The last two posts came from reading specific stories. Today's post had its genesis in the reaction to the "debate" between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. I did not watch the debate, but I saw enough cringe-worthy things that I wanted to write something, and I have been here before.
My first qualm is with the terms "Creationist" and "Creationism". I do believe that God created the Earth, but that is a part of my faith in God. Using "Creationism" as an identifier feels like it is elevating that belief above the others, like that is the most important thing, which seems like a strange way to go.
We don't have a lot of information on Earth's creation in the scriptures, and we have them in the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been passed down and patched together. There can be errors of transcription, and translation, and parts missing where in the New Testament Jesus references things that are written, but we don't know where. Also parts of it are clearly metaphorical and symbolic.
I'm going to write more about that next week, but my point now is that it is not necessarily the best source for exact chronologies or scientific detail.
This is fine, because we are not currently responsible for creating worlds. We are responsible for loving our neighbors, and repenting, and having faith, hope, and charity - there are a lot of things that we can and should do, and know more about - but there is no need for us to divide the waters under the firmament. If we were doing so, we might find out that the way you do various things involves big bangs and gravity and natural behaviors that people observed as they described the laws of physics. As it is, we might observe those things and be very impressed by these things, and find that they actually made us respect God and his creations more, not less.
Let's look at Genesis 1 & 2. One of the first things that I notice is that "Day" and "Night" are separated in verse 5, but this is before we get the lights in the firmament (in verse 14) so that we would know days and seasons and years. So, for people who insist that each of the days of creation was a 24 hour day, that just sounds silly. I think of a day as the time period for that phase of creation, and that it can take as long as it needs, including millions of years.
I have read that Mary Baker Eddy regarded Genesis 2 as a corruption, and it does seem like it contradicts some things in Genesis 1. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we say that refers to the spiritual creation that happened before. Some things that I take from that is that souls are not just for humans, and that all life is eternal.
If you believe in the Bible but are not Mormon, there can still be lessons there. I see that there is an order in which things are done, and a logical progression. I see that we should be good stewards of the earth. I see that we matter, and that there is a plan that encompasses all things. I do not pick up much in the way of scientific details, and that's okay.
I admit, I do not know how everything falls into place, and I'm okay with that. I know that God exists, and that He is my father and loves me, and many more things, but I know those things in spiritual ways. I know because of things I have felt, and confirmations that have come. It is a different type of knowledge than scientific inquiry.
They can be related. I may get some ideas and wonder and experiment and observe, and that can happen either scientifically or spiritually, but they are both important and I would never turn my back on either. Both of them make me appreciate life and all that it contains more.
The problem with creationists is that they seem to be afraid that knowledge can diminish God, or that if they let in any information that does not automatically correlate with what they believe, that belief will shrivel up. Faith should not be so fearful.
There is a phrase that has stuck with me about how people will be in the last days:
"...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:" (2nd Timothy 3:5)
In the past I have thought of this as covering those who believe in the Bible, but not in modern prophets, or maybe those who believe in doing good but not in a God that cares about us. I think this is another option - believing in God but being afraid that belief will not stand up to knowledge. The more I learn now, the more it glorifies Him.
You miss out on so much, and actually you miss out on Him. That is something I know.
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love, and of a sound mind." (2nd Timothy 1:7
I don't know how it all works out, but I know that it does.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Stupid Mormon Tricks - Fashion Police
Yes, this is about the woman who bought all the Pac-Sun T-shirts.
First of all, I should point out that it is not just her. With last week's post, yes, there was mainly one person who inspired it, who is LDS, but the other three people are not. With this week, while I do think her actions are stupid, it is hard finding a good link to post, because they all have such nasty and ignorant comments. On one page, they were even making comments about her based on a picture that appeared with the article, except that it was clearly a stock photo. There is stupidity among all creeds and in the secular world. But I take it more personally when they are Mormon, because I want us to look good.
That may initially make it seem like I am part of the problem by worrying more about whether we look good to the world than about righteousness. We will get into this more next week, with Stupid Creationist Tricks, but the validity of my concern is that I do believe that people need the Gospel, and they are less likely to investigate that if it looks ridiculous and stupid. This is not just their problem, because we love them and care about them if we are doing it right.
Some of that can't be avoided, because there are people who will find very basic things like angels and prophets implausible. Still, if you do find it possible to believe that I am intelligent and fair and admirable, it may be easier to accept that my faith has some credibility. Being a reactionary usually doesn't help the cause.
So, this store has shirts that are offensive. The sales clerk can forward the complaint to management, and there may be some room in the city ordinances to get them banned, but those things take time, so the plan is to buy the shirts, hold them to the end of the return period, and then return them for a refund. What are possible objections to this plan?
The one that people object to the most is that it's a narrow-minded thing to dictate what the people around you are allowed to wear, quickly followed up with how futile it is. First of all, those shirts sold out. This will make them look quite popular, where they may be reordered and restocked. Okay, they are going to have to refund that money when you return the shirts, but then they can just sell them again, and you have made the shirts famous. Those shirts are probably selling quite well in other stores, and people may be excited about buying the returned shirts when they come back in. That would be very contrary, but since the market is teens, they do tend to be contrary at times.
I am reminded of a couple of clothing campaigns. One was giving homeless people used Abercrombie & Fitch clothes after the CFO talked about only wanting the cool kids to wear their clothes. I am not linking to that, because it involved dehumanizing the homeless. The truth is, plenty of people were turned off by the CFO, where simply sharing his comments may have been enough. (There are opportunities here with LuluLemon also.)
The better one can be found here: http://business.time.com/2014/01/06/urban-outfitters-withdraws-yet-another-offensive-shirt/
That shirt was pulled. It happened without money being spent by those who were against the shirt, or earning money for the company. There may have been some people who thought those protesting were being oversensitive and bought it, because that happens, but overall the campaign was a success.
Could something similar have worked for the Pac-Sun shirts? I don't know. There is growing awareness now that mocking mental illness is wrong, but there is still a long way to go toward making objectification of the female body not okay, which is the issue here.
The shirts themselves are modest, in that the wearer's body will be covered up. There are some creepy things in wearing someone else's body on yours, especially just parts of the body.
I think this is where I need to be unsatisfactory, in that you need to let people wear the shirts. There are good discussions to have with your children, or with the school, or somewhere, on what some clothing choices say about you, and what might be wrong with them, but the wrong discussions have been going on for a while.
I hate the slogan "Modest is hottest." I know what they're trying to say, but they are still making hotness the goal, where you still need to attract or you are doing it wrong, and where it still places all responsibility for controlling the male gaze on the females, because men are thoughtless animals.
That is a complex discussion, and I don't have any solutions on it. It is probable that at some point, possibly here but possibly on the main blog, there will be a post on how it needs to be about chastity, not virginity, but I am not there yet.
What I can say now is that we need to be ready to have complex thoughts, and hard discussions, and to let people make bad choices while still giving compelling reasons for them to make better choices. I just don't think that happened here.
It does sound like the mall owner would have been responsive. Corporate might have been responsive, but those things take thought, and some patience. Both of those qualities are useful.
I will say that you should never expect reaching out to Abercrombie & Fitch to be helpful. They like being that way.
First of all, I should point out that it is not just her. With last week's post, yes, there was mainly one person who inspired it, who is LDS, but the other three people are not. With this week, while I do think her actions are stupid, it is hard finding a good link to post, because they all have such nasty and ignorant comments. On one page, they were even making comments about her based on a picture that appeared with the article, except that it was clearly a stock photo. There is stupidity among all creeds and in the secular world. But I take it more personally when they are Mormon, because I want us to look good.
That may initially make it seem like I am part of the problem by worrying more about whether we look good to the world than about righteousness. We will get into this more next week, with Stupid Creationist Tricks, but the validity of my concern is that I do believe that people need the Gospel, and they are less likely to investigate that if it looks ridiculous and stupid. This is not just their problem, because we love them and care about them if we are doing it right.
Some of that can't be avoided, because there are people who will find very basic things like angels and prophets implausible. Still, if you do find it possible to believe that I am intelligent and fair and admirable, it may be easier to accept that my faith has some credibility. Being a reactionary usually doesn't help the cause.
So, this store has shirts that are offensive. The sales clerk can forward the complaint to management, and there may be some room in the city ordinances to get them banned, but those things take time, so the plan is to buy the shirts, hold them to the end of the return period, and then return them for a refund. What are possible objections to this plan?
The one that people object to the most is that it's a narrow-minded thing to dictate what the people around you are allowed to wear, quickly followed up with how futile it is. First of all, those shirts sold out. This will make them look quite popular, where they may be reordered and restocked. Okay, they are going to have to refund that money when you return the shirts, but then they can just sell them again, and you have made the shirts famous. Those shirts are probably selling quite well in other stores, and people may be excited about buying the returned shirts when they come back in. That would be very contrary, but since the market is teens, they do tend to be contrary at times.
I am reminded of a couple of clothing campaigns. One was giving homeless people used Abercrombie & Fitch clothes after the CFO talked about only wanting the cool kids to wear their clothes. I am not linking to that, because it involved dehumanizing the homeless. The truth is, plenty of people were turned off by the CFO, where simply sharing his comments may have been enough. (There are opportunities here with LuluLemon also.)
The better one can be found here: http://business.time.com/2014/01/06/urban-outfitters-withdraws-yet-another-offensive-shirt/
That shirt was pulled. It happened without money being spent by those who were against the shirt, or earning money for the company. There may have been some people who thought those protesting were being oversensitive and bought it, because that happens, but overall the campaign was a success.
Could something similar have worked for the Pac-Sun shirts? I don't know. There is growing awareness now that mocking mental illness is wrong, but there is still a long way to go toward making objectification of the female body not okay, which is the issue here.
The shirts themselves are modest, in that the wearer's body will be covered up. There are some creepy things in wearing someone else's body on yours, especially just parts of the body.
I think this is where I need to be unsatisfactory, in that you need to let people wear the shirts. There are good discussions to have with your children, or with the school, or somewhere, on what some clothing choices say about you, and what might be wrong with them, but the wrong discussions have been going on for a while.
I hate the slogan "Modest is hottest." I know what they're trying to say, but they are still making hotness the goal, where you still need to attract or you are doing it wrong, and where it still places all responsibility for controlling the male gaze on the females, because men are thoughtless animals.
That is a complex discussion, and I don't have any solutions on it. It is probable that at some point, possibly here but possibly on the main blog, there will be a post on how it needs to be about chastity, not virginity, but I am not there yet.
What I can say now is that we need to be ready to have complex thoughts, and hard discussions, and to let people make bad choices while still giving compelling reasons for them to make better choices. I just don't think that happened here.
It does sound like the mall owner would have been responsive. Corporate might have been responsive, but those things take thought, and some patience. Both of those qualities are useful.
I will say that you should never expect reaching out to Abercrombie & Fitch to be helpful. They like being that way.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Stupid Mormon tricks - Frozen edition
There are some spoilers in here.
First off, I need to acknowledge that saying that the Disney movie Frozen pushes a gay agenda is not only a stupid Mormon trick, because this has also been said by a pastor and radio host and an NCR film critic. However, I think the well-behaved Mormon woman came first, and that was making the rounds, so as far as I know, they got the idea from her.
My second point is that reading that entire blog was really annoying, and since I had just written in the main blog about other overly long annoying posts (though in that case by celebrities who felt abused), I would like to make a plea that if you must be an idiot at least be brief. Since clearly not a single one of them recognizes the issues with what they are writing, this is an impossible dream, but it's nice to think about.
And here is where I am going to give some credit to the various people. Those of us who are not against treating homosexuals like people will often joke about the "Gay Agenda", because it sounds like there are secret meetings and conspiracies and their cabals would have the best catering (stereotype there, I know). However, there are people who conscientiously work for more positive depictions. Therefore, it is completely possible that the sauna scene was put in there specifically as a positive depiction of a gay family, to increase acceptance of various kinds of families. If you do not want your children to accept that some of their friends and classmates may not come from a traditional nuclear family, and for them to stay properly judgmental, okay, there is indeed an insidious influence there. Good eye.
The other complaints are more central to the movie however, and more ridiculous, so I would like to focus there. Also, they get it wrong in different ways, which is kind of interesting, though I guess in both cases it is kind of due to their focus being too narrow.
One complaint I read is that Anna and Hans, with their whirlwind engagement (and I presume his duplicity), trivialize heterosexual marriage. That's not how I interpreted that.
From centuries of fairy tales as literature, and decades of fairy tales as films, we have this idea of love at first sight, and true love's kiss being the answer to everything, and while I am as romantic as the next person, it has some flaws. Frozen turned that on it's head.
It is, generally speaking, a bad idea to get engaged without getting to know each other first. Hans presented himself as something he wasn't, which Anna was not able to see, but even if he was completely sincere, there could have been plenty of incompatibilities they hadn't had time to discover. That takes time.
Even with Kristoff and Anna, who seemed to be developing feelings for each other as they overcame obstacles together, and who seemed to believe that they could be each others' true loves once Hans left Anna to die, they were taking their time afterwards, and that seemed healthy.
Also, it would be wrong to ignore that Anna's isolated childhood left her particularly susceptible to the first scheming young guy. Letting girls build strong relationships of different types throughout their life prepares them to have better romantic relationships later.
I was confused to see some commentary that Elsa's rejection of suitors encouraged lesbianism. The only way that makes sense is that if you decide that Anna's true love for Elsa saving both of their lives indicates that they are the romantic pairing. You know, because incest would be the most logical explanation of true love between sisters.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the "princess" backlash here. That is not so much about the rejection of monarchy as it is about the rejection of making girls objects of beauty whose lives will reach their acme once the right guy rescues them, which is pretty limiting. That's really more of a feminist agenda than a gay agenda, though there may be some overlap.
Some of this is that you see a film through your own perspective. I thought of Elsa's big number, "Let It Go" in terms of empowerment, including but not limited to female empowerment, because that is something I have been thinking about a lot. (And that is probably something I will write about on the main blog in time.)
So one way of getting it wrong is that the critics missed the very logical reasons why the film did not focus on romantic pairings, heterosexual or otherwise. Apparently they do this because they are overly focused on homosexuality, which would be their other mistake.
And this is where it really gets interesting. Especially for the one, whose blog name appears to be set in opposition to the saying that "Well-behaved women rarely make history", yes, the line "Be the good girl you always have to be" might resonate. Again, a pretty big point is missing from that interpretation.
Elsa's issue was that she was powerful, and she needed to learn to control it. Somehow that was taken as learning how to stifle it completely, even though she can do good things with it. And that let to secrecy and isolation when really what she needed was connection and love and acceptance. This totally makes sense for empowerment. It makes sense for non-conformity. Because it is so focused on power, however, it makes kind of a poor analogy for sexuality.
It's not completely horrible, because often there is that feeling that it needs to be hidden, but ultimately I feel that the only way you can see that song as being specifically about being gay, and that everything wonderful happens when you come out of the closet, is if you are closeted. If you think that is the only thing to conceal and not feel, if it is taking up that much of your mind, well, there's a reason that homophobia correlates so strongly to homosexuality.
If that is actually what the songwriters intended, I apologize, but until they say that I am going with this only looking like a "gay agenda" film if you are struggling with your own homosexuality. And I'm sorry, because that's hard.
This really isn't a mocking thing. Only damage comes from not facing yourself. If you find that there are things inside you that you don't want there, that's hard, but not nearly as hard as trying to pretend they are not out there until you can't anymore.
And let's say these four people (at current count) are all gay. If they are married, they don't have to get divorced and start clubbing, but what if there are other things they could have that they are shutting off? It's not uncommon for boys to shy away from artistic pursuits because of a fear of being seen as effeminate.
So, thinking about what a grandmother might be shutting out, well, it's hard to think outside of stereotypes. Maybe she would like a cute short haircut, or to do woodworking, and refrains. And that sounds stupid, but that's the whole problem with gender stereotyping and combining it all with sexuality. There are a lot of things that don't even need to relate, and it is all based on fear. Let that go.
First off, I need to acknowledge that saying that the Disney movie Frozen pushes a gay agenda is not only a stupid Mormon trick, because this has also been said by a pastor and radio host and an NCR film critic. However, I think the well-behaved Mormon woman came first, and that was making the rounds, so as far as I know, they got the idea from her.
My second point is that reading that entire blog was really annoying, and since I had just written in the main blog about other overly long annoying posts (though in that case by celebrities who felt abused), I would like to make a plea that if you must be an idiot at least be brief. Since clearly not a single one of them recognizes the issues with what they are writing, this is an impossible dream, but it's nice to think about.
And here is where I am going to give some credit to the various people. Those of us who are not against treating homosexuals like people will often joke about the "Gay Agenda", because it sounds like there are secret meetings and conspiracies and their cabals would have the best catering (stereotype there, I know). However, there are people who conscientiously work for more positive depictions. Therefore, it is completely possible that the sauna scene was put in there specifically as a positive depiction of a gay family, to increase acceptance of various kinds of families. If you do not want your children to accept that some of their friends and classmates may not come from a traditional nuclear family, and for them to stay properly judgmental, okay, there is indeed an insidious influence there. Good eye.
The other complaints are more central to the movie however, and more ridiculous, so I would like to focus there. Also, they get it wrong in different ways, which is kind of interesting, though I guess in both cases it is kind of due to their focus being too narrow.
One complaint I read is that Anna and Hans, with their whirlwind engagement (and I presume his duplicity), trivialize heterosexual marriage. That's not how I interpreted that.
From centuries of fairy tales as literature, and decades of fairy tales as films, we have this idea of love at first sight, and true love's kiss being the answer to everything, and while I am as romantic as the next person, it has some flaws. Frozen turned that on it's head.
It is, generally speaking, a bad idea to get engaged without getting to know each other first. Hans presented himself as something he wasn't, which Anna was not able to see, but even if he was completely sincere, there could have been plenty of incompatibilities they hadn't had time to discover. That takes time.
Even with Kristoff and Anna, who seemed to be developing feelings for each other as they overcame obstacles together, and who seemed to believe that they could be each others' true loves once Hans left Anna to die, they were taking their time afterwards, and that seemed healthy.
Also, it would be wrong to ignore that Anna's isolated childhood left her particularly susceptible to the first scheming young guy. Letting girls build strong relationships of different types throughout their life prepares them to have better romantic relationships later.
I was confused to see some commentary that Elsa's rejection of suitors encouraged lesbianism. The only way that makes sense is that if you decide that Anna's true love for Elsa saving both of their lives indicates that they are the romantic pairing. You know, because incest would be the most logical explanation of true love between sisters.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the "princess" backlash here. That is not so much about the rejection of monarchy as it is about the rejection of making girls objects of beauty whose lives will reach their acme once the right guy rescues them, which is pretty limiting. That's really more of a feminist agenda than a gay agenda, though there may be some overlap.
Some of this is that you see a film through your own perspective. I thought of Elsa's big number, "Let It Go" in terms of empowerment, including but not limited to female empowerment, because that is something I have been thinking about a lot. (And that is probably something I will write about on the main blog in time.)
So one way of getting it wrong is that the critics missed the very logical reasons why the film did not focus on romantic pairings, heterosexual or otherwise. Apparently they do this because they are overly focused on homosexuality, which would be their other mistake.
And this is where it really gets interesting. Especially for the one, whose blog name appears to be set in opposition to the saying that "Well-behaved women rarely make history", yes, the line "Be the good girl you always have to be" might resonate. Again, a pretty big point is missing from that interpretation.
Elsa's issue was that she was powerful, and she needed to learn to control it. Somehow that was taken as learning how to stifle it completely, even though she can do good things with it. And that let to secrecy and isolation when really what she needed was connection and love and acceptance. This totally makes sense for empowerment. It makes sense for non-conformity. Because it is so focused on power, however, it makes kind of a poor analogy for sexuality.
It's not completely horrible, because often there is that feeling that it needs to be hidden, but ultimately I feel that the only way you can see that song as being specifically about being gay, and that everything wonderful happens when you come out of the closet, is if you are closeted. If you think that is the only thing to conceal and not feel, if it is taking up that much of your mind, well, there's a reason that homophobia correlates so strongly to homosexuality.
If that is actually what the songwriters intended, I apologize, but until they say that I am going with this only looking like a "gay agenda" film if you are struggling with your own homosexuality. And I'm sorry, because that's hard.
This really isn't a mocking thing. Only damage comes from not facing yourself. If you find that there are things inside you that you don't want there, that's hard, but not nearly as hard as trying to pretend they are not out there until you can't anymore.
And let's say these four people (at current count) are all gay. If they are married, they don't have to get divorced and start clubbing, but what if there are other things they could have that they are shutting off? It's not uncommon for boys to shy away from artistic pursuits because of a fear of being seen as effeminate.
So, thinking about what a grandmother might be shutting out, well, it's hard to think outside of stereotypes. Maybe she would like a cute short haircut, or to do woodworking, and refrains. And that sounds stupid, but that's the whole problem with gender stereotyping and combining it all with sexuality. There are a lot of things that don't even need to relate, and it is all based on fear. Let that go.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Women and Priesthood
Actually, I have been leading up to this one for a while.
I mention that partly because I will refer to earlier posts, but also because yesterday I saw a post going around on Facebook that a lot of people were liking, but I thought it was stupid and trivialized the whole issue. So, this post is not a response to that.
(However, I do have two things I want to cover and a post that will probably be titled "Stupid Mormon Tricks" and maybe I will add a third. However, I don't know if I will treat those in one post, or separately, or whether they will come before or after "Stupid Creationist Tricks".)
Like a lot of the points that we make, my concern is often that we are thinking about it in the wrong way.
That does not always lead to unhappiness. For example, I have heard many women say that they don't want to priesthood, saying it in a way that sounds like they feel it would be too much pressure.
I don't think we should view holding the priesthood as a burden. It's a responsibility, and a call to service, but we all have responsibilities, and calls to service, and often having the priesthood or not does not lead to a big change in how that service happens or feels.
I have also heard that women don't need the priesthood, because it is men who need the extra help. I suspect all of those things get said as a way of compensating for that feeling that women not getting the priesthood means they are somehow less. There is nothing in the Gospel that backs this up, but there are two things we need to look at.
First, remember the lack of hierarchy. You don't make money of your callings. There's not really prestige to them. A priesthood holder does not lay hands on himself. Section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants is great for this, but let me just quote verse 37:
"That they (the rights of the priesthood) may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."
We should know that there is no inequality implied between men and women in the Gospel, but where we might lose sight of that is if you are dealing with everyday chauvinists. They are around.
I have heard much worse stories from more rural, backward places, where that would be the rule for the community at large, regardless of religious affiliation. I know that there are many who do believe men are superior to women, and they could easily take the priesthood issue as an endorsement.
That is frustrating, but church doctrine needs to be based on Gospel principles, not the fact that there are many idiots. I mean, the Gospel has a lot of accommodation of idiots built in, as it does for all of us sinners, but it can't change something that has a divine purpose to serve an infernal purpose.
Coming to terms with various Gospel principles is a very personal thing. You may have one understanding now, and it works for you, and later on you will find that you were missing something, and that's okay. That's why there has been the focus on remembering personal revelation, and that it is not always your turn, and all of those things.
That being said, I am going to suggest one reason that women do not have the priesthood is so that we need men.
The Gospel is all about coming together. We form families and form wards. We do family history to bind the generations together. No one person is supposed to be completely sufficient to themselves.
You can do a lot of speculation. Maybe because Eve took the initiative in partaking of the fruit (which we consider to have been a good and necessary thing), maybe that's why men have to lead now - because it comes too naturally to women. Maybe men are spiritually weaker and have the priesthood and have to do spiritual things, and women are physically weaker but they give birth and nurse and do physical things, because we are here to do things that are hard for us, so we grow. Maybe there are many small things that work well with it happening this way, and they combine into one pretty good reason.
I don't need to know all the nuances. Pondering them can lead to good insights, and so that can be valuable.
What is most important is keeping my heart right with God, which is my responsibility. The tools that I need to know that something is right, and to get guidance for how to work with it, and to feel peace, are all there.
I mention that partly because I will refer to earlier posts, but also because yesterday I saw a post going around on Facebook that a lot of people were liking, but I thought it was stupid and trivialized the whole issue. So, this post is not a response to that.
(However, I do have two things I want to cover and a post that will probably be titled "Stupid Mormon Tricks" and maybe I will add a third. However, I don't know if I will treat those in one post, or separately, or whether they will come before or after "Stupid Creationist Tricks".)
Like a lot of the points that we make, my concern is often that we are thinking about it in the wrong way.
That does not always lead to unhappiness. For example, I have heard many women say that they don't want to priesthood, saying it in a way that sounds like they feel it would be too much pressure.
I don't think we should view holding the priesthood as a burden. It's a responsibility, and a call to service, but we all have responsibilities, and calls to service, and often having the priesthood or not does not lead to a big change in how that service happens or feels.
I have also heard that women don't need the priesthood, because it is men who need the extra help. I suspect all of those things get said as a way of compensating for that feeling that women not getting the priesthood means they are somehow less. There is nothing in the Gospel that backs this up, but there are two things we need to look at.
First, remember the lack of hierarchy. You don't make money of your callings. There's not really prestige to them. A priesthood holder does not lay hands on himself. Section 121 of the Doctrine and Covenants is great for this, but let me just quote verse 37:
"That they (the rights of the priesthood) may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."
We should know that there is no inequality implied between men and women in the Gospel, but where we might lose sight of that is if you are dealing with everyday chauvinists. They are around.
I have heard much worse stories from more rural, backward places, where that would be the rule for the community at large, regardless of religious affiliation. I know that there are many who do believe men are superior to women, and they could easily take the priesthood issue as an endorsement.
That is frustrating, but church doctrine needs to be based on Gospel principles, not the fact that there are many idiots. I mean, the Gospel has a lot of accommodation of idiots built in, as it does for all of us sinners, but it can't change something that has a divine purpose to serve an infernal purpose.
Coming to terms with various Gospel principles is a very personal thing. You may have one understanding now, and it works for you, and later on you will find that you were missing something, and that's okay. That's why there has been the focus on remembering personal revelation, and that it is not always your turn, and all of those things.
That being said, I am going to suggest one reason that women do not have the priesthood is so that we need men.
The Gospel is all about coming together. We form families and form wards. We do family history to bind the generations together. No one person is supposed to be completely sufficient to themselves.
You can do a lot of speculation. Maybe because Eve took the initiative in partaking of the fruit (which we consider to have been a good and necessary thing), maybe that's why men have to lead now - because it comes too naturally to women. Maybe men are spiritually weaker and have the priesthood and have to do spiritual things, and women are physically weaker but they give birth and nurse and do physical things, because we are here to do things that are hard for us, so we grow. Maybe there are many small things that work well with it happening this way, and they combine into one pretty good reason.
I don't need to know all the nuances. Pondering them can lead to good insights, and so that can be valuable.
What is most important is keeping my heart right with God, which is my responsibility. The tools that I need to know that something is right, and to get guidance for how to work with it, and to feel peace, are all there.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Finding humility through church callings
I'm going to start with a little bit of explanation here.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, there are no paid clergy. Instead, people get asked to do different things by their leaders, and we call these callings. I know friends of other faiths have been confused by that, because for them a calling is something personal that they feel called to do.
We can have that too. With my mission, I felt that I needed to go, very strongly, so I filled out an application and then got called to Fresno, Laotian-speaking. Right now, you could say I feel called to look out for people on Twitter. Still, when a Mormon talks about a "calling", we usually mean our church responsibility.
What I really want to focus on is that there is not really a hierarchy, where you work your way up. I have taught Sunday school, been a visiting teaching supervisor (visiting teaching is when women visit other women and look out for them), planned activities, and right now I am working in the library and also with single adults. For a long time I was ward emergency preparedness, and then I did it for the stake (a stake is a group of wards, and the ward is the congregation you meet with on Sunday), and then I ended up doing it for the ward again.
When I started doing it for the stake, I joked that it was a promotion, but really, it does not work like that, and it was not a demotion when I went back to doing it for the ward. There are a lot of different ways to serve, and you learn knew things and get to know different people by it switching around, so that works well.
Some people do find it more like a calling as the word would be used outside of the church. Maria ends up teaching a lot. I remember one woman in Fresno whose callings were almost always with children, and she felt like that was her thing. I can see that being true, but I also imagine that if she suddenly found herself working with youth or adults, or in the library, that she would adapt to that as well.
To do any calling right, the point is always service, so that should be humbling enough, but also things do change around, and there is no climb.
There is one good family friend who was in the bishopric when I first remember meeting him. He has been my bishop twice, and he has been in the stake presidency. He has done a lot of leadership, and he was over public affairs for the area for a while.
He has also been a Sunday school teacher twice that I know of. From the last time he was bishop, he and his wife went straight to teaching a very small class of teenagers. (I think it might have been four 16 year old kids, or something like that. This was not a demotion. He had served well as the bishop in the singles ward, where he had been needed, but now it was time for someone else to do it, and a youth teacher was needed. Actually, this is a really good thing, because being a bishop of young singles is very demanding, and it's good to get a chance to rest.
It is not random. We believe our leaders use inspiration, but also you can see preparation happen. There were things that led me to be ready for emergency preparedness, through classes I had taken. Before our friend was the singles bishop, he and his wife had taught a class on relationships in that ward, and I don't doubt that it helped them for when they came back.
There are chances for being humbled by serving others and getting to know them, and in watching the Lord's hand in events that lead you to where you are, and there can be humility in being asked to do something you have never done before.
But also, and this is my real point, there should be some humility in seeing other people doing it later. Maybe you will see things you did better, but I hope you will see the value in a different perspective. You will certainly see that you weren't the only capable person, and you may even see someone doing much better than you, which could sting a little but still be valuable. We are all needed, so then it is not only you who is needed, and yet, you still are needed. That can be a frustrating loop until we replace all ego with love.
I'll give one more story. I had a mission president with a son who was deaf, and while his son was growing up, most of the father's church time was spent signing to him so he would know what was going on. He did at times feel kind of jealous when he would see people getting callings that he knew he could do, but the inspiration he received told him that what he was doing was the most important thing for that time.
And it was. I had recently read a story about a deaf girl who had been in the church her entire life, but did not understand the resurrection and life after death until she was seventeen. There are language barriers, and sometimes the hearing don't even know what is not sinking in.
You know that father got to be a mission president, but he was also a stake president for a while. An apostle called him for that. (It was President Packer; Elder Packer at the time.) When he got the call he was surprised, and said "I've never even been a bishop," and Elder Packer said, "Neither have I."
There is not a job path. It is based on abilities and needs and things we may not understand until later.
It should all be done in humility.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, there are no paid clergy. Instead, people get asked to do different things by their leaders, and we call these callings. I know friends of other faiths have been confused by that, because for them a calling is something personal that they feel called to do.
We can have that too. With my mission, I felt that I needed to go, very strongly, so I filled out an application and then got called to Fresno, Laotian-speaking. Right now, you could say I feel called to look out for people on Twitter. Still, when a Mormon talks about a "calling", we usually mean our church responsibility.
What I really want to focus on is that there is not really a hierarchy, where you work your way up. I have taught Sunday school, been a visiting teaching supervisor (visiting teaching is when women visit other women and look out for them), planned activities, and right now I am working in the library and also with single adults. For a long time I was ward emergency preparedness, and then I did it for the stake (a stake is a group of wards, and the ward is the congregation you meet with on Sunday), and then I ended up doing it for the ward again.
When I started doing it for the stake, I joked that it was a promotion, but really, it does not work like that, and it was not a demotion when I went back to doing it for the ward. There are a lot of different ways to serve, and you learn knew things and get to know different people by it switching around, so that works well.
Some people do find it more like a calling as the word would be used outside of the church. Maria ends up teaching a lot. I remember one woman in Fresno whose callings were almost always with children, and she felt like that was her thing. I can see that being true, but I also imagine that if she suddenly found herself working with youth or adults, or in the library, that she would adapt to that as well.
To do any calling right, the point is always service, so that should be humbling enough, but also things do change around, and there is no climb.
There is one good family friend who was in the bishopric when I first remember meeting him. He has been my bishop twice, and he has been in the stake presidency. He has done a lot of leadership, and he was over public affairs for the area for a while.
He has also been a Sunday school teacher twice that I know of. From the last time he was bishop, he and his wife went straight to teaching a very small class of teenagers. (I think it might have been four 16 year old kids, or something like that. This was not a demotion. He had served well as the bishop in the singles ward, where he had been needed, but now it was time for someone else to do it, and a youth teacher was needed. Actually, this is a really good thing, because being a bishop of young singles is very demanding, and it's good to get a chance to rest.
It is not random. We believe our leaders use inspiration, but also you can see preparation happen. There were things that led me to be ready for emergency preparedness, through classes I had taken. Before our friend was the singles bishop, he and his wife had taught a class on relationships in that ward, and I don't doubt that it helped them for when they came back.
There are chances for being humbled by serving others and getting to know them, and in watching the Lord's hand in events that lead you to where you are, and there can be humility in being asked to do something you have never done before.
But also, and this is my real point, there should be some humility in seeing other people doing it later. Maybe you will see things you did better, but I hope you will see the value in a different perspective. You will certainly see that you weren't the only capable person, and you may even see someone doing much better than you, which could sting a little but still be valuable. We are all needed, so then it is not only you who is needed, and yet, you still are needed. That can be a frustrating loop until we replace all ego with love.
I'll give one more story. I had a mission president with a son who was deaf, and while his son was growing up, most of the father's church time was spent signing to him so he would know what was going on. He did at times feel kind of jealous when he would see people getting callings that he knew he could do, but the inspiration he received told him that what he was doing was the most important thing for that time.
And it was. I had recently read a story about a deaf girl who had been in the church her entire life, but did not understand the resurrection and life after death until she was seventeen. There are language barriers, and sometimes the hearing don't even know what is not sinking in.
You know that father got to be a mission president, but he was also a stake president for a while. An apostle called him for that. (It was President Packer; Elder Packer at the time.) When he got the call he was surprised, and said "I've never even been a bishop," and Elder Packer said, "Neither have I."
There is not a job path. It is based on abilities and needs and things we may not understand until later.
It should all be done in humility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)