, Is Not Puffed Up

My resolution for this month is to be less "vaunting" of myself and less "puffed up" - and contemplating this resolution has led me to one interesting, initial conclusion:

In order to be successful this month, I need to recognize and admit those areas where I do "vaunt myself" - where I am "puffed up". That is an interesting realization, especially when I am writing publicly about it. First, however, as I always do, for this initial post I am going to put on my parser's hat and focus on the "what" of this resolution - the meaning of vaunting one's self and being puffed up.

As I looked up the word "vaunt", I realized something that I hadn't considered previously. It is a simple thing, but I believe it is important when dealing with this aspect of charity. To vaunt means:

to speak boastfully; brag

Therefore, "Vaunteth not itself" (at the most basic level) means simply to not boast or brag about one's self. At glance, this appears to be focused explicitly and exclusively on one's words - and that is the most obvious and common application. I want to focus on it first, then turn to a more subtle application.

"Boasting" and "bragging" seem to be straightforward and easily understood. They mean, respectively:

to speak with exaggeration and excessive pride, esp. about oneself

and

to use boastful language

Thus, this injunction against vaunting not one's self means, at the most basic level, to not exaggerate one's abilities and be excessively proud of those abilities. This fits perfectly with the second aspect of charity in this resolution - to not be puffed up ("swollen" or, in practical terms, "feeling self-important; arrogant; pompous"). "Vaunting not" encompasses the outward expression of being "puffed up" inside - and charity includes neither vaunting NOR being puffed up. Thus, the root issue at stake appears to be an internal feeling of superiority that, in its fullness, manifests itself in one's words by raising one's self above others.

It also is interesting to consider that this focus is not directly on "the other" but rather on "itself" - that one's view of one's self is what determines fundamentally one's view of others. It's not necessarily that "they are worse than I am" - but rather that "I am better than they are". That is an important distinction, subtle though it be.

None of this is new or profound, but it's an important point to make - that if I am to be less vaunting of myself and be less puffed up, I need to focus on how I view myself internally as the foundation of how I act externally - that it really is my own self-perception (especially in relation to how I view others) that is the biggest influence on my ability to become more charitable in this particular area.

Next week I want to focus on what type of internal perspective is necessary to develop this part of charity.

Liberality Without Upbraiding

It’s a fine line we must walk between what we desire of others and how we treat them when they choose differently than what we desire of them. What causes someone to choose differently is beyond my ability to fully comprehend, so I simply deal with the choices and try to help that person to whatever extent s/he will allow it. I “preach” to those who are willing to listen; I simply love those who aren’t willing to hear my preaching.

Constantly preaching at someone who simply needs to be loved and respected can do as much harm emotionally and spiritually as slapping them physically. I believe we tend to equate our own desires and yearnings for the movement of the Holy Ghost far too much, so we end up “reproving” far too often - even when that reproof is couched in sugary terms of love and concern. “Giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not” is a difficult standard, but it is representative of most of the descriptions we have of how both the Father and the Son deal with those who choose to act differently than they have asked. Even Alma, as he went about trying to destroy the Church, was told that he could do whatever he decided with his own life - but that he should not try to drag others along with him.

Why Optimism Isn't Hope

In a business book by James C. Collins called "Good to Great", Collins writes about a conversation he had with Vice-Admiral James Stockdale regarding his coping strategy during his period in the Vietnamese POW camp.

"I never lost faith in the end of the story," was Stockdale's answer. "I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade."

Collins asked him, "Who didn't make it out?" and Stockdale replied immediately: "Oh, that's easy. The optimists... They were the ones who said, 'We're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they'd say, 'We're going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."

"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end -- which you can never afford to lose -- with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."

(Hat tip to marathonermom)

Teaching Children Faith

One of the worst parts of child psychology is its emphasis on always giving children a reason for what you ask of them. I believe strongly in doing so in most instances, but there is a very valuable lesson that children need to learn that gets overlooked if they always have a detailed explanation - the willingness to do something simply because it is asked by someone they trust. Always giving them a justification literally destroys their ability to build a foundation of faith - an understanding of simple trust.

As I said, I believe in the principle of explaining requests (as well as a healthy questioning of authority), but quite often I simply make the request without any explanation - just to see if my children will do what I ask of them. I think Heavenly Father does the same with us.

He Gets to Wrap His Arm Around Jesus Every Sunday

Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon - Andrew Ainsworth (Mormon Matters)

Loving Enough to Lose All

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

I believe learning to love people enough that you would be willing to give up heaven so they could reach it is the heart of the concept articulated in this verse - and the best way to determine if you have reached that type of love is if you are giving up your picture of the ideal life HERE on earth in order to make others’ lives more ideal HERE on earth.

I believe in the idea of creating Heaven on earth - and that those who "really get it" are far more focused on helping those around them in the here and now than on securing a reward in the hereafter, specifically because they know their Father and love Him enough to sacrifice their all, if necessary, to do what His Son did when He was here. He spent His life ministering to the poor and despised and rejected - giving up the comforts He could have enjoyed in order to mourn with those who mourned and comfort those who stood in need of comfort.

One simple, minimal example: I believe that someone who can afford to pay a generous fast offering and does not do so does not understand the Gospel very well. That person, in my opinion, has put his own luxuries ahead of others' needs and is not living the foundational heart of the Gospel.