I keep starting this without being sure what to focus on. I know what the individual points are, but am not sure of the best order to treat them in, so I think I need to write about my motivation.
Part of my desire to do this comes from my membership in a group on Facebook that I thought would be for more liberal-leaning members of the Church. That was an exciting thought. There are many members who make being politically conservative an essential part of their faith, and they are so certain in their rightness, that it gets pretty irritating.
The members I know who are Democrats have been great, and talking to them has been great, so I was expecting that finding a trove of them on the internet would also be great. Sadly, they are mostly awful.
This should not really be surprising. No matter how you are grouping people, within that grouping there is a part that is awful, and part of that tends to include being vocal. (More on that at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/02/atheism-study-authors-congratulations-non-believers-youre-just-like-everybody-else/.)
Anyway, a lot of the people show by their comments a lack of faith. Maybe they are not still going to church, or maybe they go due to a sense of tradition, but think of it as just a church, and not as the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. If that is the case, they have lost something precious.
I do get frustrated with various members at times, which is normal. It is totally normal. These things happen in churches and political parties and volunteer groups, because that is the nature of dealing with people. Cutting off things that are important to you because of other people is spiting yourself, but it can often affect others too, like less dogs getting rescued, or other people being influenced and losing something they valued but were still getting used to, or just an organization that is good becoming unbearable due to who is left.
The reason I focus on prophets for that is to remember that this isn't just a church. It's not just some good ideas at one time that haven't been updated. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living church. It was restored by a prophet. It uses the words of old prophets, which anyone can do, but it is also still led by prophets. Those prophets are human, and the people they lead are human, but there is no getting around that part, so you have to deal with it.
What I will be trying to cover in the next two or three posts is how to deal with it, and why it's worth dealing with, and how it is actually a system that works after all.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Following and believing in prophets - as leaders change
This is probably going to take three or four parts, but I am going to start with a review of my relationship with various presidents of the Church.
The first one I remember is President Kimball, and I just instinctively loved him. I could not tell you a lot about the things that he taught - it was a very childlike love I suppose.
I do remember when I was a Beehive, my teacher saying that we should pay attention to the leaders, not just with what they taught, but getting to know them. She said some people were very concerned that President Benson was next in line, because he was so political, and that meant absolutely nothing to me.
This is perhaps where I should explain a little about my childhood. My parents joined the Church after they were married, and my father stopped going when I was nine. The rest of us kept going, though my two older siblings eventually stopped, but still, we did not have the pioneer heritage or the extended family, and then there was a desire at that time for there to not be a too much of a rift with Dad not going.
One way this played out is that conference weekends were considered time off, both stake and general. So I knew who the prophet was, and sometimes other names would sound familiar, but that was pretty much it.
(I read the scriptures a lot, so was generally considered pretty knowledgeable about church things, but not the current leaders.)
When I graduated high school and started to attend the singles ward, that started to change. I did start reading the Ensign more, and going to things, and I had a better idea, but where that really kicked into gear while I was on my mission.
One thing that happened before that is that when President Kimball died, I remembered being sad, but then "We Thank The O God For A Prophet" started playing in my head, and I remembered both that we'd had President Kimball, and that was not undone, but also that we still had a prophet and always would.
I was fine with President Benson, but I wasn't attached, and with his health problems it seemed like we did not hear from him much, even when I was attending General Conference. It was not a testimony issue - someone had suggested once that we did not get to hear from him much because we did not listen well enough, and that made sense - but there was just no connection.
That changed in the Missionary Training Center. We watched a video of him, and the love in his eyes made a strong impression on me. I knew I had loved President Kimball; now I knew President Benson loved me, and I loved him for that. Later one I borrowed a packet of his talks from someone, and got to know him on another level there.
The other thing about the MTC is that you have general authorities coming every week, and that was when some of the apostles started becoming real to me. I learned to love Elder Wirthlin when he came to the Modesto Stake Conference and I translated for him. I learned to love Elder Holland when he toured our mission and spoke to us while still a Seventy. And then I was watching and reading conference talks, so everyone became real. It just required some participation.
While in the mission field I remember expecting that President Hunter would die before President Benson, because he was so weak, and he couldn't have a very long presidency. Then he spoke in conference and he spoke with great power, and I knew I had been wrong. He could do whatever he needed to do. And then he did become President, and it was in fact a very short presidency, and yet a very powerful one. That was a huge lesson for me. What is supposed to happen happens, and it works, and it is based on wisdom that we do not have.
Both President Benson and President Hunter did what was needed, and filled the roles that they needed to, but it was still such a breath of fresh air to have President Hinckley so present, speaking and traveling everywhere. I loved him with all my heart, and eventually he died too.
I had liked President Monson's talks a lot when he was a counselor, at first, and then I found that while I liked his stories, he repeated them a lot, and then I started not liking them as much. I do not love him as much as I loved President Hinckley, and it does seem wrong to feel that way. All that being said, I still know he is the prophet. I trust him.
I see that having favorites is actually pretty common, and there can be bad things about it, but that is not necessary. All of my experience has shown me that this is guided. The men are called in the order they are called by a God who knows how long they will live, and what their strengths are, and what is going to happen to the Church and the people in it. If I have issues with an individual, it is my responsibility to come around, which I can do by prayer and the Spirit. It works, but there are things that make it work, and things that we can let get in our way. That's what I am going to try and cover over the next few weeks.
The first one I remember is President Kimball, and I just instinctively loved him. I could not tell you a lot about the things that he taught - it was a very childlike love I suppose.
I do remember when I was a Beehive, my teacher saying that we should pay attention to the leaders, not just with what they taught, but getting to know them. She said some people were very concerned that President Benson was next in line, because he was so political, and that meant absolutely nothing to me.
This is perhaps where I should explain a little about my childhood. My parents joined the Church after they were married, and my father stopped going when I was nine. The rest of us kept going, though my two older siblings eventually stopped, but still, we did not have the pioneer heritage or the extended family, and then there was a desire at that time for there to not be a too much of a rift with Dad not going.
One way this played out is that conference weekends were considered time off, both stake and general. So I knew who the prophet was, and sometimes other names would sound familiar, but that was pretty much it.
(I read the scriptures a lot, so was generally considered pretty knowledgeable about church things, but not the current leaders.)
When I graduated high school and started to attend the singles ward, that started to change. I did start reading the Ensign more, and going to things, and I had a better idea, but where that really kicked into gear while I was on my mission.
One thing that happened before that is that when President Kimball died, I remembered being sad, but then "We Thank The O God For A Prophet" started playing in my head, and I remembered both that we'd had President Kimball, and that was not undone, but also that we still had a prophet and always would.
I was fine with President Benson, but I wasn't attached, and with his health problems it seemed like we did not hear from him much, even when I was attending General Conference. It was not a testimony issue - someone had suggested once that we did not get to hear from him much because we did not listen well enough, and that made sense - but there was just no connection.
That changed in the Missionary Training Center. We watched a video of him, and the love in his eyes made a strong impression on me. I knew I had loved President Kimball; now I knew President Benson loved me, and I loved him for that. Later one I borrowed a packet of his talks from someone, and got to know him on another level there.
The other thing about the MTC is that you have general authorities coming every week, and that was when some of the apostles started becoming real to me. I learned to love Elder Wirthlin when he came to the Modesto Stake Conference and I translated for him. I learned to love Elder Holland when he toured our mission and spoke to us while still a Seventy. And then I was watching and reading conference talks, so everyone became real. It just required some participation.
While in the mission field I remember expecting that President Hunter would die before President Benson, because he was so weak, and he couldn't have a very long presidency. Then he spoke in conference and he spoke with great power, and I knew I had been wrong. He could do whatever he needed to do. And then he did become President, and it was in fact a very short presidency, and yet a very powerful one. That was a huge lesson for me. What is supposed to happen happens, and it works, and it is based on wisdom that we do not have.
Both President Benson and President Hunter did what was needed, and filled the roles that they needed to, but it was still such a breath of fresh air to have President Hinckley so present, speaking and traveling everywhere. I loved him with all my heart, and eventually he died too.
I had liked President Monson's talks a lot when he was a counselor, at first, and then I found that while I liked his stories, he repeated them a lot, and then I started not liking them as much. I do not love him as much as I loved President Hinckley, and it does seem wrong to feel that way. All that being said, I still know he is the prophet. I trust him.
I see that having favorites is actually pretty common, and there can be bad things about it, but that is not necessary. All of my experience has shown me that this is guided. The men are called in the order they are called by a God who knows how long they will live, and what their strengths are, and what is going to happen to the Church and the people in it. If I have issues with an individual, it is my responsibility to come around, which I can do by prayer and the Spirit. It works, but there are things that make it work, and things that we can let get in our way. That's what I am going to try and cover over the next few weeks.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Tattoos and piercings
There's this meme going around lately:
"the nicest people I ever met were covered in tattoos and piercings. the most judgmental are the people who go to church every Sunday."
I have no tattoos and go to church every Sunday, and I think I actually am quite good about not judging and being kind, but it's not always that way, and as two things that seemingly don't go together, perhaps that is worth exploring.
In our church, we are specifically asked not to get tattoos or piercings, beyond the single piercing of ears for girls. President Hinckley gave three talks pretty close together on that topic, and I know there were people who had a hard time with it. It was always something I sort of assumed before, but I think it had become less of an assumption, where people were doing it and not feeling particularly rebellious.
I had some thoughts at the time on why it would be a point, and it's not that they are invalid now, but something else that has come to me more recently is that when we push the boundaries, it pushes them out for everybody else.
We are the squares. There is nothing wrong with that. We don't drink, we don't smoke, we don't do drugs. (Actually, that kind of makes us straight edge, but without the tattoos.) There are a lot of things that we don't do, and we can be perfectly happy not doing them, especially if we focus more on the positive things that we do. I do not regret any of that.
Still, we are the squares, and to a large extent we are the institution, and "the man". Ways in which we are not part of the machine are important, but may not be immediately visible to some. If we, as the squares, begin appropriating the body art of the rebels, they have to go out further. Mormon guys have pierced ears, rebels need to put spacers in their ear lobes. We get tattoos, they need to get sleeves. We get sleeves, they need to get face tattoos and horns implanted in the forehead.
That probably sounds pretty stupid, but there are a few points to be made here. One is that it is completely acceptable that your compliance at times may be more intended for the blessing of someone else than of yourself. That doesn't mean that you won't get any benefits from it, but it is reasonable for us to do things for others. We should.
Also, I am not saying that the only reason for tattoos and piercings is rebellion, but some of the other purposes that they feel should maybe be things that we don't need.
For example, I remember one person talking about his tattoos being a way of remembering some pictures and images, which is hard. My first thought was that no, it's really easy. We have pictures and photo albums and memories. However, on a deeper level, I think the real issue was a feeling of impermanence, and a desire to hold on, especially to loved ones. I know of many tattoos that are in memory of someone who has died.
With our knowledge of the Resurrection, and eternal families, it's likely that we are not going to feel that same ache. It still hurts when we lose people, but we know it's temporary, and that helps. That's something we can be grateful for.
We know that our body is eternal. It will be changed and perfected, but that is something that is amazing to think about, and we can be grateful for that knowledge.
We understand that we are children of God and brothers and sisters, and I think that can give us a better understanding of what we would need to do to stand out, or why we would want to. That is something to be grateful for.
It's easy to judge, and when we do that as church-goers we are fulfilling one stereotype, and we are in the wrong. When we see and love and are willing to listen and understand, and then love some more, that's what we are supposed to do, and whom we are supposed to be. And while we will care about what we will do to our bodies, we will not get hung up on what other people have done to theirs.
"the nicest people I ever met were covered in tattoos and piercings. the most judgmental are the people who go to church every Sunday."
I have no tattoos and go to church every Sunday, and I think I actually am quite good about not judging and being kind, but it's not always that way, and as two things that seemingly don't go together, perhaps that is worth exploring.
In our church, we are specifically asked not to get tattoos or piercings, beyond the single piercing of ears for girls. President Hinckley gave three talks pretty close together on that topic, and I know there were people who had a hard time with it. It was always something I sort of assumed before, but I think it had become less of an assumption, where people were doing it and not feeling particularly rebellious.
I had some thoughts at the time on why it would be a point, and it's not that they are invalid now, but something else that has come to me more recently is that when we push the boundaries, it pushes them out for everybody else.
We are the squares. There is nothing wrong with that. We don't drink, we don't smoke, we don't do drugs. (Actually, that kind of makes us straight edge, but without the tattoos.) There are a lot of things that we don't do, and we can be perfectly happy not doing them, especially if we focus more on the positive things that we do. I do not regret any of that.
Still, we are the squares, and to a large extent we are the institution, and "the man". Ways in which we are not part of the machine are important, but may not be immediately visible to some. If we, as the squares, begin appropriating the body art of the rebels, they have to go out further. Mormon guys have pierced ears, rebels need to put spacers in their ear lobes. We get tattoos, they need to get sleeves. We get sleeves, they need to get face tattoos and horns implanted in the forehead.
That probably sounds pretty stupid, but there are a few points to be made here. One is that it is completely acceptable that your compliance at times may be more intended for the blessing of someone else than of yourself. That doesn't mean that you won't get any benefits from it, but it is reasonable for us to do things for others. We should.
Also, I am not saying that the only reason for tattoos and piercings is rebellion, but some of the other purposes that they feel should maybe be things that we don't need.
For example, I remember one person talking about his tattoos being a way of remembering some pictures and images, which is hard. My first thought was that no, it's really easy. We have pictures and photo albums and memories. However, on a deeper level, I think the real issue was a feeling of impermanence, and a desire to hold on, especially to loved ones. I know of many tattoos that are in memory of someone who has died.
With our knowledge of the Resurrection, and eternal families, it's likely that we are not going to feel that same ache. It still hurts when we lose people, but we know it's temporary, and that helps. That's something we can be grateful for.
We know that our body is eternal. It will be changed and perfected, but that is something that is amazing to think about, and we can be grateful for that knowledge.
We understand that we are children of God and brothers and sisters, and I think that can give us a better understanding of what we would need to do to stand out, or why we would want to. That is something to be grateful for.
It's easy to judge, and when we do that as church-goers we are fulfilling one stereotype, and we are in the wrong. When we see and love and are willing to listen and understand, and then love some more, that's what we are supposed to do, and whom we are supposed to be. And while we will care about what we will do to our bodies, we will not get hung up on what other people have done to theirs.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Homosexuality again
Do you remember the Oregon Citizens Alliance? I really used to hate them. That's not saying that I love them now, but a specific point of frustration was that they stirred things up.
If you are not familiar, they ran a series of ballot measures, and they were campaigning against special rights for gays. You could look at it as freedom from discrimination is not really a special right, or even if you decided that it would be a special right that really any protections at the time were quite limited (this was the late '80s/early '90s). Their literature focused on how teachers would be recruiting and students would be experimenting if the laws were not passed.
I don't remember them passing anything, and I don't remember ever feeling like their measures were likely to pass. I just remember that I felt like they were stirring up hate. They would say ugly things, and people would react, and yeah, things felt more hateful.
Looking back now, maybe the hate was already there, but dormant, and that's worth considering. It is also possible that in some ways they actually led to more tolerance by being so nasty and ridiculous. It does feel like people are better about accepting each other now than before, at least, a lot of people are. That's kind of why I say "used to" - because now I see where there could be value in the discussion, even if it was started in an obnoxious way by hateful people.
This is kind of a continuation of the Duck Dynasty post, from two weeks ago. The discussion is happening. The marriage equality discussion brings up other discussions, and I realize the discussions can be uncomfortable, but that's all the more reason to have them. People who believe in traditional marriage may feel threatened on a visceral level, but if you examine that, and discover that it is not a threat to your marriage, that would actually feel better. If you object, what do you object to? What are you afraid of? What are the possible outcomes? What do you think the law should allow? Do you know what the law currently allows?
I know I am a broken record on a few things, and that includes not being afraid to think and loving others, but seriously, those both really work out. So, I want to make a point here that I think can be valuable, and I want to start with Chirlane McCray.
Her husband, Bill de Blasio, was recently elected mayor of New York, which drew some attention on their family, sometimes about them being biracial, and sometimes about her identifying as a lesbian before she met him. Now she hates labels, and I think she's right.
Here's something else I remember from the early '90s - it was fairly common to marginalize bisexuals. It was kind of joking, but it was common to say they were fooling themselves, or that they were just slutty. Also, and even into this century, for it to be common for gay men to look down on lesbians. Again, that seem to be an area where progress has been made.
I have read in a few different places that most people have some attraction to their own gender, but not so much that it overrides the opposite sex attraction. I can't find any good documentation on it, and honestly, I don't see it in me, but I'm willing to believe it's possible. I think there is a lot we don't understand about attraction, and a lot that we don't understand about love.
We also know that attraction should not be the sole basis for a relationship. We can be desperately attracted to people who are bad for us.
I am wandering here, but I am trying to tie together some related concerns. I know that there are people who are homosexual and hide it for various reasons. Sometimes they even hide it from themselves. It also seems possible that there might be people who initially identify as homosexual and then find themselves experiencing hetero-attraction and try and fight that, because it has been a part of their identity, and it might feel disloyal. I have concerns over people being afraid of what they feel. If there are lines drawn where you have to be one thing or the other, that one is good and one is bad, and it is us against them, that adds fears that no one should have to worry about.
And that is a very human thing to do; I am seeing that more and more all of the time. It's destructive, and teenagers do it a lot, and it's immature of them, but if the adults do it too, how can we judge them.
So that is one concern, but it leads into the other. We know that teens who identify as homosexual are at a higher risk for suicide and depression and self-harm. They are at risk for being alienated. That brings us back to poor relationship choices. If a young person has been afraid to talk to anyone about how they feel, that leaves them vulnerable to predatory people.
Children who don't feel loved or supported are vulnerable in a way that children who have always been accepted and valued are not. This could lead to them being attracted to people who are much older, or abusive, and that isn't necessarily a gender thing at this point. There are a lot of unhealthy heterosexual relationships.
The point is that we teach children that they deserve to have a romantic relationship with someone who cares about them and treats them well by caring about them and treating them well in their non-romantic relationships. The romantic relationships they observe matter too, but if you hammer into someone that there is something seriously wrong with what and who they are, seeing other people have good relationships may only be a painful reminder of what they can't have.
Based on that, can there be any other way to treat someone than with love and respect and acceptance? And yes, I say that thinking about gay teens, but also straight teens, and young children, and adults - there is no other appropriate way.
Related post: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-we-need-to-love.html
If you are not familiar, they ran a series of ballot measures, and they were campaigning against special rights for gays. You could look at it as freedom from discrimination is not really a special right, or even if you decided that it would be a special right that really any protections at the time were quite limited (this was the late '80s/early '90s). Their literature focused on how teachers would be recruiting and students would be experimenting if the laws were not passed.
I don't remember them passing anything, and I don't remember ever feeling like their measures were likely to pass. I just remember that I felt like they were stirring up hate. They would say ugly things, and people would react, and yeah, things felt more hateful.
Looking back now, maybe the hate was already there, but dormant, and that's worth considering. It is also possible that in some ways they actually led to more tolerance by being so nasty and ridiculous. It does feel like people are better about accepting each other now than before, at least, a lot of people are. That's kind of why I say "used to" - because now I see where there could be value in the discussion, even if it was started in an obnoxious way by hateful people.
This is kind of a continuation of the Duck Dynasty post, from two weeks ago. The discussion is happening. The marriage equality discussion brings up other discussions, and I realize the discussions can be uncomfortable, but that's all the more reason to have them. People who believe in traditional marriage may feel threatened on a visceral level, but if you examine that, and discover that it is not a threat to your marriage, that would actually feel better. If you object, what do you object to? What are you afraid of? What are the possible outcomes? What do you think the law should allow? Do you know what the law currently allows?
I know I am a broken record on a few things, and that includes not being afraid to think and loving others, but seriously, those both really work out. So, I want to make a point here that I think can be valuable, and I want to start with Chirlane McCray.
Her husband, Bill de Blasio, was recently elected mayor of New York, which drew some attention on their family, sometimes about them being biracial, and sometimes about her identifying as a lesbian before she met him. Now she hates labels, and I think she's right.
Here's something else I remember from the early '90s - it was fairly common to marginalize bisexuals. It was kind of joking, but it was common to say they were fooling themselves, or that they were just slutty. Also, and even into this century, for it to be common for gay men to look down on lesbians. Again, that seem to be an area where progress has been made.
I have read in a few different places that most people have some attraction to their own gender, but not so much that it overrides the opposite sex attraction. I can't find any good documentation on it, and honestly, I don't see it in me, but I'm willing to believe it's possible. I think there is a lot we don't understand about attraction, and a lot that we don't understand about love.
We also know that attraction should not be the sole basis for a relationship. We can be desperately attracted to people who are bad for us.
I am wandering here, but I am trying to tie together some related concerns. I know that there are people who are homosexual and hide it for various reasons. Sometimes they even hide it from themselves. It also seems possible that there might be people who initially identify as homosexual and then find themselves experiencing hetero-attraction and try and fight that, because it has been a part of their identity, and it might feel disloyal. I have concerns over people being afraid of what they feel. If there are lines drawn where you have to be one thing or the other, that one is good and one is bad, and it is us against them, that adds fears that no one should have to worry about.
And that is a very human thing to do; I am seeing that more and more all of the time. It's destructive, and teenagers do it a lot, and it's immature of them, but if the adults do it too, how can we judge them.
So that is one concern, but it leads into the other. We know that teens who identify as homosexual are at a higher risk for suicide and depression and self-harm. They are at risk for being alienated. That brings us back to poor relationship choices. If a young person has been afraid to talk to anyone about how they feel, that leaves them vulnerable to predatory people.
Children who don't feel loved or supported are vulnerable in a way that children who have always been accepted and valued are not. This could lead to them being attracted to people who are much older, or abusive, and that isn't necessarily a gender thing at this point. There are a lot of unhealthy heterosexual relationships.
The point is that we teach children that they deserve to have a romantic relationship with someone who cares about them and treats them well by caring about them and treating them well in their non-romantic relationships. The romantic relationships they observe matter too, but if you hammer into someone that there is something seriously wrong with what and who they are, seeing other people have good relationships may only be a painful reminder of what they can't have.
Based on that, can there be any other way to treat someone than with love and respect and acceptance? And yes, I say that thinking about gay teens, but also straight teens, and young children, and adults - there is no other appropriate way.
Related post: http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-we-need-to-love.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)