Growing

This post is going to combine two things that are different but with some similarities.

It might be clumsy.

First of all, the last three posts have been about believing my religion. 

I don't have a way to say that succinctly, accurately, and strong enough.

For example, I believe a lot of things in the Bible, but there are things that I definitely think were not inspired or mistranslated or that are symbolic. 

I believe in creation and in evolution. I don't know exactly how they work together, but I sure think the people who believe that the Bible is going to tell them everything about how it works are underestimating the complexity of that process and overestimating their ability to comprehend. 

I believe that we have prophets now, but I believe there are some things that they are not getting right, but also I believe there are some things that they might have to delay getting right because their listeners aren't ready yet, while still wondering if could there are ways they could speed things up and prepare their listeners better.

I also believe that sometimes even when there is something that you believe pretty unequivocally, you might not understand it that well. You may not realize the gaps in your understanding. I think my father's death has caused me to understand some things better about the spirit world, but I had not been thinking about them before. Was it lack of belief or understanding, or just not explored?

There is a vast universe with many true things. Not only is our mortal ability to understand limited, but there are things that are more important to know now and things where we can totally be fine waiting for a complete understanding.

That still leaves room for a lot of truth and beauty right now.

In addition, I taught Relief Society (the women's meeting) last week. 

The conference talk that I built the lesson around was My Love for the Savior is My "Why" by Elder Ricardo P. Giménez, given during the Saturday morning session:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/17gimenez?lang=eng 

What drew me to it was mainly from this paragraph:

For example, when you set a goal to read the scriptures, offer sincere prayers, or prepare an activity for your family or ward, is the real goal simply to accomplish these tasks? Or are these actions the means, the tools at your disposal, to achieve the true goal? Is the purpose merely to hold an activity because we have done it for many years and then check the box that we have completed it? Or, once again, are these the means we use to learn, to feel, and to connect with the Savior?

Beyond that, it was the different levels of "why", specifically with regards to holding an activity; helping with activities is one of my responsibilities.

Certainly, I have a calling and I do it; that is because I love the Savior. 

Without taking anything away from that, we have activities for fellowship with each other and sharing and learning and various purposes. Those are other reasons why. 

As we do some things, ideally we will learn more about the reasons: it was good I got this calling because I have learned this thing or gotten to know this person better or gotten more patient.

As we find that there is that help coming to us through doing what we are asked to do, we should get more of a sense that we are loved by the Savior. Our love for Him might grow.

That could be a cycle, but it is more than that because there is growth: more knowledge, more love, and more connection.

More people that we love and serve.

More capacity for the next level of understanding.

More truth and beauty. 

Where else would I go?

 John 6: 66 - 68

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

That was another scripture that was quoted.

It is one that I had thought of before. Its primary resonance for me had been thinking of that time between crucifixion and resurrection and how awful that must have been for the apostles. 

Where would we go? A good answer was coming, but they didn't know it yet.

Mariann Budde used it in reference to commitment (which honestly makes more sense); this is where I have found truth, therefore this is where I will stay.

Surprisingly, I was asked recently why I still go to church. It was not a challenge, but had risen up in a discussion about other people who had stopped.

I go because I believe it is true.

This is where I get the knowledge that inspires the faith and the hope and the charity.

I am very aware of the imperfections of others who go. 

I have sympathy for those who have been hurt by those imperfections. 

Part of my hope is that we are going to become better together, but I am not basing my attendance on anyone else who is there or not there.

I have been thinking lately about whether that means I should start thinking about doing missionary work again, and I am not sure how that will work.

I get joy and help from the things I know. I believe other people could too. There may be obstacles to being comfortable committing to any church, especially with that imperfect people part.

Also, I once wrote that if I ever feel like it damages my integrity to stay in the church, that leaving was on the table. That is still true.

With all of that being said, I am still here, and feel good about being here. 

 I can give that affirmation of faith.

What will happen if...

Picking up where we left off -- regarding How We Learn to Be Brave by Mariann Budde -- there were two things that I really liked and where I want to spend more time. 

This week is going to be about what she wrote on the parable of the Good Samaritan.

It is generally agreed upon that when the priest and the Levite did not assist, that may not have been merely callous indifference but fear. Maybe they were seeing someone set upon by thieves, or maybe they were looking at bait, responding to which would get them set upon by thieves.

In Budde's description, they were thinking "What will happen to me if I help?"

The Samaritan's question was "What will happen to him if I don't help?"

I'm not saying that's the only way to evaluate the situation, but I found the idea powerful. We can be concerned for others. It does not even mean that we are not aware of our own needs, but having a genuine and urgent concern for others can powerfully change behavior.

It is a mindset where the test is not only to refrain from doing bad, but where there can also be responsibility in the failure to act.

Before I wrote last week's post, it felt like my dissatisfaction with the book was more a matter of small disagreements on technicalities.

During the process of writing it, that changed to a feeling that it was more of a matter of believing the gospel to be good versus believing it is true. Then it is not so much that we disagree about doctrine, but that for some people the doctrine wouldn't matter so much.

Something that originally surprised me was that in addition to Budde's own change in her late teens from being an Evangelical to an Episcopalian, an Episcopalian colleague of hers switched to heading a Lutheran church and it didn't seem to be a big deal. Maybe from that point of view, it isn't.

I have feelings about that, and that will be explored more in next week's post. 

I also realize that it is not at all uncommon for people to differ doctrinally from the church they attend. Many churches teach that God is intangible but many churchgoers have expressed a desire to hug Him first thing after they die. 

I want to take a moment to appreciate that it is possible -- even without a concrete belief -- to choose love and caring.

That is a comforting change from many who profess belief and yet become skilled haters.

We believe in something we call the light of Christ where people can feel things and be influenced for good even in the absence of teaching, but again, there are people who know better and do not feel it.

I appreciate caring where I find it. 

I appreciate being able to look at someone not obviously connected to yourself and care about what happens to them. 

Dogmatic

I recently finished How We Learn to Be Brave by Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopalian Bishop of Washington. I wanted to show support, as she has drawn wrath for a very mild rebuke of Trump. (She could say much harsher things and still be right).

I didn't enjoy the book as much as I hoped; I kept getting irritated with differences of scriptural interpretation.

That feels a little unfair; clearly the Bible means a great deal to her and she takes it seriously. I should also not be surprised that we have differences, but it bugged me.

Therefore, I am going to go over the top disagreements, as well as the things that I agreed with most.

The first one was a minor annoyance that Jesus came out of John the Baptist's followers.

No, John was preparing the way for Jesus. Jesus and John both knew it. Prophecy foretold it.

I suspect she is basing that on Jesus going to John for baptism, but that was a way of showing obedience, example, and with John's priestly lineage it would seem to me that it also fits in with fulfilling the law of Moses.

Secondly, she refers to the second Isaiah. 

Generally the reason I see given for the belief in two Isaiahs is that there are things written about in the later chapters that happened later, where the original author could not have known, except that future events can be known by prophecy.

I am not sure that she believes in prophecy. She references passages of Messianic scripture as if they are not prophecies of Christ. Those two things might go together.

In addition, she kept calling Jacob a cheat and conman, because of him disguising himself as Esau but apparently also for his animal husbandry practices with Laban, who did far more conning. (Remember, Laban is the one whom Perchik was talking about when he said the Bible told us to never trust an employer.)

I have my own problems with Jacob as someone who played favorites with wives and children and causing pain that way, though for an Old Testament patriarch he could have been worse. 

With Esau, Rebekah was the instigator, though clearly Jacob went along with it.

One thing that bothered me was that Budde said this was a blessing that Isaac could only give once. 

I take my position largely from Jerrie Hurd in Our Sisters in the Bible. She points out that the blessing that Isaac gives to Jacob when he thinks that Jacob is Esau and that he actually gives to Esau is pretty similar. Later, when Jacob is leaving to go to Laban, Isaac blesses Jacob with the blessings of Abraham, the birthright that Esau had already sold for a mess of pottage.

(I also don't like that Jacob did that, though I have to believe that Esau was not really starving and on the point of death at the time.)

Hurd's theory, if I recall, was that Isaac wanted to give Esau a blessing before Jacob as a way of providing some comfort to him (I guess Jacob came by his favoritism honestly) -- even though it was not going to be the birthright -- and that Rebekah was trying to prevent the confusion that would cause.

Is there room for criticism? Yes, but Budde is so hung on up Jacob being a con man. Part of that insistence is that God will still deal with him and bless him. That is a point, but which imperfections you have might indeed affect how God relates to and with you. That can be a thing.

Then there may be a disagreement about the significance of the Transfiguration, but more there is kind of a underplaying of the Atonement. That one totally makes sense; most of what we know about that does not come from the Bible.

It feels more like believing Jesus was a good man, but not the Christ.  

Maybe in some ways it is more admirable that she takes inspiration from these things with less knowledge, but it feels like missing so much, and less like living faith.

It bugged me.

But there were also some insights -- even amidst the frustration -- and that's where I will pick up next week. 

Misery

Last Sunday I made a bold claim.

In talking about how Jesus was so consistently kind and caring of others that it is ridiculous to claim religious justification for trying to dominate other people -- and I could spend a lot more time on that, but I already have in other posts -- I said that I only saw misery in rejecting that caring.

That may have been a slight overstatement; some people really seem to be enjoying themselves.

This is my acknowledgement that on the path of dominator culture, it is possible to get some satisfaction.

I believe my point still stands for three reasons.

1. As it can be very hard to succeed at dominator culture, there are going to be a lot of people failing. While they may be pretty consistent in blaming others, I am sure there is still an emotional toll to the failures. 

I have periodically pointed to Ask Aubrey, who collects examples of misogyny:

https://www.instagram.com/ask_aubry/ 

I see so many posts from men who are complaining about women only caring about money or looks or only wanting "high-value" men, so they are miserable because women are so shallow, or stupid, or hypocritical.

It seems a lot more common now, but I remember at least twenty years ago guys in the singles ward complaining about how being "nice" wasn't good enough, except that they also weren't that nice. You seem angry and resentful all the time, and even your hair is fascist! (And this was years before the started talking about the "fashy".)

I never said that because I didn't think it would be well-received. Maybe I should have.

We all know men who aren't that handsome or that rich or various other factors -- they are not "alphas" -- but they are in rewarding relationships that are helped their acknowledgement of their wives and girlfriends being full human beings that they appreciate as individuals.

If you are in the mindset where this is settling, okay, maybe it doesn't sound good to you, but what you are doing instead does not look appealing. 

If you are going to be single, it's easier if you like yourself. Ironically, liking yourself may also make it easier to find a partner, though it is no guarantee. 

Regardless, buying into some toxic version of masculinity where you can only be alone and hating women for not fixing you sounds pretty miserable to me.

2. Even when you are "succeeding" at dominator culture, while there may be moments of satisfaction it seems lacking.

Elon Musk seems pretty miserable, getting his feelings hurt and requiring lots of drugs. The president may enjoy the cruelty, but does it bring him joy?

Even Joni Ernst strolling through a graveyard resenting that people aren't cheering her comfort with mass die-offs... she doesn't exactly seem happy. 

So when we might refer to someone as a miserable human being -- not because of their general mood, but because of how intensely we dislike them -- even if they do not perceive themselves to be suffering in the moment, it's not what I think of as happiness.

3. They can't take it with them.

For all of Senator Ernst's flaws (and I don't see her as a particularly truthful person), she is correct; we will all die.

Maybe they don't actually have any faith at all, because they should expect that they would suffer for the suffering that they have caused. 

If their satisfaction comes from being able to inflict damage on others, they are going to lose that.

I do think there is some misery now, but I believe more is coming.

I would not change places with them. 

My life definitely has things that are hard, but I ultimately can live with myself, I have good relationships, and those are things that I can take with me. 

I am on Medicaid, so I may die sooner than is necessary, but I would still rather be me than any of these miserable beings.