A Different Definition of Being Less Envious

As I was preparing to write my New Year's Resolution post for this week, I felt prompted to review what I had written last year while I was focused on the idea that "charity envieth not".  I will post my thoughts this week as part of my resolution post next weekend, but tonight I want to re-post my introductory thoughts from last February.  I needed the reminder at the end of this week, and I hope someone else benefits from that post, as well:
--------------------------------------
Last month, my New Year's Resolution focus was on the first manifestation of charity - that of suffering long in kindness. This month, my focus is on charity's second characteristic - that of "envying not". As I tend to do, I want to look first at what this phrase ("envieth not") means - followed throughout the month by why it is important, how it is internalized and how it flows from suffering long in kindness.

Envy often is looked upon as covetousness - and, in fact, in some modern dictionary usages the verb "envy" is listed as a synonym of the verb "covet". However, in its original meaning "envy" carries a much more fundamental connotation. From dictionary.com:

c.1280, from O.Fr. envie, from L. invidia "envy, jealousy," from invidus "envious," from invidere "envy," earlier "look at (with malice), cast an evil eye upon"

Thus, charity does not look at others with malice or in an evil manner. "Malice" is defined as:

desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness

[NOTE: A reader last February sent me a link to the 1828 Webster's Revised Dictionary definition of "envy". It carries a slightly more modern interpretation of the word, and I really like it as an extension of this post for modern times.]

"To feel uneasiness, mortification or discontent, at the sight of superior excellence, reputation or happiness enjoyed by another; to repine at another''s prosperity; to fret or grieve one's self at the real or supposed superiority of another, and to hate him on that account."

This aspect of charity (like long-suffering and kindness) is a foundational one, since it defines the very eyes with which someone sees others. In a very real way, someone is able to look upon others without malice and evil specifically because of one's long-suffering and kindness - recognizing that all the myriad types of pain and suffering experienced in this life come from living this life, not strictly from the people who surround us in this life. Thus, someone who possesses true charity is able to look past the instrument of suffering - kindly seeing the inevitability of suffering and not allowing herself to get caught up in a maliciously evil mindset that would eliminate kindness in her actions and reactions.

Notice that this phrase ("envieth not"), as defined in this manner, does not carry the connotations of possession that generally accompany its use in modern times. In other words, there is no delineation of wanting what another has in this phrasing. That is covetousness - and envying, in this usage, can rear its head no matter of socio-economic status. One can look upon another with malice and an evil eye even if that other person is almost exactly like one's self. Malice is the desire to hurt someone else, and envying not carries a connotation of being totally unconcerned about differences of any kind - of not being upset and angry in a way that causes someone to desire to cause another to suffer.

This ties directly to my point in one of the resolutions posts last month that someone who truly has learned to suffer long in kindness will not attempt to transfer his own suffering needlessly onto another. Developing that type of kindness for those with whom we are close is relatively easy compared to what "envying not" entails - extending that type of kindness to others, even those who cause the suffering we feel.

My final point this weekend is that "envying not" deals most purely with our outlook - our perspective - our vision - our thoughts concerning others. Our actions are secondary to this aspect of charity; they merely are the manifestation of whether or not we envy (look at other with malice and and evil eye). Certainly, the most obvious proof that we "envy not" is found in how we TREAT others - but it is found most fundamentally in the subtleties of how we SEE others (which is exhibited outwardly, I believe, most purely in how we SPEAK of others). Many people would never dream of harming others and causing them to suffer in direct, tangible ways - but many of these same people do not hesitate to speak maliciously of others and wish evil upon them.
-----------------------------------------
Thus, if I am to "be less envious" this month, I must decrease not only my actions that cause direct and obvious harm to others, but I also must decrease my words that wish harm on others - and decrease the "evil" thoughts that cause those words. "Being less envious" fundamentally is about changing the way I SEE and FEEL ABOUT people.

Rant: Protestant Hypocrisy Regarding Prophets

It bugs me to no end to hear modern Christians ignore some of the teachings of early prophets like Peter and Paul, then turn around and bash Mormons for letting go of some of the early teachings of Joseph and Brigham. The hypocrisy is so thick it is amazing.

On the other side of the coin, there are those who claim Biblical inerrancy - who refuse to consider the possibility that earlier prophets and apostles might not have recorded the universal, literal word of God - and turn around and bash Mormons for “worshiping” Joseph (again, even though we have let go of quite a few of his earliest teachings). Again, the irony makes me gag.

The truest irony is that both of these groups claim we worship Joseph - even though, in practical terms, when these charges have any degree of legitimacy, we simply are treating him like these people treat the prophets of their own heritage - either too harshly or with too much honor.

Damned if you do; damned if you don’t - even though each extreme in Mormonism tends to be less extreme than its counterpart in Protestantism. Physician, heal thyself.

/End of rant. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

If Brigham and Orson Both Could Be Mormon, There Is a Place for ALL Who Believe, Despite Differences

The post I am linking is a new one - posted just yesterday.  I normally do not link to such new posts, but I beleve passionately in the concept it articulates and felt impressed to share it now.  I hope it resonates with and helps someone:


I am a Mormon - J. Stapley (By Common Consent) 

[Postscript: The comment thread is discouraging.  Feel free to skip it.]

Perhaps the Greatest Tightrope of Christianity

I see the teaching of grace as probably the greatest tightrope of Christianity.

On one hand, we need badly to recognize our reliance on God - and we encapsulate that in speaking of "the Atonement". On the other hand, we need badly to be motivated to act - since our "natural man" tends to push responsibility off of ourselves and onto others. How do we balance those competing needs?

I think grace vs. works is a fascinating example of the need for opposition in all things. Both of these concepts can be noble and ennobling; both, however, can be destructive and weakening. "Easy grace" (confess his name and don't worry about what you do) is abominable, but so is "all-consuming works" (wear yourself out and eventually God will accept your effort). Paul is correct in that the law doesn't save, but rather condemns - but then even he turns around and speaks of the need to do what Jesus did.

I don't think it's possible to preach grace or works in isolation and not end up with a destructive standard. I absolutely love James' statement that "faith without works is dead, being alone". It points to a properly balanced duality, if you will - a recognition that we have been freed by the grace of God, but that our freedom has been given to us in order to allow us not to believe or understand but to DO and BECOME. "The truth shall make you free" (to me) means that truly understanding the atonement really does free us to act - to do our best - to strive to change ourselves and our own sphere of influence - to become like he was - without constantly being torn apart by worry and guilt and crushing expectations.

Honestly, that's a fine line that will shift for each person, probably each day. Some are more inclined naturally to act; others are more inclined naturally to think and believe. The key, imo, is for each of us to look at ourselves, try to understand our strengths and weaknesses, commit to work on overcoming our weaknesses and building on our stengths - and continue that process until we die.

It's really hard to articulate that tension and that freedom, especially when the underlying doctrine of glory in our theology clearly states that practically everyone will be "saved" in some way. When we draw a distinction between "salvation" and "exaltation" (rightly so, imo), it is very easy to equate "grace" with "salvation" and "works" with "exaltation" - and, honestly, it's hard to argue too much with that essential differentiation. I believe we really do need to try our best, and I really do believe we are blessed and rewarded and "judged" (meaning assigned an outcome) based on what we become. I just believe we have been freed by the atonement/grace to pursue our best without all the angst and guilt and fear ad nauseum that we tend to heap on ourselves.

Even now, I don't know if I've articulated that very well, since it really is a difficult thing to speak of this type of balancing act, but I also have found the foundation for this richly complex balance explained best within Mormonism's core theology. I get frustrated a bit sometimes when we emphasize one extreme or another, but one of my strongest "testimonies", if you will, is that the vision Joseph Smith articulated in this regard is profound and empowering and astounding. The big picture is the biggest reason I have found peace - and the Church has been swinging back steadily over the last decade or so toward the balance I seek.

Men & Women Nurturing: Is It Nurture or Nature?

Mother's Heart, Father's Heart - Mark Brown (By Common Consent)

We Are Called to Be Fishers, Not Hunters

I believe perhaps our biggest failure in the Church is how we compartmentalize and stigmatize and speak about sharing our faith with others.

I don't like the term "missionary work" when it comes to normal members of the Church. In fact, I really dislike it, based on how it usually is discussed. It implies that all we need to do is "work" harder (with all the negatives that includes). I think it has led to efforts by many members to "figure out who is ready to hear the Gospel" - when we should be opening our mouths with all and believing they will be filled with whatever each individual needs to hear. We too often act as if we are hunters, trying to pinpoint that specific deer that we can bring down with a well-placed shot. I prefer to go back to Jesus' original invitation and act as a fisherman who casts his net and sees what fish swim within its reach.

I like "share the Gospel" better, but I like "share the Gospel by sharing your life" best. The Church and the Gospel are an integral part of who I am, so why shouldn't I talk about it in the normal flow of many conversations? Protestants of every stripe do it that, as do Buddhists and Muslims and all kinds of people. Not everything has to be a "missionary opportunity" - but almost everything deals with my faith and my religion. If I talk naturally about it without concerns about "converting" anyone, those who are touched will ask - and those who aren't won't. I truly believe, based on personal experience, that if I am open to be used, the Lord will put people in my path who want to learn more - but I have to be talking about my life and my faith for them to be touched.

To Be Less Envious

My New Year's Resolution this month is taken from Alma 5:29 - to be less envious.  The actual verse reads:

Behold, I say, is there one among you who is not stripped of envy? I say unto you that such an one is not prepared; and I would that he should prepare quickly, for the hour is close at hand, and he knoweth not when the time shall come; for such an one is not found guiltless.  

Obviously, if I am to be less envious at the end of this month than I am now, I need to understand exactly what that means.  I am planning on addressing various aspects of this verse throughout the month, but, as generally is the case with my resolutions, I turned to the dictionary first to see what "envy" actually means:

a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc. 

 

Based on this definition, it appears that being less envious involves being more content with my own life and avoiding assigning a value to that life (and individual elements of it) in comparison to others' lives.  It appears that envy is based on over-emphasizing those areas where I have less than someone else and under-appreciating those areas where I have sufficient for my own needs - or, in some cases, perhaps even more than someone else.  

What struck me is that envy seems to be a by-product of ingratitude - as well as the belief that my life would be better and I would be satisfied "if only" I had more (fill in the blank).  It is placing a need for comparative, outward success ahead of personal, inner contentment.  It appears to be a manifestation of an internal lack of peace - and indication that someone believes happiness and contentment and peace and assurance and self-worth are attainable through the acquisition of material things - or social status - or any other aspect of life that is measured in comparison to someone else.  

Finally, it hit me that envy can apply to anything in any area of our lives - including our church lives.  Someone can envy others whose children appear to be happier, more docile, more independent, more spiritual, more active, more whatever than mine - or a couple who both are active and believing, if one's spouse is not a member or is inactive - or a local leader simply because he or she is a leader - or a parent if someone is single or married with no children - or any other part of belonging to a community.  

 

Ironically, envy also might be manifested in surprising and counter-intuitive ways.  Someone with seven kids might envy someone else with two their apparent peace and simplicity of life; someone with lots of money who is never home might envy someone with much less money but more time to spend with family; etc.  Envy is personally defined, perhaps more than any other characteristic I have considered as a New Year's Resolution, so the biggest part of my resolution this month will be self-reflection and introspection to determine in what ways I truly am envious. 

We Need Leaders Who Are Acutely Aware of Their Shortcomings

Outgoing, confident people can find a supportive social network with people like themselves anywhere. Introverted and/or insecure people need a structure that functions around them and allows them to integrate slowly and passively fit in somewhere at first.

The irony of the church's totally non-professional local ministry structure is that the outgoing, confident people sometimes overwhelm the introverted and the insecure. It's a bit counter-intuitive, but the wards and branches that work the best generally are the ones that have leaders who are acutely aware of their shortcomings - the ones who often feel like they are on the verge of sinking every time they jump in the pool. We had a Relief Society President, for example, who was extraordinary - but one of the reasons she was so wonderful was that she knew she was nothing of herself. Her calling scared her nearly to death, but she accepted it, anyway.

Personally, I think that's the main reason why callings are shuffled regularly - to avoid the natural arrogance that arises when people finally feel like they "get it" and can perform their calling in their sleep. Not only does that provide opportunities for "unnatural" growth to the truly meek and humble who normally wouldn't be chosen as leaders, but it shortens the harmful period that inevitably occurs for some members when there is a personality conflict with a leader whose personality is opposite of their own.

I appreciate the words of newly called apostles, since they invariably speak sincerely of being overwhelmed by their new calling.

Brilliant Article: "I Don't Have a Testmony of the History of the LDS Church."

I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church - Davis Bitton (FAIR)

This article is brilliant in the way it delineates the difference between the LDS Church, prophets, history, revelation, and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think it should be read by every member in the world - and everyone else who has a sincere interest in the LDS Church.

Sexual Sins Are NOT Next to Murder

I think the whole "sexual sins are next to murder" idea is a flawed interpretation of the passage in Alma from which the idea is taken.  I believe sexual sins are serious - and many of them are extremely serious, but, as a general, all-encompassing category or in every particular instance, I believe they are not next to murder as the third most serious sins possible to commit.  (The first is denying the Holy Ghost.) 


This is what Alma 39: 2-5,13 actually says, with my own bolding for emphasis:

2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.
4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
13 . . . that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly . . .

So, Corinaton did all of the following:

A) Boasted in his own strength, thus denying God and God's place in his ministry (seriously not good - of the highest order, almost);

B) Forsook his ministry (seriously not good - right up there in seriousness);

C) Consorted with a harlot - while serving as a missionary (seriously not good - pretty high up on the list of sexual sins, given his calling at the time);

D) Led others away from the Church of his father and caused them to sin and "do wickedly" (seriously not good).

Alma 
Alma said, "THESE things are an abomination" - not "THIS thing".    

[It is important to note that, as far as we know, the "worst" sexual sin Corianton probably committed was "fornication" - since we have no indication that he was married at the time of the mission in question.  He might have been, but that is not specified anywhere in the account.  Further, since all we actually have in the record is that he went after a harlot, we don't even know for sure that he committed fornication.  Also, Jesus is quoted as having taught that the abuse of children is so serious that it would be better for an abuser to have never been born than to commit such a sin.  Finally, in our own day, there is a clear distinction made between the "seriousness" of fornication and of adultery - so it's not even fair to say that Corianton was guilty of the "worst" sexual sin in the account recorded in Alma 39.]  

Remember, this is Alma the Younger - someone who would know exactly how abominable it is to actively lead others away from God.   He was racked with the pains of Hell for three days over very similar actions - at least in his own eyes, I'm sure. 

In fact, as Andy pointed out in one of the comments on this thread, Alma 36:14 explains how Alma felt about his own actions:

Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

I don't believe it was sexual sin that Alma labeled as next to murder; I think it was the entire enormity of the multiple things Corianton had done - that was close to spiritual murder, in a very real way, in his father's eyes.  I believe Alma carried a degree of guilt over his youthful actions to his grave, based on other passages in his writings, and I think it tore him up inside to see one of his sons straying onto the same path he had walked in his youth.  

I think that is critical, and it gets overlooked when most people read the account without parsing the actual words carefully.