Thanks

I have been struggling with bad impulses.

President Nelson has encouraged members to post about their gratitude, using the hash tag #givethanks.

I have no good reason for reacting the way I did, but I was tempted to only give thanks for very liberal things: Biden's victory, Planned Parenthood, Governor Kate Brown's leadership, and people who wear masks (though that one should not be specifically liberal).

I have not done that because I know that even if my gratitude would be sincere, I would be doing it to annoy people. That would not be a good purpose. I have seen some very touching things posted, and I have even liked some (literally pressing the "Like" button on Facebook).

My first problem is my thinking that this is not the problem. There are definitely things that are good about noting the blessings in your life and feeling grateful. It is something I believe in and do. However...

1. I am not sure that it is the most helpful remedy for this moment.

2. The kinds of gratitude posts that are most frequently shared often have a way of making other people feel inadequate and left behind.

Mind you, social media in general has that effect on a lot of people. I don't think it should, and there are a lot of factors that go into that, but it is a real thing.

The pandemic has increased isolation, which is hard on mental and emotional health. That is increased by the toll that grief is taking on those who have lost family members, plus the physical health problems that many have experienced and continue to experience. In addition, many people are struggling financially.

Even in times of great difficulty there are things to be grateful for. It is good to remember those, but this really seems like a good time to give actual, tangible aid. I don't have a lot of money to give right now, but the Church does. That could be really great. 

I could write another letter, but they still haven't answered the first one.

I did watch the video. It was not a terrible talk or prayer. I just know there could be more. I want there to be more.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/givethanks/?lang=eng

I am not going to be posting with the hash tag. I will add requests for healing to my prayers. On a personal level, I have been working on healing anyway.

(I wish I could say that was all emotional and mental, but I have had a cold for the past four days. I am more aware than ever how much worse illness can be than the common cold, but it is still not fun.)

Otherwise, in the things that I am feeling to do, it is mostly reaching out to other people. #RememberSeptember did have a hash tag, and was something I felt led to do. Recently we sent out some holiday cards, and I know that at least two of them meant a lot to the recipients. They were not people I would have automatically thought of. 

I am being led toward something else now that I should be starting soon. It also seems worth saying that I did not just get the ideas for things to do and how automatically. For #RememberSeptember, I went over my entire Facebook friends list twice. For the cards, I went over the ward directory. There is some guidance to start, but then more is sought along the way. 

Counting your blessings can cheer you up, but so can serving other people. That may cheer them up too.

Just something to think about before they start telling us to light the world.

Eureka!

Friday I finished the last of the 1971 conference talks. Only 49 more years to go! 

(By the time I get there, another four to seven years will have passed, but that's okay. I know.)

The plan is feeling better, because of two things that have happened along the way.

One is that I am finding lots of inspiration. It may not be directly related to what I am reading, but it still works. Maybe one talk will have an anecdote or a key word that will lead to another thought, and then it connects to something else.

I should mention that right now I am getting a lot of ideas and insights in general. I have cleared room for it, and put myself in a position for it, so it could make sense that almost anything would contribute. I also don't think it is random, though, because reading old conference talks was a thing that I specifically thought I should do.

In addition, I am relieved to find that I don't hate all of the talks. Some of them are really good, which makes me more hopeful that as I get into the 90s I will not find myself hating talks that meant a lot to me the first time around.

The post title comes from a realization as I was thinking about some of those talks. I realized that the talks that inspire and comfort me have in common the sharing of personal experiences and faith. The talks that anger me are pretty consistently based on assumptions about the experiences of others. 

I thought I was bothered by how judgmental the talks were. That is part of it, but exacerbated because the judgments are ill-informed and wrong.

It is not surprising that someone born and raised in a good church family in Utah in the 70s might not have great insight into drug addiction or people who believe in God more as a presence than as a person, or a host of other things. I can also acknowledge that some of the things happening on the outside would have looked threatening and scary. If you know chastity is important, and suddenly your church is the last one that still believes in it, that could seem dire. Also, women want to work and wear pants!

When I don't know something, I believe in trying to learn about it. The problem here is when you don't know that you don't know, especially when you are sure that you do know. It is much easier to be able to hear and read about other people and their lives now, fifty years later.

I remember years and years ago, being with some really good members looking at the news about a serial killer who was targeting prostitutes. (It was almost certainly the Green River Killer.) I remember her saying that it looked like someone decided to clean up the streets.

It bothered me, but there was a level at which I believed - based on other observed behavior - that if she was actually dealing with a prostitute, she would be kind. 

It was still a twisted way to believe. It does not acknowledge the realities of sex workers or serial killers. It wasn't a mindset that would make the world a safer or kinder place.

The Bible tells us of Jesus dining with publicans and sinners. We know he taught them, but I believe he also listened to them, and understood them.

When we are looking out at the world as a scary, evil place, we are not understanding it. That severely limits the good we can do for it.

Style counsel

One of the recent 1970 General Conference talks I read had - as kind of a throwaway - an admonition to never intentionally look less than your best. I'm sure it was a reaction to more casual clothing, but it felt like a lot of pressure.

It stuck out more because I had just read this quote from Elizabeth Cady Stanton about the first time she saw a woman wearing bloomers, occurring when she visited a cousin:

To see my cousin with a lamp in one hand and a baby in the other, walk upstairs, with ease and grace while, with flowing robes, I pulled myself up with difficulty, lamp and baby out of the question, readily convinced me that there was sore need of a reform in woman's dress and I promptly donned a similar costume. 

I immediately grasped how revolutionary it must have been. It's not even automatically a skirt versus pants issue, because there are dresses that can be less encumbering than mid-nineteenth century woman's fashions. Still, choosing clothing for comfort and ease of movement would be amazing, as well as discovering how much of fashion wasted time and hampered movement.

It is also not a matter of skimpy attire; bloomers went down to the ankles. I believe bloomers were still considered immodest, possibly closer to the original meaning of the word in that it could be seen as drawing attention, and facilitated actions that might draw attention, like running. It certainly removed all mystery about whether women had legs, and how many. (That sounds like a joke, but men LOVE finding women mysterious. Then understanding them is unnecessary.)

The modesty issue does lead me to something else I saw recently, about 15th century woman Agnès Sorel, who had her gowns specially designed to expose her favorite breast. 

This immediately made me feel a little insecure; she has a favorite breast? Is that a thing? Am I missing some aspect of womanhood thinking mine are basically the same? Okay, that is partially facetious, but I spent some effort on getting in touch with my body, and now I can't help wondering what I missed.

Regardless, I mention it because the portrait was shown with a quote, "Women in the past were modest and had more respect for themselves."

Well, her style did get some criticism. It also got some imitation.

My last post was about conservatism as a way of resisting change and adhering to the past. Often that ignores real problems in the present and past. Furthermore, those perceptions are often built on lies. 

Hidden Figures (2016) shows us Black women working as "computers" at NASA, when that work was done by humans instead of machines. I have seen The Right Stuff (1983) and Apollo 13 (1995) and they showed NASA and lots of calculations, but they were all being done by white men. There was also a department full of white women. Many of the people who were there have died since then - Katherine Johnson just recently - but their accounts and the employment records still exist. They were there, and they were great at math, but then in 1983 you would have people telling you that girls just naturally had a harder time with math.

We invite people into the church telling them to keep the good they have and get more. That's fine, but are we accurately assessing what is good, inside and out?

What to keep?

I don't think I have mentioned this yet, but for a while I have been wanting to go through and read old conference talks. The church web site has them back to 1970, so that is where I started. 

Conference often lasted for three days back then. It is hard to say, but at my current rate, where I give two or three days to the Come Follow Me curriculum and then the rest of the week to conference talks, this could easily take four years (assuming that I re-read years that I read or listened to at the time). I am currently on the second day of the October 1970 conference. 

It feels important, but it is going to be a slog, what with all of the liberal bashing. Seriously, it wasn't the only instance, but in the spring session Harold B. Lee said...

One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.” ("The Iron Rod", Sunday afternoon)

I actually had started that, got irritated and re-read the four gospels instead, and then re-started maybe six weeks ago and had to go through all of it again.

Fall 1970 started off better, where I was finding several talks that I liked in the Friday morning session. Then I decided to finish since there was only one talk left, and it was Ezra Taft Benson slagging on rock music. 

As I keep at it, there are different things that I realize. 

First of all, everyone was in a kind of defensive mode because several other churches had stopped requiring chastity, and it was alarming. I'm not sure how much it was dominating the news, but the Equal Rights Amendment was going to pass the House of Representatives on October 11th of that year. 

In addition, I can see that they were not using "liberal" to mean Democrat (because after all, we don't endorse any parties or people), but as a movement for change, and reactionary. It might have made more sense to use "progressive" for those purposes, but we don't always use political terms accurately. They definitely meant opposite of "conservative".

There was one talk that defended conservatism because God is unchanging so shouldn't we be as well? They weren't always trying to change in the City of Enoch while they were waiting for translation.

That line of reasoning would make sense if as people or as society we were perfect; we're not, certainly not in the way we follow God.

Conservatism requires a certain confidence that the current system is good. If you were a white man from Utah in the '70s, that was probably pretty easy to do, even if you had seen poverty and suffered and were a very good person. It is heartening now to know that Dallin H. Oaks can say that Black Lives Matter, but the extrajudicial killing of Black people was happening in the '70s too, and before, but with less filmed evidence.

If it is reactionary to see that there are problems and try and make things better, then I am happy to be reactionary. That word seems to apply more to seeing something new and non-conforming and immediately finding it bad and threatening. I mean, yes, lots of rockers have been depraved, but it is not a given. Classical music and hymns are great and they have their place, but so does rock and metal and especially punk. There's room for a lot of different things in this wide world.

That doesn't mean that all music is good, or that all change is good; those kinds of wide blanket statements would not even be likely to be true. I do think that if we could listen better, and trust people more, that we could do better.

I think I am going to leave that there for now, and then do a clothing-related example next week.

Abortion again, sort of

I briefly mentioned abortion last week in the post on libertarians being the worst.

At the time it occurred to me that I should treat abortion separately, because it is coming up a lot this year. The term "baby-killers" is being thrown around pretty indiscriminately.

However, I also wrote a pretty good post about abortion four years ago (interesting timing; I wonder what could have inspired it), and I think it was a good post that covered the subject pretty well. I don't need to re-write it. 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/10/about-abortion.html 

I am going to convey a recent experience, though, and then go over a recent thought that may be related, if not directly.

Recently someone I know but am not friends with was vociferously responding to a mutual friend's post on abortion. There was a really good discussion going on, with people saying very intelligent things, and sharing personal experiences. There was a lot of compassion and respect, except for this one increasingly angry and insulting person.

It was telling how quickly she devolved into just wanting punishment for the women who got pregnant, and not for the men who participated; they can't get pregnant, so it is the woman's fault. 

There is a level at which I mentally know that "pro-life" is more about controlling women than preventing abortions, if for no other reason than that they never care that fewer abortions happen under Democrats. However, it was still disconcerting to see it be so open and from a woman.

Interestingly, that particular woman did get pregnant out of wedlock and kept the child, so I thought maybe she was mad she hadn't gotten her medal yet. Except, if the law changes and there is no choice, why should she get a medal? Then I thought perhaps it was jealousy that she got stuck with her kid, as their relationship is currently a little rocky. These are mean speculations, but they are also a response to her; how could she show so little regard for the things people - good people, many of whom she knew - were sharing? I mean, she isn't that bright, but that shouldn't make being a hate-filled harpy a given.

Of course, the other thing that is interesting about that is that doctrinally members should support choice and not want to control others. That is Satan's plan. (Theoretically, libertarians should support choice too, but again, they are the worst.)

So, let's head over to that other thought. 

Over the years, through church we have known a lot of wonderful families where a lot of the children don't go to church anymore. We think the parents were good, everything looked like it should be fine, but then somehow that faith isn't there. 

We can take this as a sign of how hard this world is, and there are arguments for that. In addition, I know a lot of great people who have stopped going, mostly because of the bigotry. I am sticking it out, but I empathize with that.

(For the record, I am sticking it out because I think the bigotry is not doctrinal, but something caught by contagion from evangelicals. We should have protected against it better, but I still want to outlast it.)

Anyway, the thought that I had was to wonder if these good and loving parents maybe spent too much time telling their children not to sin, rather than teaching them the fruits of the spirit.

It's understandable how it happens. When there was less awareness of the bigotry in the world, so you think the most palpable evil is fornication and smoking and wearing short skirts, it was easy to feel good. When you start having to choose to rock the boat to make things better; when you have to acknowledge systemic racism or embrace it; when you have to acknowledge that men should be playing a role in maintaining their own thoughts, rather than women continually needing to cover up more; and don't forget having people who believe in the law of consecration needing to understand the flaws in capitalism.. that is a harder situation.

Then you need to know how to be comforted by prayer. Then you need to be able to feel love for people who might sin, and care about them and not make your caring conditional upon whether they sin. You need to know how to get answers for tough questions, and how to trust when the answer is delayed.

It's harder. It is harder to do and harder to teach, but it's necessary. Saying "Don't do that!" is simple, especially when "that" is illegal. If it is something that shouldn't be illegal, and yet there are still good reasons not to do it, we have not been great about having those conversations. 

Are we ready yet?

Libertarians are the worst

I chose that title specifically because I have seen so many people (especially members), say "Actually I lean more libertarian." 

In context, they are saying it because they know that Trump is frothingly hateful, selfish, and in no way moral; of course they are embarrassed to support that, but they can't quite support liberals either. The emphasis on "liberty" and "choice" sounds good, though oddly most libertarians manage to remain against that choice if it relates to a woman and pregnancy. They also tend to be against civil rights legislation, which from the point of view of people who want to do racist things makes sense, but ignores how allowing racial discrimination impairs the liberty of those discriminated against.

I understand the appeal of getting to verbally distance from the sexism and the racism while still keeping it close to one's heart, but I scorn it.

I assure you I could describe many other groups as the worst - I'm pretty sure I'm going to write a poem about that soon - but because this one is so popular now, I want to spend some time focused on it.

If you haven't read it, James Fallon's The Psychopath Inside: A Neuroscientist's Personal Journey into the Dark Side of the Brain, is really fascinating, both for what the author says on purpose and for what he may not know he is saying.

Fallon was doing two studies at the same time where he was looking at brain scans. One study was of criminal brains, and the other was for heredity, so he had collected scans of family members. One scan that showed the psychopath characteristics was in the family pile. At first it seemed like a mistake, but it turned out to be Fallon's own brain. The journey was personal indeed.

To be fair, a lot of people who knew him weren't surprised, like that was the missing link that explained everything.

Fallon is a libertarian, and starts talking about that on page 161. This quote is from page 162:

(I) would prefer many situations where some people die. I don't feel responsible for individuals dying as part of a broader cause and don't think we should spend every dime we have to save one child. Such coddling will end up destroying the human race. And who adjudicates who gets coddled? I look at the distant horizon, how things will play out in a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years. If one person croaks tomorrow for the sake of society, it's too bad, but I don't care. I wouldn't let a kid starve right in front of me – I'm not a monster – but if I ran the government I would cut out all welfare.... I don't want to encourage unproductive or irresponsible behavior because I think it will kill society. I'm more sympathetic to the species than I am to that one person or group of people.

As far as the economic policy goes, his philosophy is disputed by many people who have studied it more (Piketty, and Wilkinson and Pickett come to mind). Fallon is confident in his understanding, but a lot of people are now very confident and still very wrong about things. I think there are two other points that matter more.

First of all, the big difference between the diagnosed psychopaths in jail and the esteemed neuroscientist was a loving, nurturing home with opportunities to harness his energy productively. While Fallon has done things that are arguably antisocial (like encouraging people to behavior they later regret, and putting one cousin in a potentially fatal situation without warning him), it was all on the correct side of the law. As someone financially privileged the odds of him ending up in prison go way down. I think that makes for an argument that some "coddling" might be beneficial for society.

Also, that "not a monster" line... he will intervene when the suffering is right in front of him. Okay, it would be more monstrous to look at suffering and ignore it (or enjoy it), but here is the part for members of the church, and for people who believe in God and that we are all connected as His children: it should not be enough for us that suffering happens out of sight.

We know the penalty for not doing unto the least of these when we see them, and the reward for seeing and serving. I believe that goes with a responsibility to look and to care, beyond our line of sight.

Modern technology makes it easier to ignore and to be aware, and we all have choices to make there.

I am happy to acknowledge that there was a time when you could be a Republican in good conscience. There may well have been a time when you good be a conservative (because Republicans were not always conservative, and it's questionable whether they are now) in good conscience as well. However, when that group is essentially working on concentrating wealth into an ever smaller group and using racism to support it, there should be many things pricking your conscience constantly. If you keep ignoring those cries, it is going to be hard to re-engage with your conscience.

Fallon is agnostic; that argument is unlikely to mean anything to him. If you are religious, and if you are Christian, you need to think about what that means.

Because the other thing is that while you can be born more likely to become a psychopath, it is nonetheless something you become. It happens via greed a lot, but that is not the only path.

Our faith in the constitution

Two relevant things I finished today:

1. The book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard
2. I also finished reading all of the October 2020 General Conference talks.

I was impressed that there was an acknowledgment that the constitution had flaws in its initial framing; previous talks have been very reverential. There are reasons for that, but there were definite flaws.

Some of them required amendments.

Originally women could not vote. We clearly support women voting now, and we started that support early. It may not have been so much from a sense of injustice, but more due to it being politically advantageous based on early populations of the Saints. Unfortunately, that does not automatically mean that we acknowledge that there was something wrong with the chauvinism of the day, or that we see the chauvinism of this day.

It is important to think about how the Constitution not only enshrined slavery but did it without mentioning the word, as if that would make it less obvious how congressional representatives and the electoral college bolstered the slave states' influence by finding a way to count non-citizens as partial persons. Do we think about how that effects votes and representation now? There have been amendments and acts to fix that, but there have also been steady efforts to tear them down.

Do we think about how the Constitution never forced us to honor the treaties we made with the Indians?

Do we think about how the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment did not protect our people from being murdered and expelled from settlements, regardless of personal property abandoned and not resolved by the Second Amendment?

A large part of the weakness of the previous Articles of Confederation was an inability to assess taxes federally. The nation could ask states to levy taxes for national expenses, but they couldn't enforce it, and the states were not highly motivated to comply. 

Many of the men who participated in the Constitutional Convention had loaned money to the nation during the war, and without a strong federal government they were unlikely to be repaid. That is not completely selfless and elevated, but it is not unreasonable to pay debts either. Having the ability to tax makes many other things possible. However, it happened that most of the people participating and then voting were wealthier people from higher society. If our country did not officially have an aristocracy, there was something of a de facto one. There is nothing unusual about that, though you can argue it is not very revolutionary.

That doesn't make the Constitution bad or mean that it should be thrown out completely, but we should engage honestly and critically with it, and the values it supports and pretends to support.

Widespread LDS support for Trump has bothered me for many reasons, but the reason I brought up the White Horse prophecy - and I assume a lot of Trump supporters do believe in it - is that the way to save the Constitution is probably not the by supporting the guy who wants a third term, talks about delaying or contesting the election, and is in constant violation of the emoluments clause.

I wholly support the emoluments clause. It is a good thing to limit the ability of someone in office to exploit that office. You may not think that is happening, with some people being overly impressed that the current president is donating his salary. He is making much more than his salary based on increased business at his properties (that he should have given up) both from people wanting to get near him and from charging the Secret Service agents who have to accompany him. The information is out there. Is there also the will to study, and understand, and possibly change?

Do you believe that everyone should be able to vote? What will you do about voter suppression? Does it bother you less if the votes being suppressed tend to be from non-white voters? Because a lot of them are citizens; some people forget that. 

We are rapidly approaching the election; what will your role be?

I am still questioning how to be of the most help. However, I will note that I did spend about eight months studying and blogging about the Constitution (that was inspired by the Bundy's referencing it and not in a way that seemed to make any sense). That started here:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-constitution-getting-started.html

In addition, I will also be reading the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers soon, because I believe it is important. I want to understand the thoughts behind it, and if they were right or wrong. We should engage thoughtfully and critically. 

That seems like the least we can do.

White horsing around

I needed to post about glurge before I posted about the White Horse prophecy because so much of what makes the "prophecy" a problem is its suspicious provenance. That wasn't even what I thought would be the important part, but if it had clear provenance, it would probably look very different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

First of all, your nutshell of "the Constitution will hang by a thread and it will be up to the Elders of the Church to save it" (or words to similar effect) comes to us from a journal entry of a guy who heard another guy say that Joseph Smith said it, almost sixty years after Smith said it, still according to the one guy.

That is a shaky basis. It doesn't mean that Smith didn't say anything; the references from Brigham Young and Orson Hyde pre-date John Roberts' journal entry. One also can't help but notice that the journal entry is much more flowery and detailed than the other references. That could be more Roberts or Rushton than Smith.

It is very interesting to me that we have Joseph F. Smith dismissing it in 1980 and Bruce R. McConkie dismissing it in 1966, but you still have Charles W. Nibley referencing it in 1922, Melvin J. Ballard referencing it in 1928, J. Reuben Clark referencing it in 1942, and Ezra Taft Benson referencing it in 1986.

That's not a slam at anyone; those are all good men. Getting back to the flowery language thing, none of them referencing the threat to the constitution seem to be mentioning a white horse. I can't rule out that Joseph Smith said something about a threat to the Constitution, or that other people heard it - besides Rushton - and that the idea was carried through.

I also have to know that without having something written down at the time - either by Joseph Smith or by someone who was in the room and then had Joseph check their transcription - it would be foolish to take it too literally.

My point so far is that we get things into our head and repeat them and they become a part of our whole view, quite frequently without thorough examination.

There is definite appeal, right? I mean it's scary - our inspired Constitution will be imperiled, so our whole country is imperiled; drama! But it will all be fine, and we will be the heroes of it. We are such good, smart people!

Then, we we don't question that, maybe we don't question other things.

We might not question our reverence for the Constitution, and if that is justified. 

We also might not question whether our actions - including voting - tend to be more for or against the Constitution. 

I'm going to let that sit for a week.

Purging glurge

I still really want to talk about the white horse prophecy, but I think first it may be helpful to talk about skepticism and replication, and things like glurge.

If you haven't heard the term, I think the first place I heard of it was on a non-official LDS web site that no longer exists. However, I was familiar with the Snopes section, and then I found the Wheat and Tares page more recently.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/category/glurge-gallery/

 https://wheatandtares.org/2016/03/15/the-mormon-urge-to-glurge-2/

I really remember my heart leaping into my chest when I saw "the birdies" there, because I remember being so moved by that the first time I had heard it. Even then, it's not that it wasn't true, but in the passing on it got altered. This happens with a lot of stories, like in a game of telephone. Of course, when we use that example for scriptures we talk about how it leads to confusing passages, twisted meanings, and apostasy. 

In this case, seeing that Christians in other denominations could take the specific LDS components out and still use it for their own purposes, thus missing a huge point of it, well, that was interesting, and maybe the most germane part of the discussion.

It is important to remember that something that makes you feel good still may not be true. 

It is very important to remember that people lie, and for lots of different reasons. 

Personally, I am disappointed that when stress and depression was getting to Angelina Jolie, that Brad Pitt did not make a point of building her up more and then see how she got her spark back. On the other hand, perhaps if it were true - and they had that kind of dynamic - then maybe they wouldn't have gotten divorced. It would be a bad basis for forming an opinion on Brad Pitt as a husband or a person. 

I mean, there may not be much point in forming deep opinions on celebrities and their relationship anyway, but if you were going to, you would want to be able to base it on accurate information. Logically, the more important something is, the more important it is to have accurate information.

While looking at the Snopes site, one of the linked, non-glurge stories was that Kamala Harris refused to prosecute Planned Parenthood for selling baby parts (which they didn't) and did prosecute the people who reported the story. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kamala-harris-planned-parenthood/

That had multiple not true parts, but it being a story at all happened because there were people who lied, doctored footage, and lied some more to make Planned Parenthood look bad. That has been pretty well-documented, but there are still people who believe the lies. 

If you are vehemently against legal abortion, you might be more likely to believe bad things about Planned Parenthood, and more reluctant to accept the falsehoods when they are exposed. A potential result of that is supporting policies that make abortion more common. Thinking about it more deeply,  you might find conflicts and not always know the best thing to do, but there is the opportunity for growth in depth and love and spirituality... all things that we need.

One big issue with glurge is that often when we get these simple, cute stories, we lose the complexity and deeper meaning. You are likely to face times of deep pain, and you will need to find deep comfort. That will take more thought, more personalizing, and more accuracy.

If we don't believe in the importance of truth, what are we doing here?

Resilience

For context, I posted about this year's delayed gardening start on the main blog: 

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2020/07/hope-as-seed.html

Things didn't go as planned. There is still some joy. Just like life.

I planted about two dozen each of sunflower and pumpkin seeds. Three pumpkin seeds and about ten sunflowers germinated. That was not off to a good start. 

I also planted a lot of corn. That was definitely good seed; I put a few on a wet paper towel and every single one sprouted. However, a murder of crows was seen in the garden right after that, pecking away. Only one corn stalk is coming up now, that has no hopes of being pollinated. I don't mind sharing, but that felt like overkill.

Because there were such large blank spaces, I went and randomly bought any plants still available to try and fill in, even though it was late. Celery, beets, cauliflower, catnip, lettuce, and carrots withered as soon as they got in the ground. Well, the celery looked like it was going to take, but it didn't. Also, I think I saw some crows pecking the lettuce.

I also planted three packets of seeds from a mix of flowers geared for butterflies and bees. I have gotten a total of one flower from there.

And yet, things still work out. The sunflowers kept getting taller, which is great fun to watch. I have never had so many pumpkin blossoms fertilized, and never so soon after the first blossoms appeared. There are still a lot of blank spaces, but you can kind of see what I intended, especially if you focus right.

One very low point in my mother's dementia was when I gave her some petunias to plant about two years ago. That was something she loved to do year after year, and she was at a point where I thought she could have a few minutes unsupervised. In a few minutes she had uprooted every new growing sunflower and pumpkin. (I have had this vision for years, though this year is the closest I have gotten.) 

Imagine my surprise to discover a tiny petunia among the sunflowers this year.

For all her years of planting them, we have never had any self-seed. This one feels like a gift.

I was worried about if anything would have enough time to totally mature. Most of it should have gone in the ground around June 1st, and went in between July 25th and 27th. Still, things were green and cheerful and tall, so I felt pretty good. And then a hard wind blew for over a day, uprooting three of my sunflowers, including the tallest.

Well, the second tallest shot up way higher anyway, though it did it under some pretty brown, smoky skies.

I tried standing the fallen sunflowers back up, digging deeper and firming the dirt around them. It didn't matter; it was always "Timber!" and back down they would go. I knew I should clear them out, but I didn't have the heart. Those stalks still looked so strong. Then the greatest miracle of all happened.

They bloomed. I thought the comfort was going to be that even though I lost some things, I didn't lose everything. That there was still growth to look forward to.

But actually it's not just that you can bloom where you are planted. It's that even when storms knock you completely flat, and it looks like there is nothing left to do but decay, you can bloom even then.

I didn't know they could do that.

I have been thinking about how we say that God doesn't give you anything that you can't handle, but you may not be able to handle it the way you want. You handle it short-tempered and frustrated, or neglecting your own health, or doing well externally but wanting to die on the inside. And yet, you are still blooming, just not like you hoped.

Of course, the sweet potatoes were a total wash (though I have learned from my mistakes), and only half of my potatoes are growing. I am not even sure which ones, because the seed potato packages weren't labeled. They will either be bakers or mashers.

How much do we ever really know about what's next?

Preparing to evacuate

We are not currently in a danger zone, but many people are. With the brown skies and smoky air outside, there is no way of forgetting that there are fires burning across the state.

Our family was especially moved by this article:

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/in-depth/news/2020/09/10/oregon-wildfires-santiam-fire-evacuations-leave-family-members-dead/5759101002/?cid=facebook_Statesman_Journal&fbclid=IwAR3_wOMLVMlXGr58Z-CqT11zYbPoXQiQiyPkBhVzMaRyKGwp9UNm-0by-qs

We hurt for them, but we also thought of things that could have made a difference. That is not to criticize; I'm sure they will be thinking of everything that could have been different for a long time. I have nothing but compassion for them.

It seems the biggest issue is that the fire came in the night, catching them off guard and damaging the car.

I don't know a sure solution for this; you've got to sleep sometimes. If you are in an area where you don't have to evacuate yet, but might have to soon, for your specific circumstances think about that before you go to bed. Maybe you just decide to leave that night anyway, even though you may not need to. Maybe you set the alarm to check every two hours. Maybe you take turns sleeping and watching the news. Circumstances can change really quickly.

Like I said, my family is not in danger now, but we are talking about it.

I have posted on wildfires and evacuation before (August 2018 and December 2012 respectively), and those links are at the end of the post, but because we have been thinking, I am going to go over some of those thoughts now.

Transport:

It will be terrible trying to get three adults, one dog, and four cats in carriers into one car. It will be crowded and stressful. It is probably still better than trying to keep two vehicles together, especially if everyone else is trying to leave the area at the same time.

I am nonetheless very grateful that most shelters take pets now, and they are even making allowances for livestock.

Health and nutrition:

If you are going to a shelter, they are often bringing food in, at least for the humans. It still might not hurt to have some food for the animals and humans.

Take medications. Take information about the medications, like papers with the prescription doses and doctor information. And think about how taking the medication will work out.

If I bring my insulin, but not syringes, I can't take it. It I have syringes but not sterile alcohol pads, it's less safe taking it. If I don't have somewhere to put the used syringes, that's a problem. Also, the insulin is supposed to be refrigerated. It can hold up for a while, but those are all things to think about.

Also - back on pets - if we bring our dog's pills but no peanut butter, getting her to keep taking her pills will be much more challenging.

Clothing:

I did figure out what clothes I would take, but I had to acknowledge first that I have a lot of clothes that I would not take, and do not wear, and am not ever likely to need; why they are still in the way of the things I do need? I have so many socks with holes that I have been meaning to go through and haven't yet. I could make my day-to-day life easier, let alone my semi-panicked evacuation.

Memory:

The last time I wrote about this I was thinking of physical photo albums, but most of our pictures are digital now. With the space we'd have I can't take my computer (if you are using tablets you probably can and should take it), but I should be doing regular backups, and have one of those backups on a USB drive that I do take. Remote backups are still great - I could lose that thumb drive or it could melt - but it's good to have it.

Random:

I would take the library books, because they aren't our property and so that requires a higher level of responsibility.


Of course you should have birth certificates and things like that together and take them.

Always!

Check with your neighbors and make sure they are okay. In our neighborhood, almost every home has its own transportation, and the one who doesn't has relatives close by. She might still need a ride to family, or help contacting them. Don't leave anyone behind.


The more you work out early, the less room you leave for regret.

Stay safe.


Related posts:
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2012/12/evacuation.html

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/08/making-plan-wildfires.html

Mormons and racism

I have been thinking a lot about racism and church members lately (you can probably guess why), and I wanted to go back to the issue of Black men being denied the priesthood for several years.

Yes, you can read an essay on that:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

You may also find that the essay leaves a lot to be desired, not really giving a good answer except pointing out that racism was common at the time, and bringing up any instances of things that did not look racist. These essays nonetheless disturbed several members badly, shaking their testimonies.

At the time I was among those unimpressed. I had already been pretty sure that the real issue had been racism, so I didn't explore it very much at the time. Now I am more aware that it is important that The Essays exist, and ways in which their weaknesses can be important too.

First off, let me tell you why I wasn't surprised. I graduated from the University of Oregon in 1996 with a dual major of Romance Languages and History. One of the requirements for a history degree was a Seminar. There were several options, but all of them consisted of large amounts of weekly readings (mainly from historical journals), discussions with the rest of the seminar on the readings, and a twenty-page research paper. You needed professor approval to get into a class, so it was helpful if you took one with a professor you already knew. I took African Americans in the American West, with Professor Quintard Taylor Jr (now an emeritus professor at University of Washington.) Each week of readings had a different theme, and one of the weeks was on African Americans and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I really wish I had kept my syllabus, because I cannot find what I read then on William McCary. I am pretty sure he was instrumental in the priesthood ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCary

https://www.blackpast.org/special-features/african-americans-and-church-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints-old/

To sum up, William McCary was a Black man who joined the church in 1846, got the priesthood, and then got excommunicated for claiming various powers (so the story goes; I think I remember the word 'priestcraft" from one of the journal articles) around 1847. The earliest statement on Black men being excluded from the priesthood happened about a month after McCary's excommunication.

It is entirely possible that McCary behaved in very unbecoming ways for a priesthood holder, but it is also certain that he married a white woman, and then additional white women, and that there were deeply entrenched (and hypocritical) taboos around that at the time. The essay does point out the prevalent racism at the time. 

What they don't really pick up on, though (and the essay does not mention McCary), is that many white men were excommunicated at different times, and no one ever suggested a ban on white men holding the priesthood. Sure, the ones deciding were white; it's not likely they would decide that. That's the insidious thing about white supremacy: whites are individuals, but if you are not white, then you are judged by every one else of your color. There is that "See! I knew they couldn't handle it!". Maybe there had been a belief that it wouldn't work that they were trying to bury, and then McCary becomes the excuse. That lasted for over a century, limiting growth, causing pain, and allowing racism to remain entrenched.

This is not meant to be an attack on Brigham Young or Parley P. Pratt or anyone else involved. However, it is an encouragement to take a closer look, and to understand better.

For years it was this uncomfortable thing that people didn't really want to talk about, but that meant that the people who did feel comfortable talking about it were the ones who would say things like "they were just less valiant". If we can't grapple with racism existing in exemplary church members of one hundred and fifty years ago, how are we going to grapple with the racism that exists now? I assure you, the current racism requires some grappling.

I know this is getting long, but I want to make some points from the essay itself. 

William McCary was never mentioned in it. Q. Walker Lewis is, because Brigham Young praised him once, and we will often get this tendency to try and point out all of the good things. Lots of white people in other Christian churches love to praise Simon of Cyrene and Ebed-Melech, because, see! We love Black people! (Especially when they are serving white people, and it's convenient if they are also eunuchs.) I don't have a problem with noticing the good, but let's be realistic about the bad.

Also, there is this second paragraph of the Essay:

The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Latter-day Saint congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.

Technically true, but it ignores that at least in the United States there have been centuries of restricted covenants, redlining, and systemic destruction of communities where Black people were becoming financially successful, not to mention white flight. That means that not specifically aiming for integration leaves you segregated. That doesn't mean that wards shouldn't be arranged by geography, but if even when we are attempting to address personal racism we ignore structural racism, we continue to enable all racism.

The final point I want to make is that there are people who know about these things. Our church leaders are not experts on racism, but they can ask others and listen to others. I may have spent more time than necessary on my academic background, but my point there was that in 1996 this information was available, so there was no need for it to catch anyone off guard in 2013.

We can do better than this. We may be running out of time to do so, individually and collectively.

Let's do better.

The letter

I finally wrote it and sent it. It took a lot longer than I had ever anticipated, but there shouldn't be any surprises for anyone who read the five previous posts.

I included the heading in case anyone wants to write their own letters.

August 7^th, 2020

The First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles

of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Church Office Building

50 E North Temple Street

Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

Hello,

This letter has been a long time in coming. I have felt a need to say something since I first heard about $100 billion spread across multiple hedge funds and shell companies, but it took a lot of personal effort to sort out my own feelings.

I should start by saying that I have been a faithful tithe payer for decades now (for as long as I can remember) and generous with offerings. I had not beeing working when the news broke, making my contributions smaller and less frequent, but they were still full. An odd job got me fifty dollars shortly after hearing about the investments. I felt the strangest combination of sickness and shame when I paid my $5.00. I could never have imagined feeling that way about tithing before.

In the explanation that came out, there was a reference to the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, but the parable that came to my mind was the parable of the rich fool in Luke 12; we should not be storing up for future ease, especially when there is so much good that can be done now.

That was why I felt sick about the five dollars. It is such a small amount, and yet it can still do some good, especially combined with the funds of others. By turning it over to the church, it would only go to supporting capitalism, and increasing corporate bottom lines.

I still believe in the law of tithing, and that I will be blessed for obedience to it. This is still my church. I am continuing to pay tithing, but no longer paying any offerings or additional contributions. That is what I can live with, but also I need to speak out.

We have been given so many changes and directions to try and get us to live more by the spirit; it seems to me that every change is trying to get us to feel more and be more inspired, including the reminders about the names we use and the logo.

When I see members supporting Trump and hating immigrants – again, despite reminders that we care about refugees and don't support any political candidate or party – those reminders do not seem to be working. It kills me inside that we have so much that we could do, and yet we are mainly known for our bigotry. Members with the best hearts are falling away because of that.

Could it be that we have become too conservative? Not merely in terms of a political party, but in terms of becoming afraid of change that we will ignore inequities and resist improvement? God has not given us the spirit of fear.

I understand that we are waiting for Christ's return. There are reasons for believing that it is getting close, and that some preparedness is in order. As true as that is, I cannot believe that when the Savior returns our best offering could be a check.

There might be value in buying food supplies and shelters and goods that can be used to benefit people, but even those could be lost or destroyed or lose potency while we wait.

It would be a wonderful offering now to give Him more hungry people fed, more homeless sheltered, and more sick healed.

I know we make contributions, but I have also done math. One article showed that we have given $5.5 million to Covid-19 relief. That is .0055 percent – less than one hundredth of one percent – of $100 billion. I also read that since 1985 we have given $2.2 billion in humanitarian aid. That is 2.2 percent over 35 years. For all the flaws of individual members, collectively we should be able to do better than that.

We need your leadership to do so. We could give $1 million to 1000 charities and still have $99 billion. We could set aside $12 billion as a savings fund, divide the other $88 billion among the 30940 wards and branches and let each have $2.85 million to spend to improve their local communities. There are so many amazing things that can be done, but we are not doing them.

When Christ returns, will we even use money? Will He support hedge funds? The efforts at concealment in spreading the money across multiple funds (and not letting President Packer see the information when he asked) tells me that there is a level on which this is uncomfortable. It should be.

I do not believe anyone has tried to exploit or act inappropriately in terms of acquiring the funds or deciding what to do with them. It is natural as you accumulate more to become more aware about the losses that can happen, but we are admonished to put off the natural man.

Matthew 25 does tell us what we should be doing: feeding the hungry, giving drinks to the thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked , and ministering to the sick and those in prison.

There are great needs for food and clean water. There are many without homes, or seeking new countries that will be safer. There are people who have not been convicted of any crime languishing in jail because they lack funds for bail and for representation. There are so many people in need of healing, physically and emotionally. How can we justify ignoring that? Do we know Him at all?

I beg you to think long and hard and to pray about a better way to use these sacred funds.

Sincerely,

Gina Harris

In conclusion - week five of coming to grips with the hedge fund

Last week the writing changed. I found myself referring to other articles and studies on the topics of wealth, and even starting with a quote from a musical. At first I thought it was weird, but I believe it was a signal that my thoughts actually are getting organized and I can put them in a larger framework. Therefore, this week I can go all scriptural.

In the First Presidency response, they justified their building of a "prudent" reserve by referring to the Parable of the Talents.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-statement-church-finances

That is in Matthew 25, and we will get back to that. My first thought was of a different parable, found in Luke 12, verses 16-21. Without intending to offend anyone, it is referred to as the Parable of the Rich Fool:

16 ... The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:

17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?

18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.

19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

It is tempting to throw in a reference to Jacob 2:18-19, about seeking riches for the intent to do good, but I do not believe that riches were sought; they just happened, but then it changed things. I understand preparing for trying times to come, but there are trying times now, and $100 billion is a ridiculous amount of money. There is suffering now; do we alleviate that suffering or do we believe that when Christ returns he will be most interested in being handed a large check?

In the Parable of the Talents, the servant that is reprimanded for burying his talent said he did it because his master was a hard master who reaped where he did not sow. That character represents the Lord, but we should not assume that is an accurate depiction of his personality. Yes, in the framework of the parable, multiplying your talent means investing it with usurious lenders, but securing billions of dollars in a hedge fund that benefits corporations and capitalists seems much more akin to burying it than almost anything else we could do.

Let's remember that Matthew 25 is all parables about being ready for the Lord's return. In addition to the Parable of the Talents, we have the Parable of the Ten Virgins, which reminds us that you can be a virgin and an invited guest but still not really know Him, and the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, which tells us how to know Him.

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

They didn't know whom they had been serving, and those who ignored the needs didn't either, so there is further explanation:

 40 ...Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me...

45 ... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

And let's look at that verse in Jacob:

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

That is what we should be doing. That is what it is tearing me up inside that we are not doing.

The church leadership has done so many things to try and make people more Christ-centered. It feels like they all fail, especially when I see how many members are Trump supporters.

Doing Christ's work could change that. With $100 billion (or save two years worth of expenses, and just start with $88 billion) there is so much that could be done to feed the hungry, provide pure water, shelter homeless and improve homes that are in use but not in good shape. There is so much that can be done to heal sick and injured, and improve access for those whose limitations can't be changed, and provide comfort for those whom medicine cannot heal. There could be so much healing effected by providing therapy and support. There is so much that can be done to increase literacy, and clean up pollution, and free prisoners.

If we aren't seeing those needs, we just aren't looking.

Yes, I am still paying tithing even though I am frustrated with that now, and many faithful people probably still will. A flood of good pouring across the planet could inspire many more. It could lead to much more joyful giving. It could lead to more loving service.

That's what I long for. I try and do my little drops of service here and there, but the world needs a flood. Remove the dam!

That is what I want to see.

Tomorrow I will write my letter, and prepare it for sending.

It only took five weeks.

Fear of losing what we shouldn't even have

Ten pounds is a lot o' money. Makes a man feel prudent-like, 
and then goodbye to 'appiness.

In My Fair Lady, Eliza's father Alfred asks Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering for five pounds "for one good spree". The professor offers him ten, but ten is too much for a spree. "The missus wouldn't have the 'eart to spend ten."

It's played for comedy, but it's also true; there is a level where money stops helping and being a comfort, and starts becoming a burden.

You can look at this from different directions. From the bottom up, studies have shown that the happiness that comes from earning more money tops out somewhere between $60-75,000 annually. Of course cost of living varies from place to place, but that range is essentially where your needs are met, and you can get some wants, but even more so your problems don't grind you down and feel insurmountable. There's a lot of fear and stress that goes with being low-income.


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html
https://money.com/ideal-income-study/ 

Then, after hitting an income of $95,000 per year, happiness actually starts to decline. Maybe this is where you start feeling more stress about what appearances you need to put on, or that your taxes are going to undeserving people and that no one appreciates how much you do.

From the other direction, wealth creates insecurity. I have seen multiple articles about millionaires in Silicon Valley who feel pressure to keep up with people who have more millions than they do. In Abigail Disney's New Yorker profile, she cited a study the Chronicle of Philanthropy did on inherited wealth. It showed that no matter how much each recipient had received, to feel secure they thought they would need about twice as much.

(So if you had inherited $25 million, you would think having $50 million would be enough, but if you had inherited $50 million, you would believe you needed $100 million.)

I have less sympathy than I could for the nervous rich, but it does appear that it changes the brain, and not in a way that increases happiness or makes the world better. Even those who are considered philanthropists - which should be a good thing - don't end up truly improving and solving their causes (read Anand Giridharadas), not to mention there often being destructive business practices on the way to wealth.

So the Waltons might take federal tax credits, and also pay their employees low enough wages that they require government assistance while destroying existing local businesses, and the Sacklers might allow prescription mills to create a whole new and improved drug scourge, and Jeff Bezos might buy Whole Foods and cut medical benefits, and people don't seem to remember now some of the things that Bill Gates did to make Windows rule.

All of that could be expanded upon (and probably will be in the main blog) but there is limited application. The church has not done anything unethical to acquire its wealth. Tithing is a principle that goes back at least to Abraham, and those who tithe are blessed.

However, at some point it clearly got to be too much. That brings in a hesitancy, and a distrust. In fact, it brings in conservatism. If that word applies in multiple ways, that is not strictly coincidental.

And I am mortified that when we have the ability to do so much good, we are mainly known for our bigotry.

That is shameful.

Things that bother me but are not the key issue

This is my third post on what I think of as the Mormon hedge fund. I know President Nelson would not love that term, but the hedge fund of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not really sound that much better. 

My key issue is the good being left undone, and I will write about that. This week is about the secrecy.

Let me be clear, though, that I don't think any church leaders are living luxuriously because of it. There is no greed at fault.

That matters to me, but it also matters to me that they have divided the investment funds across multiple hedge funds and through shell companies, apparently for the express purpose of concealment.

The kindest explanations I have heard for the secrecy (speculation from others; not official statements) are concerns that if members knew about the surplus that they would not feel like they needed to pay tithing, or that members would try and guide their own investments by following the church's portfolio, which could have unfortunate results.

I doubt the latter was ever officially considered, but it has some merit. I can totally see some members deciding that if a stock is good enough for the church, it is good enough for them, and then if they lost money on that they could have a crisis of faith. That is also quite possible, because the real secret to success in the stock market is having deep enough pockets that you can ride out any market downturns. It is very easy to make money when you already have it.

I was amused by the conscientious mentions in the articles that there was nothing like Starbucks or Coca-Cola in the portfolio. I remember it being a big deal when I was a teenager that the corporation of the church had Coca-Cola shares, even though cola is not specifically forbidden, and lots of faithful members drink it. (But also, lots of faithful members will judge you for drinking it, then and now.)

The tithing concern I get more, except that I have heard so many times, "The Lord doesn't need you to pay tithing; you need to pay it for you!" or something to that effect. And I believe it. Paying tithing blesses the person who pays it. I know about the fund, I hate it, and I still pay it. I think many people would keep paying it. It does not show much faith to think that they wouldn't.

Again, I don't know if that is a factor in the thinking, but it does feel like the choices are being made with less faith and more fear, or at least shame or embarrassment.

Not letting President Packer see the books when he asked? That indicates at least some understanding that it is not good.

I noticed a few things that surprised me as I was investigating. For instance, in the April conference they always read an audit report, and it confirms that everything has been done according to church policies and goals. I had never noticed before the line that "The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need."

That started in 2014, with the 2013 annual report. It wasn't there for 2012. Was that when the money started piling up? Perhaps as things recovered from the 2008 collapse? Did they look and think, this is starting to be too much money? I don't know.

I also see now that they stopped giving the statistical report (numbers of members, baptisms, church units, etc.) after 2017. It's not a secret because you can find that information on the church web site, but I am curious about the thinking now.

So here are some numbers, just for fun.

I don't object to having some reserve. I saw one estimate that the annual operating expenses for the church are $6 billion. Let's say that a two-year reserve is reasonable, so that leaves you with $88 billion to spend.

Divided between 16,565,036 members, that would be $5312 each. Obviously, that would include a lot of people who don't go anymore, and is probably not the most efficient way of doing good anyway. If you divided the $88 billion among the 30940 wards and branches, they would each have $2.85 million, which could be an amazing amount for helping the members or the local area, based on their needs. 

I am still not saying that's the best way of doing anything, but here are some other numbers, based on articles from the church newsroom.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-cash-commodities-donation-covid-19-april-2020

The church donated $5.5 million to COVID-19 relief. That is .0055 percent of the full $100 billion.

Since 1985, the church has given $2.2 billion in aid through its humanitarian arm. That is 2.2 percent over 35 years.

I know we can do better than that. I believe that we must do better than that.

More on that and the possible role of fear next time.

Finding out

Okay, last week I wrote about my history as a faithful tithe payer who was generous with offerings.

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2020/05/talking-about-money.html

I have still tried to give when I could, but over the past four years I have been making a lot less money, if I was making any at all. With the paid care-giving now (and it is less every two weeks than what I was making in one week in 2008), I did not start getting those pay checks until January.

I did make $50 in December, wrapping gifts for a family friend. I got paid just after the story broke: over $100 billion in multiple hedge funds and shell companies.

I paid my $5.00, but it felt gross: part sick and part shame. I have never felt that way about tithing before.

I have been wanting to write a letter to the Church since then, getting out all of my feelings. I have not done so in a timely matter. What I am starting to realize is how much is there, and how much processing it is taking. There was last week's post but there were two journal sessions before that, and this post is not going to finish it. (I think there will be two more.)

A letter will still happen. By the time I get there I will know exactly what I want and need to say. I see now that this preparation cannot guarantee that the letter will be short and to the point. For one thing, there will be multiple points.

Here are two points that are important...

One: I know that no one in church leadership is living high on the hog because of this. It is not a matter of personal enrichment. That does matter to me, even though there are still plenty of other problems.

Two: I still believe in the importance of tithing. I know I have been blessed for paying it. Having a regular paycheck again, I am still paying it, and paying based on the gross. I know I could pay ten percent of my income to many good causes, but this is still my church. It would not feel right for me to withhold my ten percent.

It is still very disappointing now, knowing that my contributions will be locked away in a hedge fund, doing no earthly good. Therefore, I cannot foresee a time when there will be any other contributions to anything else -- neither fast offerings nor temples nor missionary work -- even though all of those things have meaning for me. I can't justify giving them any more. Even if they start spending the money and distributing it, that is a huge backlog.

They will still get my vote for breaking up what they have, apparently in about three weeks.

Talking about money

I am going to do something very gauche now, and write candidly - with specific amounts - about money.

Yes, that is very taboo, but that is the kind of thing that allows inequality to continue. Your boss not wanting you and your coworkers to discuss salary may be to keep people who could reasonably earn more from knowing it, but it doesn't have to be that way at church.

Before my 2008 job loss I felt like I was doing pretty well financially. I had sort of noticed the cost of living going up, though I may have been in some denial about it. Anyway, I was grossing $800 a week, and I paid tithing on the gross: $80 per week.

See, that's something you are not usually supposed to come right out and say. When I first started having a pay check from which taxes were withheld, that felt right, so that's what I did. At times I would think that if I paid on the net income, it would then follow that I would pay tithing on any tax refund I received. I never switched to paying on the net, but I usually made a contribution from my refund too.

I have a tendency toward generosity anyway, being a soft touch for many things. It always worked out. Even when things have been terrible, I have still found ways to give, sometimes possibly more than was prudent but that still felt right.

We also talk about the importance of a generous fast offering, without getting specific about that.

I understand why we are reluctant to talk, but it can have value. I have heard good arguments for paying on net income. While it hasn't changed what feels right to me, I am glad to understand that my way is not the only way. Someone who pays on the net and has it working for them might feel bad if I say I pay on the gross, especially if I proclaim it the only right way, which I do not have the authority to do.

There is a lot of room for individual judgment in living the commandments. We go to tithing settlement, and the bishop only asks if you pay a full tithing. He doesn't ask whether that is net or gross, or eye the slip to multiply by ten and see if that is likely to match your income. That's a good thing.

(There may be some bishops who do, or who ask you more than the "yes" or "no" questions, but they are probably overreaching and may be abusing power, even with good intentions.)

Similarly, if we compare fast offering amounts, and I pay much more than you, you might feel bad. This could be ridiculous, especially if I make much more money than you, or have fewer expenses, or a variety of other reasons.

At the same time, there is sometimes relief in knowing how someone else does it. That shouldn't then become an undue influence, and it can, so I have some trepidation as I write this.

Anyway, at some point between the ages of 18 and 36, my fast offerings went from $5 to $10 and $20 and $40, until by 2008 I was paying a $140 fast offering, monthly, where my monthly tithing was $320. I sometimes contributed to other things like missionary or temple funds too, but that's what I was giving, and it felt right.

Seriously, it felt like I needed to. It felt like I needed to see what I was capable of giving, and what faith I was capable of showing. I felt like I was being given a challenge and answering it.

That was between me and God. I don't recommend those amounts for anyone else. I can recommend trying to find what is a good amount for you, but that is highly individual, and it should be.

In September of 2008, I went to Australia and New Zealand for a month. My bosses lied to me outright about many things, so that when I came back I not only had no job but was ineligible for unemployment. That's the second time I had a crooked boss work things out that way, but the world economy didn't crash the first time. It was rough.

I then received a lot of help from church funds. I had been helped once before in college, and members paid most of my mission costs (I think it cost $350 per month at the time, and I had enough saved up to pay $50 per month). I have gotten help with a few things since during these past four years of unemployment, though not as much as you might think. (I have some stories there, but I don't know if I will tell them.)

I have learned a few lessons along the way. Being a good person and paying your tithing does not prevent financial hardship, but it does bless you. It would have been really easy for me to not be able to afford college, a mission, trips we have taken, and even some medical bills, but things worked out.

Things have often been precarious while I have been caring for my mother, but we still have a roof over our heads, clothes on our back, and food on our table. That is composed of many miracles and blessings.

I have learned that sometimes you are the giver and sometimes you need to receive. Frankly, I still have a hard time with that one. I learned it mentally, but I am not quite there on not minding emotionally. It is pride, but not only pride, and I know a lot people who read this will get it completely. Especially now when the Church is really doubling down on self-reliance, it is easy to feel like a failure when you need help. I still ultimately know that I have worked hard and done many good things.

I am writing all of this now because of something that I have been trying to write since December, when the story broke about the Church's $100 billion dollar investment fund.

That's a long time to stall, but I feel now like I needed to get out my story of tithes and offerings first. I have been such a true believer. I have thought deeply about these things, and had faith increased. Some things have changed and some haven't, but the things that have changed have been a source of grief.

I hope now that I am ready to express myself on that.

Love in the time of COVID-19

Wednesday on the main blog I made a comparison to people reacting badly to government requests circa WWI and people reacting badly to COVID-19.

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2020/03/dont-be-like-that.html

I wanted to do a post about good reactions today.

I don't think it would be valuable to give health tips. There is a lot of good information out there, though there is also a lot of bad information too. I saw a very nice graphic today about how you can get rid of Coronavirus by frequent gargling at the start of the disease. (You can't.)

I also remembered doing a post a little over ten years ago that is kind of relevant:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2009/03/november-2008-in-case-of-pandemic.html

That is not terrible information, though there was a certain optimism there about the possibility of being financially secure and well-rested. The financial collapse that had just happened there mattered, and many other unhelpful (sometimes orange) things have happened.

So I think the only really useful thing I can say is be kind.

There may be some room for compassion toward people who only watch Fox News and do not have good information. Maybe sharing helpful articles is good in that case. There may be room for compassion toward people who defiantly risk spreading disease because they think it proves something, or people who panic hoard, or people who try and fail at profiteering. If you feel anger instead, though, that is totally okay.

However, there is a lot of room for compassion on those who will be cut off socially, and may be relying on screen time more, with those specific shortcomings. There is room for compassion on those who will be trying to work from home with the added stress of managing children, or people who will take serious income losses from this. There is room for compassion toward health care workers and elderly people and people who are at a greater risk of infection and death.

So first, really try not to spread the disease. It is better not to get sick, but some will get sick and reducing that number allows better care for them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-italy-hospitals-doctor-lockdown-quarantine-intensive-care-a9401186.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/03/10/814091024/you-have-a-fever-and-a-dry-cough-now-what

More people staying well also means more people being able to wash and sanitize and keep up nutrition. Sure, get the things that you need, but don't hoard. You need other people to be well, so they can ring up your purchases and pick up your garbage and take care of you if you do get sick and you need them to not infect your grandparents. We need to be fighting the disease, not each other.

(Also understandable, a mix of compassion and irritation on teams and Rose Court princesses and drama students who just think their things shouldn't be canceled. They will gain perspective eventually.)

If you can help financially, there will be people needing it. Maybe a concert was canceled, but you can buy a T-shirt or vinyl. Maybe you can pay for someone's groceries. Meals on Wheels and food banks will be contributing a lot; maybe you can help with that. Not everyone will be able to give their tenants a free month of rent, but that could help a lot.

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/south-portland-landlord-challenges-others-to-offer-financial-relief-due-to-coronavirus-concerns/97-bac48d89-43df-434a-93a6-4734445206dd?

Sadly, often the best people have the least money, but there are still ways to help for those stressed and lonely. A question about sanitizing mail worries me that this is not the time for cheerful notes, but there is still Skype and e-mail and phone calls and Snapchat. If technology means that we can carry germs all over the world in a few hours, it also means that we can remember each other and connect without spreading germs.

(Remember to sanitize your phone.)

Personally, I am going to be struggling. As my mother's dementia has gotten worse, I need more time physically away from her, and this is going to make it hard. It also makes having phone calls that aren't taking time away from her or irritating her hard. I worry about that, but I believe in the possibility of solutions. I believe in kindness.

I also believe in the power of prayer. It is not just that things can happen that are not done by us, but also that prayer can focus us, so that we get better ideas and are better at executing them. Start there and see what happens.

This is not going to be easy, but people can either make things better or worse.

Make it better.