Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

The wording of my resolution was:

“Treat others how I want to be treated.”

I want to make one point here about something I have heard over the years. It is something that has bothered me over time, and I want to state up front what I believe this verse does NOT say – what I believe is a classic case of “wresting” scriptures and creating meaning that never was intended.

I have heard it said of old (*grin*) that we should treat others in whatever way will help them best. After all, this reasoning goes, deep down they really want whatever is best – so if we know what is best for someone, we should do all we can to help them see, recognize, understand and accept that which is best for them. This argument asserts that it’s better to treat someone how they “really” want to be treated (often subconsciously) than to treat them how they “think” they want to be treated – that I, as an enlightened individual, know what is best for them and, therefore, I, as an enlightened individual, should treat them as if they were in my shoes.

To try to say it differently, this approach to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is based on you placing yourself in their situation and transferring your own hopes and dreams and expectations on them. While this might sound reasonable and even praiseworthy at first glance, there are at least three problems with this approach that I can see immediately:

1) It is used often as a justification for aggressive action, pressure and even compulsion. At the most extreme, it allowed those in charge of the Inquisition to torture people into confessing non-existent sins – since those doing the torturing were convinced they only were doing what was best for the person being tortured by “cleansing” them of sin and freeing them for a more benevolent judgment in the afterlife. At a more common level, it is used to justify constant and inconsiderate preaching and attempts to convert others – unfortunately, even among our own membership. Again, the reasoning is, “If I didn’t have the Gospel in my life, I would want someone to preach it to me even if I didn’t want to hear it.”

2) It totally ignores and discounts the actual desires of the other person – and illustrates an arrogance that is couched in terms of love but, literally, is judgmental and condescending. In essence, it says, “I know better than you what you need, and I’m never going to quit trying to make you see that, no matter what you want.”

3) It simply isn’t what is commanded in these verses – to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I want to finish with that last point, and I want to do so by placing each reader in the shoes of an active member of the LDS Church – and focusing on the reaction of nearly every LDS member who has a friend, family member, acquaintance or stranger who disagrees with Mormonism, has left the LDS Church, believes Mormons are not Christian and/or is saddened at the thought of Mormons ending up in Hell. If that person really is sincere in his concern, and if she really thought that constant badgering might convince you of the error of your ways, would you appreciate her preaching at you every time you were together? Would you appreciate her non-attendance at your wedding reception, since she believes your sealing in the temple is a sham and not recognized by God? Would you appreciate her constant, subtle (or blatant) warnings about your eternal condemnation? Deep down, on a very practical level, what would you really, truly want from her – how would you want her to “do unto you”?

I submit that all of us, at the most basic level, want little more than acceptance and respect and love for who we actually are – recognition that we are capable of making our own decisions – friendship that is genuine and not tied to certain conditions – etc. In other words, we want to be treated as equals – as important – as valuable – as legitimate deciders of our own fate, and we want that for who we ARE, not for who others want us to be.

So, the next time you start to say something to someone else, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone said that, in that way, to me?” The next time you start to write a blog comment, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone wrote that, in that way, to me?”. The next time you start to react to someone in any way, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone reacted that way to me?” In summary, ask yourself:

How would I feel if someone “did that unto me”?

If you would thank God for that person’s words or actions, in the actual circumstances of your real life, “do so unto others”. If you would not thank God (or if you would need to pray for forgiveness) for your reaction to that person’s words or actions, don’t “do so unto others”. Finally, if you really would understand this principle, take one entire day and analyze everything according to this standard:

How would I feel if someone “did that unto me”?

If we really focused on that question, I have no doubt we would stop doing and saying much of what we do and say – and start doing and saying many things we currently do not say and do.

That was my resulotion that month – to treat others more as I actually want them to treat me.

Thoughts?  What am I missing that would support or weaken this interpretation of the Golden Rule?

I want to take a very different look at it by explaining the Top Ten Reasons I can think of to view it – and the Top Ten alternatives for me personally.  This post is not primarily a religious one; rather, it is a practical one.

First, I believe we don’t address the practical aspect of time prioritization nearly enough when we discuss things like what we watch.  If I were asked to give a General Conference talk on porn (as if that is even a remote possibility!), I would focus on the practical aspect of time management – and not deal at all with the “morality” question. 

I did some simple math, with which I won’t bore you here, and when I factor out sleep, work and my own direct, minimal, church-related commitments I am left with approximately 65 hours each week to accomplish all the things I want to do.  Roughly 30 of these hours are on Saturday and Sunday; roughly 35 of them are during the weekdays.  Therefore, I want to address viewing porn in the context of what I need to choose not to do in order to choose to view it during the time I am able to choose what I do. 

In that vein, I offer the following:

TOP TEN REASONS FOR ME TO VIEW PORN

1. To gain a better understanding of the technical aspects of sex.  (Granted, I also have been told that the vast majority of the billions of available hours of porn covers technical aspects of sex that could be covered very well in no more than an hour or two, but what better way is there, really?) 

2. To gain a better understanding of how to please my spouse.  (Although I’ve been told the vast majority of the billions of available hours of porn has nothing to do with sex with one’s spouse.)

3. To learn to appreciate impossibly large anatomy.  (I can’t add “God-given” to that reason, but I’m trying to make this a Top Ten list.) 

4. To show my support for agency and unfettered expression of personal moral choice.  (I’ve heard this one, so I’m passing it on.)

OK.  I give up.  The rest of you are going to have to fill in the final six spots. 

TOP TEN ALTERNATIVES TO VIEWING PORN

[In response to Ulysseus in comment #25, I am adding a very serious suggestion as an alternative at the top of this list: **Seek counseling and help with sexual issues, including the use of truly instructional materials.**]

1. Spend more time with my wife and children.  (This might affect #5, I realize – and I already spend quite a lot of time with them.) 

2. Spend more time in nature, even if it’s just walking around the small town in which I currently live.  (This might be a re-statement of #1, since I don’t like to walk alone just for relaxation.) 

3. Spend more time with friends and neighbors.  (I like interacting with others, but on a practical level I can be too much of a hermit on a day-to-day basis.)

4. Spend more time helping the helpless and lonely.  (I really should do this, regardless of how it affects #5.) 

5. Spend more time blogging.  (OK, increased blogging is a stretch for me – or at least it couldn’t have been on my list before last summer.) 

6. Spend more time learning through reading.  (There are many millions of good books I haven’t read.  Some of them have to be a better use of my time than porn.) 

7. Spend more time reading brain candy.  (ibid – and if it’s a choice between reading and porn, “The Work and the Glory” might be a better alternative.  Maybe.  I’ll have to think about it – but there are lots of other choices that aren’t so hard.) 

8. Learn a new skill.  (I really shouldn’t have to pay a mechanic to fix even the simplest things that go wrong with our vehicles and computers – especially since my dad and brothers are very good at doing both of these things.) 

9. Play more practical jokes on people.  (I am pretty good at this, but my practical joke muscles have atrophied a bit lately.  I really should practice more.)

10.  Clean my house on my own initiative.  (OK, this is limited by what my wife will allow me to do, but it is something to which I really should give a higher priority.) 

Some things I thought of including on the alternatives list:

1. Mow my lawn before it reaches 8″ in height.  That might cut down on the dirty looks my neighbors give me on a regular basis.  (“Dirty” as in “mad” – not “dirty” as in “pornographic”.  Just sayin’.)

2. Exercise.  If you know me, you’ll understand how good that would be as an alternative.   You’d also understand why the dirty looks I get are not pornographic.  Maybe I could combine #1 and #2.  Maybe that tendency to combine things is why I need to exercise more often.  

3. Sleep more.  I really should do that, but I don’t see it happening any time soon. 

4. Get a tan.  Again, if you’ve seen me . . .

5. Play the piano more often.  This probably should be on my list, but I just thought of it.  I’ll make it a retroactive 1a. 

6. Become fluent in Japanese again.  I really should do this, as well. 

So, everyone, I am NOT asking anyone to comment on the morality of viewing porn.  What I am asking for are good reasons to view porn in light of what you are giving up to view it – and for more suggestions of things that are better alterntaives to porn for you personally. 

Have at it.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/04/02/friday-reflections-on-mormonism-and-the-cross/

I am going to include my own thoughts on that post – then take this post in a very different direction.

When I talk about the Atonement, I also reference the Sermon on the Mount – and I emphasize the command to be perfect. The wording in verse 48 says, “Be ye therefore perfect.” In the overall context of Chapter 5, I agree that this conclusion means that we become “perfect” by becoming the type of “blessed” person described in the previous verses. Finally, our footnotes for verse 48 define being perfect as being “complete, whole, fully developed” – and I re-word that as “finished”.

It only was at the end of his time on the cross that Jesus declared, “It is finished” – just before he “gave up the ghost”. Iow, it only was after the cross that the Atonement was complete – that Jesus fulfilled his own command to “be ye therefore perfect.”

I honor Gethsemane, but when we ignore Golgotha we worship an incomplete, paritally developed, imperfect Savior and Redeemer.

However, how does this apply to my own life – and, more specifically, my participation in a forum like Mormon Matters? 

I was blessed to be raised with a mother who never once raised her voice to anyone – not in anger and not in any other way. I can say honestly that I have never heard her condemn anyone. When we did something we shouldn’t have done, she would automatically tear up because of what she feared our actions, if continued, would do to us. Those tears were worse BY FAR than anything my dad did to punish us, but it was not transmitted through a sense of guilt. It came across obviously and strongly as a deep and abiding love for us and concern for who we would become.

I have a deep and abiding desire for respectful conversation and mutual understanding explicitly because of what I saw my mother live. She was loved, truly and deeply, by everyone who met her, and I wish I was like that more fully.

Elder Wirthlin’s words about accepting all within the orchestra (not just the piccolos) resonated with me largely because of my upbringing, but my experience since beginning to blog also made his words ring clearly to me. I have seen so much contention and bickering and vitriol, even here at Mormon Matters, and it pains my soul – especially when I know what it does to people.

I don’t ask for compassion in commentary simply because of what it does to a conversation; I ask for it also because of what it can do within those who comment. 

I ask for an increase in civility in our conversations today as a token of our worship, respect, admiration, reverence and/or acknowledgment of He who “finished” his work without revililng those who were the instruments of that end. 

My question for everyone is simple:

How can we recognize the part we play in incivility – and how can we create a healthy, diverse, open, civility here that will be special and meaningful for ALL who participate – even those with whom we disagree strongly?

From my post two weeks ago about the attitude behind vaunting and being puffed up:

If someone lacks charity, it’s not necessarily that he believes “they are worse than I am” – but rather that he believes “I am better than they are”. That is an important distinction, subtle though it be.

It is critical – absolutely important – to understand how the statment that “charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up” applies within one’s own self in order to become more charitable in this regard. This is not easy, and it is not natural. This is true of almost everyone, but it is most difficult for those who are convinced of their own, personal faith perspective – both those who struggle with their faith community and those who are solidly established within it.

BOTH of these groups of people are characterized generally by a feeling of superiority when it comes to their understanding of Truth – and spirituality – and sociality – and leadership – and all other things religious (including Mormon). In practical terms, when we view ourselves as understanding the Gospel better than “those other members” AND think that they all would be better off if they simply were as enlightened as we are – at that moment we are being “puffed up” – and, in public groups (online or at church), that often leads to “vaunting itself” above others.

Bragging and boasting don’t have to be blatant and obvious. They can be subtle and encrypted – and I see it naturally both in those who are in the throes of bitterness and those in the entrenchment of an accepted mainstream.

If anyone wants an eye-opening experience, think about this distinction and definition as you go back and re-read your own comments here and in any online discussion groups where you have participated and/or continue to participate. (Also, think seriously about how you contribute to group discussions of other kinds – in any setting, but espeically at church.) See how many of your comments have either a subtle or obvious element of “vauntiness” or “puffiness”. Most of us have a long way to go in that regard, and it’s hard to see how far unless you are looking consciously for it.  It also is hard to eradicate unless you are working consciously to do so. 

Thoughts?

Much of what I know of charity envying not (and charity in totality) was learned by watching my father – particularly as he laid down his own life for the woman he loves. He never once begrudged what he might have had, but rather did what it took to serve his family and others in his own, individual, consciously chosen path. I hope someday I will be as good a man as he is.

Here are some edited excerpts of what I wrote in November of 2007:

My mom has a rare form of schizophrenia. My father was unaware of this, as was everyone else (including my mother), when they got married. He found out after the birth of my sisters (twins), when she was overwhelmed and her mind wouldn’t shut down and allow her to sleep. She had what was termed a nervous breakdown, which led to her clinical diagnosis.

From that moment forward, my dad shielded my mom from every care of the world so her condition would stay in remission, if you will. By all practical measures, he became my father and my mother. They had four children, but my mom wanted more, so he agreed – knowing that meant his responsibilities would increase accordingly. Ultimately, they had eight. He shouldered all of the financial, household, emotional, physical, disciplinary, organizational, educational, etc. responsibilities for his family and allowed his wife to be seen by the community as the incredibly spiritual woman we knew as our mother – a modern Mormon saint. People in town admired his work ethic, but they never realized what he was doing behind our doors – because he never once mentioned it in any way to anyone.

Until her first breakdown, my father served in various leadership positions in the Church – for example, serving in a Bishopric before the age of 30. After that, he literally laid down the life he had been pursuing and focused on serving my mother. He waited nearly 30 years to serve in another position that required he spend significant time away from home – until his children were gone and my mom could function without the stress associated with raising them. He left an extremely well paying job with incredible advancement opportunities to go back to the small town where my mom was raised, simply to ease her stress and allow her to function normally. He became an elementary school janitor for over 20 years, took a 50% pay cut and focused on loving and serving his kids – both at home and at his school – in relative poverty.

Not holding a high-profile church position or good-paying job, he came to be known in town as a salt-of-the-earth farm boy – a good man, but certainly not a leader. I bought into that perception until my mother’s second breakdown a few years ago, when her “sleeping pills” stopped working and her whole personality changed. It was only after this experience that I finally saw my father for what he is – as close an example of the Savior’s single-minded dedication to service and family as anyone I have ever known.

(The full post can be read at: http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007 … rning.html)

So much of what we discuss so passionately in the Bloggernacle is important and interesting and stimulating and fun . . . and ultimately meaningless when placed next to charity and the lives of good, humble men and women. 

Today, as I contemplate charity envying not, I think of a man lying in a hospital – robbed of the physical strength and vitality that allowed him to work multiple jobs for years to provide for his familty and allow his beloved to remain at home and undistracted by the real world around her. I think of a man who lived the life he felt was required of him given his covenants and responsibilities – even though that life brought unexpected hardships and sacrifice.

I spoke with him last night, and the voice I heard was foreign to me. It hit me for the first time in real terms that my father is an old man – and that he now will need to receive the same type of care and attention that he gave so freely for decades. I only hope that others respond and serve him as he served them so unselfishly and charitably – but, in the spirit in which he raised me, I will not judge or condemn them if they do not.

I love you, Dad – and I will be grateful eternally that I learned at the feet of such a wonderful, Christlike man.

May love fill our hearts to overflowing this day.  May we commit to allow it to be so on other days.

May our differences matter less than our common status as children of God. May we commit to see it as so no matter with whom we associate.

May all of us appreciate and respect those with whom we disagree – in word as well as in deed.  May we commit to so speak and do, even with those who persecute and spitefully use us.

In all our deepest desires, may there be a road before us – and may we allow others to walk their own individual roads without throwing stones and placing unnecessary obstacles in their way. May we commit to walk thus, no matter how often our roads intersect.

May the example of those whose lives we use as our guide be ever before our eyes – and be honored in the way we live with and treat others. May we commit to remember to look back as we move forward.

May we see each other as God sees us.  May we commit to be God’s love for others.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Please explain your answer.

I have to shake my head in amusement - and sometimes really laugh – when I hear those who complain about the wording of the Book of Mormon (that it’s too much from the KJV of the Bible and the language Joseph and the people of his time spoke), while having no problem whatsoever with Christians using non-KJV, modern translations of the Bible because that version is too hard to understand. It’s totally fine to translate the Bible into words and phrases and a style that teenagers now will understand, but it’s not OK for Jospeh to use words and phrases the readers of his time would understand?  It’s fine for the Bible to go through extensive translations of varying degrees of difficulty for individual understanding, resulting in numerous acceptable versions (including some that without question are “20th and 21st Century versions”), but it’s not OK for Joseph to have translated the Book of Mormon into 19th Century, Christian terminology? 

If people hundreds of years from now could access only the translations of the Bible written in modern English for modern teenagers, they would reject it out-of-hand as being a “product of its time” – exactly as so many people say they reject the Book of Mormon for that reason.

All other translation issues aside, I just find this particular argument amusing, since it really is a comical argument to make from within Christianity.  I have to believe those who use that rationale either don’t understand that modern translations of ancient works generally are written and “translated” in such as way that those who read it in that culture and time can understand it (“Romeo+Juiet” or “Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou”, anyone? – or the multitudinous versions of classics that get modernized as movies) OR that they have a deeper, more foundational reason for rejecting it – like a rejection of the overall prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. 

I believe rejecting the Book of Mormon because of a rejection of Joseph Smith is a teneble position; I belive rejecting Joseph Smith because of a belief that the Book of Mormon linguistically is a ”product of its time” is not. 

Irony, thy name is scriptural translation.

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

Here is my point – my two points, really.

1) This great sermon was delivered as a higher level discourse to his most dedicated followers – including those who eventually would form the new faith of Christianity.  Its standards absolutely are not easy, and its directives absolutely are not natural.

Sometimes we hold the general population of the Church (and each other and others) to these standards, while Jesus himself took great care not to do so of the general population of his followers. This often is a good example of unrealistic expectations – and of demanding others live a standard we ourselves are unable to master.

2) This great sermon was delivered mostly to the MEN who would form the leadership of his movement, even though there is no reason to believe that the listeners were all men.  (I personally believe there were women present.)

QUESTION:

Did the gender composition of the listening group have an impact on the content of the sermon?

Generally speaking, the list of attributes included in the Beatitudes are considered throughout history to be feminine.  Jesus was speaking primarily to men about how to change and grow (repent) and become godlike.  So,

1) Might the Sermon on the Mount have been different if the primary audience had been women?  If so, how?

2) How can we take the general message of repentance (change and growth and the acquisition of godly characteristics) and use it to achieve the proper balance we need to become “perfect” (complete, whole, fully developed)?

3) Must every individual acquire all the characteristics listed – or can a spouse/companion share that endeavor and, between two, create one united, balanced, “prefect” whole?

That example is modern Japanese. 

First, Mormon 9:32 is the only verse in the Book of Mormon that includes the actual phrase “reformed Egyptian”.  It says:

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, **according to our manner of speech**. 

There are two other verses that mention the Egyptian language – 1 Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:4.  They read, respectively:

I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. 

and

For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

The premise of these passages is that Lehi read Egyptian and used the hieroglyphs as the basis of the written language that was used in engraving the record he kept on the large plates (and which he taught to Nephi, at least, so he could continue the record) – but that, over time, those hieroglyphs were modified from their original forms to become a unique written language called “reformed Egyptian”.  It also is apparent that Lehi’s children did not read Egyptian naturally – that Lehi had to “teach them to his children” and have them “teach them to their children”.  It has been argued that this written language was reserved for the sacred and historical records – that it was not the “common written language” of the people, if there even was such a common language.  Given the numerous statements in the Book of Mormon about the need to write in a condensed form due to the size of the plates, this makes perfect sense – as does the practice of passing them down along bloodlines (inlcuding “non-prophets” at the end of the small plates, particularly in the Book of Omni), then ruling lines, then prophetic lines.  This practice is common throughout history with written records, since the vast majority of people were illiterate, but it plays a particular role in the formation of a “new” language, as it emphasizes the driving force behind the on-going modification of the language - the need to conserve space on plates that were difficult to make and, at the beginning especially, limited in total space.  Thus, the written language of the records was continually “altered by us” over time.

Now, to Japanese:

There are many good descriptions of the Japanese writing system, but Wikipedia contains one of the simplest.  The entry for “Japanese Writing System” includes a very good intorduction to the multiple “scripts” used in written Japanese.  In summary, there are three main scripts: “Kanji” – Chinese symbols that provide the foundation for the MEANING of words, pronounced totally differently than their Chinese pronunciation; “hiragana” – native Japanese alphabetic symbols that match to the spoken language, are syllabic in nature (each symbol represents a syllable, rather than an individual sound ["phonene"] as in English) and provide the necessary “fillers” (articles, conjunctions, conjugators, etc.) necessary to bridge between the kanji and spoken Japanese; and “katakana” – a modified form of hiragana used to designate the use of foreign words not found in native Japanese.  Also, in the last decades, “romaji” (Romanized spelling, where an American could read the standard English alphabet and pronounce the words as they would sound in Japanese) has been included.  Thus, modern Japanese is a combination of four separate “scripts”.  (There is an excellent, side-by-side chart with some examples of how one word could be written in all four scripts in the Wikipedia article.  Only one form, the original kanji, would be understood by a Chinese reader.) 

What makes this fascinating in conjunction with “Reformed Egyptian” is not just that a new, unique language has been created, but that many modern Japanese kanji (the characters that were borrowed from Chinese) often cannot be recognized or read fluently by Chinese who have not studied them.  Over time, many of the most complex kanji have been altered significantly – always as simplifications of the former symbols, removing “strokes” from the original to make it easier to learn, less time consuming to write and easier to teach to children.  Furthermore, since spoken Chinese and Japanese are as different as spoken Japanese and English, the inclusion of hiragana and katakana further complicates the process of reading Japanese for those Chinese who have not studied it.  Most can get a good or general feel for the meaning of sentences that are strictly comprised of kanji and hiragana, since the kanji still match and convey MEANING (not pronunciation), but when more of the simplified kanji are included, along with katakana and words spelled entirely in hiragana, it becomes much more difficult for Chinese people to understand written Japanese.  (As I just said, untrained Chinese can’t understand spoken Japanese at all, so a Japanese could be reading something to a Chinese that the Chinese could understand if she read it – and the Chinese would not be able to understand what the Japanese was saying.) 

In Book of Mormon terminology, modern written Japanese is “Reformed Chinese” – in EVERY sense that the term “Reformed Egyptian” is used in the Book of Mormon, right down to a complex hieroglyphic system being co-opted for meaning rather than pronunciation, that hieroglyphic system being simplified over time to make it easier to write and teach, and, perhaps, eventually being assimilated into some other script(s) and becoming nearly unreadable and “foreign” to those trained in the original hieroglyphic system. 

There is no indication that Joseph, Emma, Oliver, Sydney or any of those who were prominent in the early history of the Book of Mormon were knowlegable to any degree of Japanese – and, in fact, many of the most radical transformations of written Japanese have occurred AFTER the publication of the Book of Mormon.

As we have said multiple times, we delete or edit very, very few comments here at Mormon Matters.  This site was established to have an open forum for discussion among people with widely varying points of view and beliefs.  However, it was not and is not intended to be a site to spew bile, insult people and cast aspersions about others’ faith.  The rules are simple and few, and they can be summarized as:

Be civil.

Comment on the topic of the post.

Address what others say without disparaging them or their character.

Don’t blaspheme, use vulgar language, condemn – and don’t call people sinners who need to repent.

This is not a fourm for personal attacks, and it is not a forum for sweeping broadsides.

Disagreement is fine, even passionate disagreement, but ridicule and accusation and condemnation is not.

I wish this post was not necessary, but please understand one thing:

As much as we believe in the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, comments that are only condemnatory and add nothing to the conversation will be deleted.

If anyone has suggestions or concerns, feel free to comment.  Just do so within the rules outlined above.

He was the Bishop of his ward, and his wife had been cancer free for just over a year.  His son flew home for the weekend, after which he returned to finish his mission. I spoke with his wife briefly at the viewing, and something she said has been weighing on my mind ever since.  She said, essentially:

He lost his mother about six weeks ago, and his aunt passed away five days later.  We had reached peace with death and were focused on life. I know it will be hard in a couple of weeks when everyone gets back to their own lives and I am alone to deal with not having him here, but I believe in the Atonement, the Plan of Salvation and the promises of the temple.  It will be hard, but I will be OK.

What I want to share from this experience is not related directly to those things she mentioned at the end (the Atonement, Plan and temples), but what she said at the beginning – being at peace.

As much as anything else, when I die I want to be at peace with death – but I also want to be at peace with life.  I don’t want to be bitter or angry or upset before I die – and I don’t want to live in that state, either; I want to be at peace.

I believe that is up to me – that it is my responsibility.  The natural man inclination is to blame others for our feelings – for whether or not we are at peace.  I understand the necessity for anger, grief and/or cognitive dissonance when certainty is shattered, ambiguity accelerates and testimony is tried.  I really do get that need.  However, I believe reconciliation of some kind that leads to peace and charity is critical.

I wish I had an easy answer.  I wish I had a universal, practical method that I knew would work for every individual.  The only answer I have is that there is peace in letting go – that there is peace in cutting others slack – there is peace in real charity – there is peace in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There isn’t always peace in the human organizations in which that Gospel is interpreted and taught, just as there isn’t always peace in even the most ideal families, but the peace the Gospel brings can influence and strengthen the peace that then can be brought individually into the Church – the community of spiritual family.

I hope I or my wife never has to deal with what this good Bishop’s wife is experiencing right now and in the near future.  I hope we die together, at a ripe old age.  More than that, however, I hope that when either of us dies, the other is at peace – because she or I simply has become a peaceful person.

As I strive to be a peacemaker and, thereby, to be called a child of God, I understand that the first peace I must influence and create is within my own heart and soul – that I can’t spread peace externally unless I am at peace internally.  For those who now are NOT at peace, I hope they can look for peace even before understanding.  That might seem counter-intuitive at first, but I believe peace can bring understanding – and that understanding, in and of itself, rarely brings peace – largely because the quest for understanding never ends.  Peace, on the other hand, can last and endure even during circumstances that cannot be understood – like the unexpected death of a good Bishop.

God bless you, Denny.  You will be missed.

For the past two years (almost), I have been an active blogger – to say the least. (*grin*) Actually, to be more precise, I have been a VERY active blogger. OK, that is an understatement.

That has changed over the last three weeks. The internal drive simply has begun to fade, and this change has corresponded to the impending change in my employment situation. I am in the process of changing careers (to something I have wanted to do for a while), and it will take time and focus to be successful in this new stage of my life. I also will be moving with my family to an area where we will need to spend time integrating into a new community, a new ward and a new stake.

I still will maintain my personal blog (Things of My Soul), hopefully with the same focus and format as I do now. I still want to post daily there, as I find great joy and peace and meaning in doing so. I will not market it actively, but everyone is welcome to visit any time. I hope what I write will benefit someone, somehow, somewhere – and I hope sometime in the future I will be able to resume a degree of participation on the group blogs. I have enjoyed and learned from it more than I have words to express.

I simply will be cutting way back on my participation at the group blogs I have frequented so regularly for the past two years. In many ways, I will miss that participation. I will try to post here at Mormon Matters at least monthly, and I will check in as often as I can, but my participation will drop dramatically soon.

I have learned SO much in the last two years, especially about the wonderful group of people who struggle with something (sometimes many things) about the Church and/or the Gospel but continue to serve faithfully or, at least, strive to understand and remain involved despite their uncertainty and doubts. Largely due to my experience blogging, I have come to value deeply Elder Wirthlin’s amazing message in his April 2008 General Conference address, “Concern for the One”. (This talk has become my favorite of all time.) Among other things, this humble man of God said:

Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.

Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.

This variety of creation itself is a testament of how the Lord values all His children. He does not esteem one flesh above another, but He “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”

Over the last two years, I have blogged publicly largely with these members – those who have been hurt in one way or another because they look, THINK or act differently. I have felt a connection to them and their concerns – in some ways, more deeply than I have felt almost any connection in my entire life. The one thing that has weighed the most heavily on my mind and heart about my upcoming reduction in blogging time is the accompanying cessation of my active fellowship with many of the people I have come to love so much. (even you, Doug) *grin*

So, in closing, may we do all we can, in whatever way we can, to be a force for good – to be charitable in our communications – to think before we speak and edit before we comment – to see God in those around us and with whom we communicate – to become more Christ-like in a very conscious, intentional way. May those who struggle and those with whom we are different be blessed by our acceptance, understanding and love. May they feel God’s love through us. May the world be better because of our blogging, and may God smile when he sees how we treat His children – our brothers and sisters.

May there be a road – and may we travel joyfully together along it (caring for and succoring each other) as we make our way back home.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Rather than debate that statement, although I am open to discussing it here, I want to focus on an underlying issue within something to which we refer frequently as the “Law of Chastity”.  My primary focus is on the injunction regarding eliminating “lust” – and particularly how it can be avoided no matter one’s surroundings and exposure. This a result partly of the long, interesting discussion we had recently about “naturism” – but I don’t want to rehash that discussion here.  Rather, I want to focus on one of the underlying currents that seemed to flow beneath the discussion.

Rather than being hyper-sensitive to any and all possibilities for sexual stimulation and avoiding all such exposure, I believe the godly way to avoid the type of temptation embodied in “looking upon a woman to lust after her” is found in an expansive definition of “chastity” – one that goes beyond the more limited definition of avoiding “sexual” activity, “sexual” images or sexuality that too many people assume.

First, “lust” is used in this passage as a verb – so, in this verse”to lust” appears to mean:

to express or feel uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; to have have an excessive craving for

Conversely, the definition for “chaste” that opposes this construct best is:

Pure in thought and act; innocent; free from lewdness and obscenity, or indecency in act or speech; modest (as, a chaste mind; chaste eyes).

The interesting association in this definition is the use of the word “modest” – which in context is defined as: “limited or moderate in amount, extent, etc.” In other words, taking both of these definitions in the context of the admonition in Matthew, the underlying characteristic that Jesus appears to be addressing is “moderation” or “control” – being able to see and appreciate physical beauty without going to any extreme, without including “lewdness, obscenity, indecency, lust, etc.” This is a much more comprehensive and fundamentally empowering / liberating view of “chastity” than a simple abstinence from proscribed activities – which manifests itself generally as a negative and constricting principle. Also, and this is critical, the definition highlights being “chaste” as something primarily existing within the individual.

I am reminded of a story I heard once. I don’t know if it is historically accurate, but it illustrates this characteristic in a very simple and direct way. According to this story, a woman notorious for traveling in the nude (Lady Godiva, perhaps) was passing a group of religious leaders (the Pope and some Cardinals, perhaps). One of the Cardinals told everyone to cover their eyes and look away, but the Pope did not do so. The woman saw the reaction her passing had created, including the fact that the Pope did not look away – and she asked him why he did not do so. His response was something like:

You are a daughter of God, and he has blessed you with great beauty. I appreciate that gift God has given and praise him for his gracious gift, so why would I look away?

I believe it is important to remember that Adam and Eve covered their nakedness only after Satan pointed out that they were naked and that others would see it. I mention this simply to stress that the typical restrictions we employ as a part of this mortal existence are in place NOT because physicality and sexuality are bad things, but because we do not want to place undue temptation and stimulation in the path of others – we do not want them to “look upon a (wo)man to lust after her (him)” due to our actions.

However, if all were “chaste” in their thoughts and deeds, such restrictions would not be necessary. In other words, we seek “modesty” (moderation) in dress as an attempt to strike a proper balance between the ideal of chastity we desire and the practical state of lustfulness by which we are surrounded – between where we wish we were (as individuals and/or a society) and where we actually are.

True “chastity,” therefore, includes not only conforming to reasonable societal constraints intended to avoid placing temptation in the path of others but also having our hearts changed to not be tempted no matter our surroundings – to not “lust after her” even when “looking upon a woman” cannot be avoided.

I don’t have a simple solution or suggestion for all – or even for any particular individual. I know it is neither the extreme conservatism of the Taliban in Afghanistan nor the extreme liberalism of South Beach, Florida – but I know that I must be able to walk in either world and be free of “lust” in order to fulfill the standard Jesus holds up in these verses.

In summary, my being chaste in thought and deed is MY responsibility. I can’t blame the environment around me – or those whose appearance “naturally” might tempt me – or claim the devil made me do it. I must change myself ultimately, even if I first must change my exposure and environment until I reach the point where they no longer matter. I shouldn’t dive into tempting situations recklessly, simply in order to test my control, but rather I can change my thoughts and actions until I can face such situations without temptation. If I never reach that ultimate objective, I must continue to structure my environment to reduce temptation, but eliminating all possible temptation can never be the default.

“Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

In this passage, the woman is NOT at fault for her beauty or her “seuxality” or anything else; the man is at fault for how he reacts. While I believe in modesty in dress, at the most fundamental level the one being viewed is not “guilty” of causing the viewer’s reaction.  There are cases where s/he certainly bears some responsibility when acting in reckless disregard to the sensibilities of others, but at the most basic level the primary responsibility (at the very least) rests with the one “looking” to not “lust”.

At its most fundamental level, I believe “chastity” is NOT a restriction imposed externally; it is a characteristic developed internally.

Thoughts?

Having said that, I need to point out that depression and issues relative to similar physiological difficulties that suppress our joy and impede our growth in this life can be an exception to that last statement. I hope NOBODY takes what I said above as a reason to feel guilty over their struggles to conquer those types of difficulties. I realize completely that there are some things for some people for which enduring to the end is the only course. That’s why medical help should NEVER be stigmatized in any way for depression or other similar challenges. If proper medication provides a degree of peace for someone, taking that medication is an act of establishing a degree of accountability that will be rewarded, imo.

I believe the whole doctrine of accountability is one of the most beautiful in Mormonism. It see it as so much more expansive than restrictive. We tend to focus on the “punitive” aspects of accountability (“You are responsible for the effects of your actions when you are accountable and will be punished for your mistakes.”), but we also should understand more fully the “merciful” aspects of that same principle. (“You are not responsible for the effects of your actions when you are not accountable and will be covered by God’s grace for those mistakes.”)

We understand and acknowledge openly the concept as it relates to the “extremes” (children and the mentally handicapped on one end; fully accountable adults on the other end), but we often overlook it when dealing with the “emotionally handicapped” and the “abused” and any others whose thoughts and actions are influenced by things they didn’t choose – things often outside their full control. We are learning more and more about how to treat these things, but I believe there are still so many manifestations of these types of issues which we haven’t even identified completely. Therefore, “Judge not” becomes an even more vital command.

Having spent much time talking with many people who struggle mightily with feelings of guilt and isolation and despair and unworthiness, I have come to believe that many of them do so largely because, to some degree, they are wired to do so (either at birth or through trauma) – that they simply can’t help those feelings of despair and guilt that arise out of unrealistic expectations. I believe strongly that those people are not “accountable” for their actions during those times of guilt and despair in quite the same way as others are without those episodes. I’m not saying that they are completely free from the responsibility to understand their condition and try to “repent” (simply meaning “change”); I believe all have the command to look inward at themselves, identify their weaknesses and strive to improve.  What I am saying is that “repentance” in these cases often is as much (if not more) about learning practical coping mechanisms (including taking medication) and proactively acquiring personal characteristics than it is about the classic “exercise of will” often associated with repentance.

If we understood more fully that accountability is the concept that allows repentance to be a positive thing (that we have been given the freedom to proactively participate in the progress of our souls – to construct a process of growth that includes almost anything that helps us become “righteous” (right / in harmony with God), I believe we could begin to tackle the “natural” guilt associated with the effects of the Fall in a much more productive and ennobling manner than we tend to do currently.  We could separate “sin” (for which we are accountable), “transgression” (for which we might or might not be accountable), “weakness” (for which we are not accountable) and “natural, mortal crap” (which just is, well, crap).

So, how do you think of accountability?  Do you see it as a positive or negative concept?  How do you think what we now call “disabilities” affect accountability?  Are there other things that you believe reduce or impact accounatbility?  What are some things that we often associate with sin and guilt that you believe should not be classified as sin and induce guilt?  How do you feel about taking medication to alter one’s natural moods and/or actions? What are any other implications of accountability that are not addressed in this post?

1) “We would have headed down this path. The pregnancy just accelerated things,” she said of the couple’s cohabitation, the birth of Sadie and their 2005 wedding. “It was the way it was meant to be.”

(Is this a statement of religious belief, or simply a description of fate?)

2) “Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers.”

(Did anyone realize it was this high?)

3) “While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did . . . With the publicity of our first family, marriage might slowly become more of a norm for all.

(That last sentence might be the most ironic statement in the entire article – that a liberal, Democrat who is a married President might encourage marriage as a “norm”.)

4) “There are 9.8 million single mothers versus 1.8 million single fathers.”

(So, is this really about women choosing, or is it about men not choosing?)

5) “When California Cryobank, which claims to be the world’s largest sperm bank, opened its doors in the late 1970s, 99 percent of its business catered to couples grappling with male infertility, spokesman Scott Brown said. Now, that market in the sperm donor world accounts for less than 14 percent, according to projections by Charles Sims, the organization’s co-founder and medical director.”

(The article mentions lesbians explicitly as one demographic that has contributed to the declining percentage, but it also takes most of its examples from professional, career women who never marry or are divorced with no children.)

6) “Many of these mothers choose to tap known or anonymous sperm donors as the biological clock begins to pound. Perhaps they are like Morrissette, who divorced in her early 30s, wasn’t in a hurry to jump into another relationship and decided to have kids on her own.”

(Iow, the woman really is fine without the man?)

I found this article fascinating, particularly in light of the statements by LDS apostles and prophets about the destruction of the traditional family.  I wonder how everyone here reacts as they read the article and the quotes I’ve excerpted.

So, what are your thoughts about the rising number of out-of-wedlock births – and the pending death of “illegitimacy” when it comes to marriage and childbirth?  Which quote above struck you as the most interesting – and did any of them concern you more than the others?

What advice would you have me give our Bishops? 

As a quick explanation, we have our monthly bishops training meeting next week, and after we finished the standard summary of the current investigators and their individual needs our Stake President turned the discussion to the upcoming meeting with the bishops.  We discussed a number of things relative to missionary work, and then, right before he left to do other Stake President stuff, he left the Missionary Committee with a charge.  He said:

I want you to give me some concrete suggestions for what to ask of our Bishops to improve missionary work in our stake.

The following is an explanation of the three things we are suggesting to him, with a brief explanation of why we are making those suggestions:

1) Instruct the Bishops to focus our Sacrament Meetings on Christ.

We had mentioned this when the Stake President still was with us, but we were unanimous that the best thing we can do to share the Gospel with others at the ward level is to have deeply spiritual Sacrament Meetings – and we all felt like too many talks were focused on topics that, while important as practical matters, were better suited for Relief Society and Priesthood meeting.  We talked of how we too often lose sight of the unique purpose of a meeting that is supposed to focus on WORSHIP – by introducing topics that are not “worshipful”.  We mentioned specifically that the following topics are not appropriate for Sacrament Meeting:

a) Food Storage (unanimous groans about that as a topic)

b) “Missionary Work” (one very dedicated, ultra-conservative High Councilor said he “withdraws” emotionally whenever “missionary work” is the topic of a talk – and, remember, this was the Missionary Committee)

c) Tithing (a spiritual law, but not focused on Christ)

d) anything else that is “programmatic” and not focused on becoming Christ-like

We talked of making sure each and every topic includes, at the very least, the qualifier, “and how understanding and living this principle (or developing this characteristic) will help me become more like Christ”.  We also talked of working to eliminate travelogues, thank-amonies and quasi-talks from Fast and Testimony Meeting.

2) Instruct the Bishops to personally set an example for the members of love and fellowship of ALL who walk through the doors at church.

Do this in part by ending all administrative meetings no later than 15 minutes before the start of Sacrament Meeting, spending at least 10 minutes mingling with those who are attending Sacrament Meeting each week, seeking out and just being friendly with EVERYONE not known personally, and being seated on the stand at least 5 minutes before the meeting starts – reverently listening to the prelude music and asking the congregation to do the same.

3) Ask the Bishops to instruct their Ward Councils and Activities Committees to coordinate regular activities around service opportunities in their communities.

Don’t add “extra” activities, but replace most of the activities they generally do currently.  Rather than have a ward dinner and talent show held in the cultural hall, for example, provide a dinner and talent show at a retirement community, nursing home or homeless shelter.  Don’t create more activities; rather, be less exclusive and insular – focusing the activities on helping and serving others.

Most of our conversation focused on helping members let go of referring to “doing missionary work” and begin to see it instead as “sharing the Gospel”.

So, for this post, I ask the same question:

With regard to “missionary work”, what advice would you give our Bishops?

Having said that, I need to point out that depression and issues relative to similar physiological difficulties that suppress our joy and impede our growth in this life can be an exception to that last statement. I hope NOBODY takes what I have said above as a reason to feel guilty over their struggles to conquer those types of difficulties. I realize completely that there are some things for some people for which enduring to the end is the only course. That’s why medical help should NEVER be stigmatized in any way for depression or other similar challenges. If proper medication provides a degree of peace for someone, taking that medication is an act of establishing accountability that will be rewarded, imho.

The whole doctrine of accountability is one of the most beautiful in Mormonism, imo. It is SO much more expansive than most people realize. We tend to focus on the “punitive” aspects of accountability (“You are responsible for the effects of your actions when you are accountable.”), but we also should understand more fully the “merciful” aspects of that same principle. (“You are not responsible for the effects of your actions when you are not accountable.”)

We understand the concept as it relates to the “extremes” (children and the mentally handicapped on one end; fully accountable adults on the other end), but we often overlook it when dealing with the “emotionally handicapped” and the “abused” and any others whose thoughts and actions are influenced by things they didn’t choose – things often outside their full control. We are learning more and more about how to treat these things, but I believe there are still so many manifestations of these types of issues that we haven’t even identified completely that “Judge not” (others AND often ourselves) becomes an even more vital command.

I am convinced to the core of my soul that many people who struggle mightily with feelings of guilt and despair do so largely because they are wired to do so (either at birth or through trauma) – that they simply can’t help it. I believe strongly that those people are not “accountable” for their actions during those times of guilt and despair in quite the same way as others are without those episodes. I’m not saying that they are completely free from the responsibility to understand their condition and try to “repent” (simply meaning “change”), but I am saying that “repentance” in these cases often is more about learning coping mechanisms or taking medication than it is about the classic “exercise of will” often associated with repentance.

If we understood more fully that “repentance” is a positive thing – a process of growth that includes almost anything that helps us become righteous (“right/in harmony with God”), I believe we could begin to tackle the “natural” guilt associated with depression and other issues in a much more productive and ennobling manner than we tend to do currently. If we overcame that natural guilt, we would be far less quick to stigmatize conditions like depression – and far less likely to stigmatize the use of medicine to treat it. That, alone, would go a long way toward bringing peace to those who struggle with such things.

Question: Why do we care so much about how others view us that we automatically get defensive when a report says we use PRESCRIBED anti-depressants more than others do?  Why don’t we celecrate that kind of study results?  Most pointedly, how do you think our theology addresses disabilities – and what are the implications for those of us who don’t have a “diagnosed” disability?

The details are as follows:

He reports to the MTC on June 24th for three weeks, after which he will travel to the Washington, Everett Mission for the remainder of his two years.  His exact reaction was, “WOOHOO!!  English-speaking!”  His sisters’ reactions were unanimously, “How close is that to Forks?”  (about 3 1/2 hours – Anyone understand that question?)

I just wanted to let everyone know.  Reactions?  Any new advice, based on where he will be serving?

NOTE: Obviously, the same rule applies to this post as the last one.  Don’t try to sneak in an anti-Mormon message, or be obvious about it.

I find Jude 1:4, 8-10 to be absolutely fascinating.  I have eliminated the skipped verses (5-7) and focused directly on the underlying attitude addressed in the overall passage and one specific application of it – and its implication for each and every one of us as we converse without being able to see each other.  Verse 4 reads:

There are certain men crept in unawares, . . . turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness . . .

This is a very concise, sincere post – focused on a simple question:

What advice would you give my son before he enters the MTC?

NOTE: I have only one request.  I am looking for any constructive advice, even that which is focused on potential negative aspects of serving a mission.  I would love to have him read the comments from this  post and gain a better understanding of both serving a mission and preparing to do so.  What I am not soliciting is condemnations of the Church – or suggestions to “discover the truth before you make a horrible mistake”.  Pelase respect those minimal restrictions and give him any advice you feel will help him as he serves.

Hat night at Mesa Temple

Wow, could these guys be more Mormon?

I know that narcissism is true.

HOLY CRAP!!

If You Can’t Be Moral, at Least Be Rich

Is the Garden of Eden Actually a Real Place?

Live the Word of Wisdom – Save the Planet!!!

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. 

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Please take the time to read the entire article, since it provides their justification for this proposal – and because I think it is very well written, regardless of agreement or disagreement with particular points in it.

My question is very simple:

Would this compromise work – for both “sides” of the issue?  Could you personally accept it?  Do you think those with whom you disagree would be able to accept it?  Why or why not?  Which group would have a harder time accepting it – and why?

If you think this would not work, is there a different compromise that you think would work?

I always have struggled to pray formally and daily on a personal level. For as long as I can remember, I have had a hard time kneeling alone and praying vocally. For most of my life I didn’t understand why, and, although I tried to recommit numerous times, I never could “conquer” that particular habit. My struggle continued through various church callings, including stints in a Stake Mission Presidency, as a Ward Mission Leader, in a Bishopric and to this day as a High Councilor. I still have a hard time, but now, at least, I understand why a little better.

I have struggled with “formal prayer” all my life, largely because I have not struggled with “informal prayer” at any point in my life. All my life, I have prayed regularly; it simply has not been on my knees and vocally, on a set schedule. I naturally commune with God; I just do it silently, in my own head. I understand the following passage from Amulek in Alma 34:18-27, since it resonates with my own experience:

18 Yea, cry unto him for mercy; for he is mighty to save.

19 Yea, humble yourselves, and continue in prayer unto him.

20 Cry unto him when ye are in your fields, yea, over all your flocks.

21 Cry unto him in your houses, yea, over all your household, both morning, mid-day, and evening.

22 Yea, cry unto him against the power of your enemies.

23 Yea, cry unto him against the devil, who is an enemy to all righteousness.

24 Cry unto him over the crops of your fields, that ye may prosper in them.

25 Cry over the flocks of your fields, that they may increase.

26 But this is not all; ye must pour out your souls in your closets, and your secret places, and in your wilderness.

27 Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your hearts be full, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your welfare, and also for the welfare of those who are around you.

I truly do naturally have a prayer in my heart always, and I truly do pray by actually forming words in my mind often throughout each day. I struggle, however, to vocalize those prayers and to offer them in a formal manner. I have reached a degree of peace with that conflict, since I believe it is more important THAT I pray than HOW I pray, but I still am not comfortable completely with my inability to remember and schedule formal prayers. I see it as a weakness that I still have to overcome, even as I see my tendency to pray “continually” as a great strength.

Recently, as I was contemplating this irony, it struck me that it has been easy to excuse my difficulty with formal prayer by thinking what I do (pray continually) is obeying a higher law – that if I have to choose one or the other, it is better to pray as I do than as I don’t. I actually believe that, but I have come to realize that I still don’t pray “completely, wholly and in a fully developed manner”. In other words, I don’t pray perfectly yet. That is the goal for which I am striving – not necessarily to pray “perfectly” right away, but rather to be able to learn to pray more completely by finally praying more consistently in a formal manner – at the very least in a manner than can be considered “regularly”.

I have no driving desire right now to do more than that, and, honestly, I’m not sure I ever will – since I truly am satisfied overall with the way and regularity with which I pray. All I know is that I need to learn to pray formally (and, perhaps, vocally) more easily than I currently do.

As I considered all of that this past week, I was left to ask:

Why then do I struggle so much with formal prayer? Other than what I articulated above (the fact that I really do carry a constant prayer in my mind and heart), is there some other personal characteristic that “gets in the way” of kneeling and vocalizing prayer?

First, some of the paradox behind the struggle:

I have no inhibitions whatsoever with public speaking or one-on-one conversation. I have performed in public since the days of my earliest memories. I sang a public solo for the first time when I was six years old (I think; it might have been eight, but I believe it was pre-baptism.) – “I Hope They Call Me on a Mission” in Sacrament Meeting for a cousin’s missionary farewell. I gave my first public speech in First Grade, when I received an award for reading a ridiculous number of books during a contest. I sang in solo competitions and vocal groups from 4th – 12th Grade; I’ve played piano solos and accompanied others hundreds of times; I played the saxophone for eight years in school; I was the Drum Major of our High School Marching Band. I was a school teacher. More recently, I’ve been in Sales and Marketing for nearly twelve years. I don’t remember EVER being nervous or shy about speaking or performing in front of people. A shrinking violet I am not.

I also am not shy about expressing my thoughts and feelings – as anyone who knows me in the Bloggernacle can attest. When it comes to group participation, I am more likely to be highly visible and audible than quiet and invisible. Communication skills and inclination are not a problem for me.

It hit me just a couple of days ago that I simply am not a very “formal” person. I am totally comfortable interacting in formal situations, but, for me, doing so is an artificial way to concede to the need to “play the formal game”. In a past job, I walked the corridors of the Ohio Statehouse and talked about million dollar funding projects with executive directors of major philanthropies, but my actions in those discussions were “artificially” formal for me. I would have been much more “at home” and “natural” in jeans and a t-shirt, sitting outside on the grass and just having a heart-to-heart chat. I’ve conducted formal interviews for years, but I’d rather sit and rap with someone than grill them in a formal manner.

Also, I am a natural tease, and I tend to take lots of things less seriously than many others. For example, I’m not sure the member of the Stake Presidency who heard my talk last Sunday expected the quote from “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (on charity: “Be excellent to each other.”) or the description of listening to someone learn to play the bagpipes as similar to hearing someone kill a cat – in context of being charitable as people learn to play their souls (although I did mention in the talk that I probably shouldn’t say “kill a cat” in Sacrament Meeting). I’m a country boy at heart, and the sociality that exists in a small town tends to be a bit less formal than at a country club or in a middle-upper class suburb.

I’ve known all of that about myself for a long time, but it never really registered in the context of formal prayer. Simply opening up my mind and heart and talking with God works for me. It’s who I am. I’ve had some incredible spiritual experiences in my life, but I’m having a hard time thinking of one that occurred during a formal, vocal, personal prayer. (Priesthood blessings are a different story, but I’m distinguishing them as “ritual prayer” from “personal prayer”.)

What struck me is that the most powerful experiences I have had in my life that are associated with prayer have come when I was being most “true” to myself – when I wasn’t engaged in an activity that was “foreign” or “unnatural” to me, but rather when I was doing what I do best. Those experiences all have come either when I simply was chatting with God (talking with him informally in my head and/or heart) or when I was involved in a ritual of some kind – like a Priesthood blessing or an ordinance.

This insight has been a revelation to me, and I am contemplating the implications. At the very least, it has reinforced the need to be careful of requiring all God’s children to speak with him in the exact same way – of over-simplifying and communalizing something that might be better left complex and personal. Sometimes, unity of purpose and result might be better than total unity of form and function. At the very least, it’s given me more to ponder – and it’s made me even less inclined to judge others with regard to how they pray and how/if they feel they get their own answers.

Feel free to read and comment in a free-for-all style on any or all of the following articles – or anything else in the sidebar:

RIP, Larry Miller – and all that Jazz

The Parietal Lobe: God’s Footstool

Dwight Shrute on Religious Persecution

I forgot why I was supposed to hold my breath . . .

The Oval Office Ain’t Sacrament Meeting

The Consequences are Much Worse than Blindness