Perhaps the Best Post about Joseph Smith I've Ever Read

Playing the Ball as It Lies - David Niclay (Rational Faiths) 

As someone who loves golf but is a lousy golfer, this analogy really works for me. 

"I am that I AM." -- "It is what it is."

I know quite a few people who have struggled at some point in their lives with feelings of pressure and guilt from situations that were not within their control.  This pressure and guilt were the result of unrealistic expectations about how their lives "should be" - feeling like they should be able to handle things differently and have lives that were closer to "ideal" in some way.  

I understand such feelings, but, in cases where the cause of the struggle is not chosen or intentional, those feelings must be addressed and understood positively and proactively in order for those people to be healed in a meaningful way. 

If that description fits you to any degree, I hope the following helps somehow:

The first thing I would emphasize is that our 2nd Article of Faith says, in my own translation, that we will not be punished for struggling with things we do not choose - that come to us simply as a result of the Fall of Adam, so to speak.  This means that there is no "guilt" attached by God to the existence of those things in our lives - that they are covered automatically and freely by his grace and the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  That recognition alone can be powerful and emotionally healing.  

I would reframe that concept as a clear recognition that there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with struggling with lots of things - simply because you can't avoid them. Just as the best name for God is "I AM", often the best answer to something is simply, "It is". That recognition won't eliminate anything automatically, even the guilt felt right away, but it is important to recognize unrealistic expectations and learn to know when they are hitting "in the moment".

On a very practical note, my wife started writing a weekly blessing list on her personal blog a few years ago. Despite the struggles in her life, which aren't few for her, that has forced her to look back and "count her blessings" regularly. What she has discovered over the past few years is that knowing she would be writing such a post has made her more aware of the blessings as they happen - which has given her the ability to recall them in the moments of hardest struggle - which has given a degree of perspective she didn't have before she started compiling her blessing lists. She still struggles with some things that are her own "thorns of the flesh", but she is able to break out of those struggles more quickly and even avoid them at times.

However you can do it, counting your many blessings and naming them one-by-one is a good idea.

Hilarious GIF Summary of the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon, as told by K (Just Say Amen Already)

Seriously, I laughed so hard it might have been a sin.  My teenage daughters walked over to see what was so funny, and they couldn't stop laughing, either. 

The Philosophies of Men, Mingled with Scripture: We All Do It to Some Degree

"The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture" is a phrase that has different meaning depending on the context of its use, and I believe it is important to realize what it means for different people and how pervasive it is throughout religious history.  

When I think of that phrase in the context of how it is used in the temple, it is important to remember that it is used to describe people trying to gain a following - and that it originally was focused specifically on "preachers".  In its purest form, the primary focus is teaching the philosophies of men - meaning, to me, that someone is teaching what they see as man's ideas void of any reference to God. In other words, at its base it's a structure that denies God. That fits its use by Lucifer as something he taught and of which he approved.  That, however, would not appeal to religious people, so the secondary focus is scripture - and I see "mingling" as "adding just enough to get people to buy into the philosophies of men". At its most manipulative, it is using just enough religion intentionally to make religiously oriented people think they are focusing on God when they actually aren't.

In other words, the combination of the two, worded in that way in the temple context, means that someone is crafting something intentionally that contains just enough "God-speak" to deceive people who otherwise would not believe them - and it focuses on what is taught (the philosophies of men), not what is left out (a comprehensive scriptural foundation) in an attempt to convince the religious.  Again, it is just enough religious justification to make it sound religiously valid.  That is critical, in my opinion, when trying to understand some people who are trying to convince religious people to follow them.  

There are lots and lots of people who fit that description - both in religion and outside of it. It's rampant in politics, for example, where religious terminology is used to appeal to religious people.  There are problems with the other extreme (teaching scripture exclusively, believing it is the inerrant word of God and not realizing it also represents, in some cases, the philosophies of the men who wrote or compiled it - or, in some cases, was understood originally to be figurative, allegorical, mythological, etc.) or teaching exclusively the scriptures and condemning entirely the non-canonical philosophies of men (with advances in scientific understanding being the best example), but, for those who are "preachers of religion", focusing on human, non-God-centered wisdom first and supplementing only as much as necessary with God-focused,"faithful" teachings is one of the purest forms of heresy.

People can argue constantly about the exact nature of specific teachings, but I believe it is the orientation and focus that is the point of the temple phrasing. 

Finally, I think that phrase is used as a hammer in many situations where a hammer isn't necessary or appropriate at all - generally to mean: 

"That's not how I interpret that scriptural passage, so you must be relying on the philosophies of men." 

Having said that, I also believe the tendency to teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, is natural to all who are religious - and I think the Priesthood ban is probably the best example in Mormon history of using scripture to justify the philosophies of men.  Members of the LDS Church absolutely aren't immune to the principle involved, since all of us tend to see what we believe in the scriptures. Just as "nearly all" who have a little authority, as they suppose, tend toward unrighteous dominion, nearly all tend toward mingling scripture with human philosophies (using scriptures to explain our natural beliefs). That is very much part of our natural selves, and I believe it's important to understand that tendency.

"Natural / Primary" Gender Responsibilities in Marriage: Each Couple Must Structure Their Own Marriage for It to Be Ideal

I think it is safe to say that men's and women's "natural / primary" roles throughout history in most societies can be described as "provider" and "nurturer" quite accurately - even though the vast majority of women throughout history also have worked "outside the home". (The idea that women traditionally have stayed home and raised the kids while the men worked outside the home simply isn't supportable.  Not working for compensation of some kind is a luxury, and most women throughout history have not had the luxury of even considering not working.)  Defining "primary" or "natural" roles is not a comment on anything other than the historical result of differing biology, since men generally have been bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than women - and women always have been vulnerable due to the effects of pregnancy and childbirth.

Given that reality, it is understandable to frame the "natural / primary" responsibilities assigned to or assumed by men and women in that light. The interesting thing about the Proclamation to the World, in my opinion, is that it appears to lay out this "natural" distinction and then say, in effect,

"Regardless of these natural responsibilities we inherit due strictly to biology and culture, the ideal marriage is one where such distinctions are erased - where each partner shares the other's responsibilities to some degree and acts as an equal partner with the other overall."

I understand completely how hard it is to accept that reading based on all the previous statements by leaders over the years, and the fact that "presiding over" still is used in various quotes, but the actual wording of the Proclamation says just that.  Further, it says that each couple is obligated to make whatever adaptations are necessary for their marriage to work as well as possible.  In essence, it says that the "ideal" is whatever works best for the individual couple - understanding that the "primary roles" are to provide and nurture.   In other words, as long as a couple are united in providing for and nourishing their children, they are fulfilling their responsibilities as parents. 

I view this as similar to the statement, "All men are created equal." First, it is the best they could do in their time (not including women in it); second, it articulated an ideal the society itself wasn't living (slavery) and couldn't live (and still doesn't live). Just as it was important to have the ideal written into a foundational government document, I think it's important to try to live and accept the ideal of the Proclamation with regard to raising one's children, even though our society (inside and outside the Church) isn't living and can't live it yet - and even though I believe the document itself is not perfect. 

I Do Not Have a Spiritual Feeling Orientation

I have never "felt" anyone in spirit in my life. The closest I have come is while doing baptisms for the dead in the temple and feeling choked up while saying someone's name (but it wasn't really feeling a presence) - or when words or thoughts come into my mind that I classify as revelation (and that has happened too many times for me to remember - to varying degrees of strength).

At the most fundamental level, I do not have a "spiritual feeling" orientation - although I do have emotional experiences regularly; rather, I have a "thinking" orientation. Since I was raised LDS in a culture that values "spiritual experiences" highly, I had to come to grips with that different orientation at a very young age. 

There is an obvious theme of balance between feeling and thinking in our religion (or completion including both thinking and feeling), but individuals tend to emphasize what is natural to them - which is ironic, given what we say about the "natural man". I think a huge part of giving up the natural man is seeking and finding balance (ideally, by acquiring a characteristic and/or ability not naturally possessed) - and balance between experiencing God in one's heart and mind is a great example of that. However, I don't think that kind of balance needs to be a 50/50 mathematical split - or a combination of classic, common experiences in either category. I believe it can be different in practical terms for different people, even as nothing more than an openness to experiencing something in the future never experienced previously.

To bring this full circle, that means that I need to recognize my own thinking orientation and my own lack of feeling a spiritual presence but maintain the belief that it could happen to me, if necessary.  It also means I need to accept and value the experiences of people that I can't understand fully because they have not occurred in my own life - and I have to accept and value those experiences for others as much as I do my own for myself. 

The Church and the Gospel as a Jigsaw Puzzle

I believe that the Church and the Gospel can be described as the process of putting together a jigsaw puzzle. The border pieces are the "principles of the Gospel", while the internal pieces are unique "doctrines/teachings/current understanding" - which makes the outline malleable enough to be a 9-piece children's puzzle or a 5000-piece, double-sided mountain snow scene that is almost impossible to complete - all dependent on the need and vision of the individual believer. I believe this perspective of establishing understanding within a principle-controlled frame allows us to create whatever puzzles work for us (whatever constitutes our best understanding and perception at any given time), while allowing for further expansion as new principles are identified and assimilated.  

Furthermore, I believe puzzles can be right or correct or even "true" without being "perfect" (whole, complete, fully developed). If I am working on the river, and you are working on the mountainside, and someone else is working on the sky - each of our work can be right and correct and true, without any of them being perfect (fully developed). Each might be "perfect in its sphere" (which is a fascinating concept, in and of itself, and deserving of attention separately), but if one's vision can expand to recognize a vaster sphere . . . (kind of like the closing scene in Men in Black, where the world is seen as a marble in the hands of unknown aliens)  

In order to be totally clear, this is not religious relativism. I believe what makes The LDS Church unique is the sheer breadth and depth of its outline - the unending potential within a nearly limitless puzzle - the real and practical atoning power it unmasks. I believe the difference between that fundamental framework and its counterparts among other denominations is the heart of the statement, "their creeds were an abomination in his sight" - since those creeds serve to limit the potential scope of the outline and replace an ever-expanding framework with clearly defined boundaries. The creeds make the infinite finite - and that is a real shame.

The Conflict between and Importance of Communal and Individual Morality

Believe it or not, the following is my attempt to provide a very short post about the nature of morality:

I think morality as a general concept (determining what is "right" and "wrong") is part and parcel of group interaction - even, in a very real way, among animals of widely varying degrees of intelligence. It is, at its most basic level, part of survival instinct. It is focused on what "is" - at the most basic level. It is focused on "how" interaction needs to occur in order to perpetuate the species and, although instinctual rather than conscious, really is "morality" at heart.

I think morality among humans, specifically, has the exact same foundation - but our ability to think outside ourselves allows us to move from the most practical, biological, survival aspect of morality to a philosophical foundation that expands from a purely group-based paradigm to include a focus on the person even, sometimes, at the expense of the group. It is focused on what "should be" - and, frankly, that transition, although important to us, is what complicates morality exponentially and makes things get really messy at times.

Finally, I see the existence of agency (the ability to think about and choose one's actions consciously, even when they conflict with the morality of one's community) as the monkey wrench in the ease with which morality can be evaluated and determined, since it is the only thing that posits the need for competing moralities - one communal and one personal that can and do conflict.

Morality is an incredibly subjective thing, but most people want it to be objective - since objective morality is SO much easier to implement and "obey". Frankly, the most extreme version of objective, communal morality we have within Mormon theology is Lucifer's plan - and I think it is important to understand that simple fact. 

Hilarious: Out of the Mouths of Babes, Indeed

An acquaintance once told the following story.  I thought at the time it was one of the funniest things I had ever heard, and I have not changed my mind since:

I remember when my youngest turned 8, and we began to talk about baptism. We asked him when he would like to be baptized (his birthday is in May), and he said: 

“I think . . . . . . November.”

We were a little curious as to what significance that had, but when asked he replied with a cheery smile:

“I want to live a little first.”

Sometimes, children really do understand much better than we realize.  

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.