Articulating faith

I have been thinking for a while about having a series of posts where I go over the Articles of Faith and my thoughts and feelings on them.

I know that sometimes my liberality my seem at odds with the orthodoxy of my belief. I don't find contradiction there, but that may be because of things that are not clear to readers. I have written about some of those things in the past, but I've been doing this for a lot of years; no one is expected to keep track..

This is partially inspired by recent discussion of the Athanasian Creed and who counts as Christians. 

I had always thought people were referring to the Nicene Creed before, so it was interesting to learn there was another one. Apparently, there is also the Apostles' Creed, but Athanasius was a defender of the Nicene Creed, so if the Athanasian Creed was the most recent, it makes sense that it is the reference point. 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/06/an-example-of-believers.html 

My church doesn't believe in it, so based on that, okay, fine. I do find it weird that the Protestants place so much of their definition on something pre-Reformation, but I don't know how much individuals believe it... I mean, faith can get very personal. Sometimes a lot of those things are more felt than thought. 

Both feeling and thinking are important to me. 

We don't have any creeds, but the Articles of Faith would give a good overall view. 

Joseph Smith had received a letter from the editor and owner of the Chicago Democrat asking about the church and faith. This was in 1842, so twelve years after the church was organized. The "Wentworth Letter" gave an introduction and history of the new church, and the articles are kind of a summing up. It doesn't contain everything we believe, but it gives a fairly good gist.

There are thirteen of them, so that is the plan for the next thirteen posts. 

Bewaring of pride, differently

Although I have some more thoughts about the Hegseth thing, I want to finish with this idea I have been working toward ever so subtly.

Maybe the first thing is to point out that when I am writing about things that I think are important, I circle around it a lot and give a lot of examples. It's not that I don't say the point, but I try and give enough information that people will find the logic on their own. 

Statistics should carry more weight than anecdotes, which can be deceiving. However, anecdotes can be what helps people incorporate how something works into their worldview.

With recent posts about perspective and how they can be different, I am getting toward something else that has been bothering me lately. This is about people finding something they think is great, being really excited, and this is what they are going to offer to everyone; you should be enthusiastic about it too.

I am specifically thinking of two people. One I actually believe is completely headed in the wrong direction. I have sympathy for how she got there, but she is wrong and really excited about it.

The other has a point, I think, but it is probably not as universal as she thinks it is. 

Her situation is more to the point.

It is great that something helped you when you were struggling. It can feel like a miracle. If it helps additional people, that is also great.

We are all different. 

Penicillin was a huge breakthrough and works well on a lot of things. Some people are allergic and some bacteria are resistant.

I hope Alexander Fleming doesn't take that personally. 

We have different sources of support. We have experiences where some things resonate with us more than others. We process grief differently. We need different things at different times, where sometimes you really need to process something, but sometimes the immediate need is distraction. 

Our differences can be rich and contribute to life's complex beauty, or we can get huffy about them. 

Something that works for you might might not work for another person because they have a different background that blocks that channel. It might not work for them now, but maybe a few years down the road it will because they have had a chance to learn different things or get used to something.

It can even be that sometimes, when you describe your experience to someone, that it guides them to their own different understanding. Sharing can be good, but it still may not be THE ANSWER.

It struck me because it was a different aspect of pride.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride?lang=eng 

Normally when I think of pride, I focus on the "enmity" part, where there is hostility and competition. In terms of people enjoying their talents and blessings without begrudging anyone anything, I am all for that; that's not how I use the word pride.

In this case, it does start with enjoying and enthusiasm. While it is not obviously competitive -- at least at the start -- I suppose the problem is being so sure that this is THE ANSWER. That gives a sense of superiority, or at least a desire for recognition.

That could turn to hostility and resentment. I like to think having any sense of humor and being at all grounded would keep it from going that way. Maybe it is harder to stay grounded in this environment. 

Previously I had worked out that the key to not giving into pride is to focus on loving more and building your affection for people. I still think that's a good overall policy, but I am not sure that it helps with this.

Except, if you really are working on loving people, you should be noticing that there are differences.

The next step may be realizing how those differences play out. Because of that, you may not always know best for them. 

That doesn't have to take away anything from you.

Related posts: 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/06/perspective-check.html 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2026/06/all-aboard-meal-train.html 

All aboard the Meal Train

Recently I called a friend to check in after seeing they had an injured child.

I offered to start a meal train.

If you don't know, that's when people sign up to bring over dinner. They usually run for about two weeks.

My offer was not sarcastic, but it wasn't earnest either. I was sure she would not want one. She laughed too, like "No!"

If she had said it would help, I totally would have started one and probably taken the first dinner. There's still a level at which we don't take them too seriously and there are reasons for that.

Shortly after that call I saw that a friend of a friend had died. Checking out the obituary, there was a link to a meal train; there was a real outpouring of love in that. 

I felt somewhat humbled. 

Some of my bad attitude comes from memories of people bringing food over for us, where a can of refried beans sat on the counter for weeks until there was a food drive. It was supposed to go in a casserole -- it was not just the can -- but I have a real aversion to all but green beans and I was not going to touch it.

Someone else brought a jar of juice they had made and canned from the grapes in their yard. That is impressive, but we don't drink a lot of juice. It ended up in the pantry and got pushed behind things; the next time we saw it the color had changed and we had to let it go.

Still, we have never really had trouble feeding ourselves.

Back when the average family had a stay-at-home mother who did all of the cooking, her being out of commission could really disrupt the meal supply. People do need to eat.

It has also been common to take food when there is a death, not just because people are sad but also there are often friends and family from out of town. Possibly the genesis of a meal train was so that all the food didn't come in at once.

In the first episode of The Unicorn, widower Wade has a small crisis as he reaches the end of the donated meals that had accumulated in their chest freezer. For a few months it had not mattered that he couldn't cook (but could heat). Sure, it was fictional, but there were different connotations. 

Of course, The Unicorn was set in North Carolina and the other meal train was in Missouri, so maybe part of the issue is that we are pickier eaters in the Pacific Northwest. There might be more dietary issues out here.

I do think there is something to be said for not automatically serving on default settings; that may not be the best way of meeting needs. Asking "Do you need anything?' isn't a great technique either.

Regardless, it was good for me to be reminded that something I don't want can still be good for someone else. 

I did call. I did not find a need for service, but I did get confirmation that things were going okay. 

That is a start, but should not be a finish.

Perspective check

I have been thinking about pride a lot, especially as it relates to dominator culture.

There can be multiple things to say, but I want to start with pride as it relates to intellectual superiority: "I'm smarter than you," "I know better than you," etc.

People will say some really wrong things -- there has been a movement against expertise -- so I get how it is easy to start feeling like you are the last person who knows anything. If that's not you, great, but this message is true for anyone, even those who don't need it:

You are not "smarter" than anyone. You are certainly not smarter than everyone.

That could easily be taken as an insult, but it's not intended that way. It's more a reminder of how we can do better collectively.

I am generally regarded as smart. That is partly that my mind works well in terms of comprehending and recalling facts, as well as integrating different bits of knowledge together. I also have a lot of curiosity and interest in that, so I read a lot and watch videos and do things to learn more. If I go back in time a few years and compare, I have learned a lot.

There is still so much that I don't know. There are other people who know parts that I don't.

No one of us can know it all.

That relates to academic things, but not only that. Different people have different experiences and experience things differently. 

Lots of people know more than I do about crocheting and knitting. There may be people who look down on that knowledge, but if you want a sweater it's important and there may be information picked up about fibers and strength of connection and grip that can pertain to other things.   

Privilege can be a part of knowing, but not the only part. 

For example, the person who can afford to and does move to France when the election does not go the way he wanted does have a different perspective on it than people without those options. It may not be the most useful perspective, even if he has the means to get more publicity on it.

Privilege is not necessarily a part of not understanding how color affects water temperature and that affects algae growth, but it may be a key part of assuming that knowledge is not necessary.  

Beyond that, there are people who may not know much now, but are capable of great understanding and skill with access to that training. 

(So using gifted programs as a way for some people to affirm that their children are special, redirecting resources away from other programs, would be a big mistake.)

We can help each other. One of the early steps is respecting others and what they have to offer.  

It is great to seek knowledge and enjoy it and to love the things that you know; you just need to be able to do that for other people too. 

One on one

If I could just take another moment to complain about Mike Lee, his online tantrum did not help.

Yes, the issue has been resolved (though apparently by removing the Christian designation from everyone, not just Mormons), but that appears to be related more to a phone call between Lee and Trump than all of the outraged tweets:

https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2026-06-09/mormon-backlash-pentagon-christian-list-21914850.html 

I had said the real answer would be sucking up; I feel vindicated.

Regardless, the angry tweets still have people talking, and not productively.

It takes different directions, from people spewing hate specifically about our religion or just religion in general, to others talking about how nice Mormons are even though they are not Christians, and theorizing that it is the organization.

There are also former members saying things that aren't correct. Whether that false understanding is part of why they left or happened after, and whether they got it from someone who is still attending... those are all things I can't answer because it's really not the right venue.

I think this happens more on the main blog, but I will sometimes "argue" that there is no point in arguing on the internet. 

I think it happens more on the main blog because that is generally referring to politics. Perhaps that is because political beliefs often turn out to be more a matter of emotion and ideology than reason.

I know it doesn't have to be that way.

We can and should think about things. We should not shut out emotion, but we should not just give in to it either. 

Some of the worst emotions can be really strong.

The internet can be great for sharing pictures or quick updates or jokes. It can be good for leading people to more information or rallying them to action. 

In general, it works more as a broadcast system. 

There are topics for which effective communication requires personal connection. That's a whole different set of requirements.

Sometimes you may still find a closed mind (or you may be the closed mind). Sometimes the only rational thing to do is let some people go, but it is still better to have connected with the person and tried. 

An example of the believers

Mike Lee (and a few other political members) are sharing scriptures and things online, desperately protesting the military declaration that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been left off the military list of recognized religions.

https://apnews.com/article/us-military-religious-affiliations-pete-hegseth-christian-002a610344189f4f456291d76b910d52 

Despite sharing a religion, I don't agree with Mike Lee very often; that pattern continues.

First of all, regarding Lee's tortured "Why?"

You know why.

We claim that we are Christians because we believe that Jesus Christ was the literal Son of God. By atoning for sin and conquering death through his resurrection, he is the Savior of Mankind. We could go on and on about what he has done for us and how that affects us. 

"Christians" first started being used after the Resurrection (in Antioch, Acts 11:26), long before the Athanasian Creed, used since the early 6th century and currently being referenced a lot.

Those who are not sticking by the creed are focusing on the weirdness of LDS beliefs, but I see a logic to them.

If you accept faith in God, and thus sin and the need for redemption, so literally believe in Christ as the Savior, plenty of people will find that weird. Our beliefs make it make more sense.

Also, if you don't believe in Christ's divinity, but that "Christianity" can consist of trying to be good like him, Latter-Day Saints could reasonably be included in that group too.

So the "why" on that level is the creed, but that's not the real point and it's not my main point.

The real point (and it is a dominator culture point) is that this administration (particularly Hegseth in this case) wants to demonstrate their power. They want to demonstrate that they control who gets in and out of the club. Should there be a literal mark of the Beast, they are going to be the ones assigning it.

I acknowledge that there are going to be practical issues with chaplains and things, but no government body can tell me whether or not my faith is valid. Constitutionally, the U.S. government is not supposed to able to do that to anyone.

This is where Mike Lee really, really sucks.

Instead of having a tantrum about getting kicked out of the club (after being so supportive of the club), where is your concern for the 170 other religions?

Where was your outrage when approved promotions to Brigadier General for two women and two Black men were canceled?

Are you upset at all about the return of screwworm? Persecution of immigrants? Food that was ready to go to starving people being canceled and left to rot?

Jesus would not have done that. 

If your specific objection is just to our exclusion as Christians, and your justification for our inclusion is how closely we follow Christ, waiting for this specific issue makes your argument weak.

I mean that specifically for you and other members who continue supporting Trump and this abomination of an administration. How are people going to look at the things you do and say and think, yeah, that's a Christian all right. 

Well, maybe the people who look down on Christians. 

There might be some bargains offered where certain groups are allowed back on the list with sufficient deference paid. If you want that, you are going to have to give up the enraged posts and start sucking up. 

Before you do that, consider what is more valuable to you. Is it more important to be allowed in the club or to live by your faith?

If you choose the latter, you should consider how well you are doing that. Maybe pray about it. 

Procrastination

7This has frequently been a problem of mine.

I think on one level it is anxiety-related. Sometimes I need to get other things done to get other worries out of the way. Sometimes it may be concerns about how it will go or the commitment to a task that may be long and unpleasant.

Some brains scatter more easily than others.

There is one thing I am learning now that makes not procrastinating even more important, but also makes the anxiety worse...

You do not know what's going to happen next to blow up your schedule.

If you believe you have plenty of time to do something, that sounds great; is it merely an illusion?

I have been very impressed at the things that have gone wrong this week.

I have not progressed in my schoolwork the way I would have hoped.

Have I learned how to do better?

I can only hope.