This post was also inspired by a news article:
https://www.psypost.org/2019/10/new-psychology-study-identifies-hypo-egoic-nonentitlement-as-a-central-feature-of-humility-54657
I loved this one.
I believe I have written in the past about how humility does not mean putting oneself down or being afraid to acknowledge anything good about oneself. I take my cue from Ezra Taft Benson's defining pride as "enmity between God and man", and figure that the secret is loving more. Then it is okay to like what is good about you, knowing that it is not a reason to look down on others.
(Frankly, when you are allowed to like yourself and enjoy good things about you, I think having good feelings toward others can be easier.)
Obviously I was thrilled to find a study that backs me up. It was less thrilling but still kind of interesting to find a term for that specific aspect of humility, hypo-egoic nonentitlement: "they do not think that they are entitled to be treated special as a person because of their accomplishments or positive characteristics."
That was all very interesting, and I recommend the article, but what really got my attention was the list of other non-egoic phenomena: flow, mindfulness, awe, and mystical experiences.
My growing political philosophy - which I am not ready to write extensively about yet - focuses on the destructiveness of competition, if you will, where even many people who claim to be progressive and eschew bigotry still fall easily into racist and sexist behavior because there is such a draw to putting others down. That might fall under egoic (or even hyper-egoic) entitlement. It worries me greatly, but it is something that I have tended to think about more in terms of economics, politics, and social relations.
What struck me here was the personal. There is a definite logic to seeing that a narcissistic person might not be awe-struck that often; what could be greater than themselves? It also goes some way toward explaining the reduced chances of mystical experiences.
Those are things I value anyway, and I have a growing appreciation for mindfulness. Maybe it was "flow" that struck me most.
I associate flow with creativity, but I have felt it at times while doing tasks that were not necessarily creative. There is a sense of things coming together, and inter-relatedness. Connection.
I have known many people who were amazingly creative and amazingly kind, and have thought perhaps that one of the rewards of creativity was that they found a satisfaction that did not require domination or superiority toward anyone else. Perhaps it was actually reversed, where they could be creative because they could embrace equality and egalitarianism already. That would be something that could make us free.
Some of these gifts may come without a lot of intent. I can't imagine mindfulness not taking work, but that might be just be me. There are still a lot of forces leading toward ego and entitlement, even if it merely starts defensively. It may take more work now than it used to.
Mainly I just wanted to share that there is a better path, and reading about it gave me a glimpse of perfection and beauty (which might relate to the awe-inspiring and the mystical). I am grateful for that. I am grateful for the intangible beauty that you can touch if you will just reach out.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Preparing Together - Your neighbors and you
I recently attended a presentation about community emergency preparation and I invited all my neighbors.
Sadly, the person behind Prepare Out Loud has left the Red Cross and started his own company, Tipping Point Resilience:
https://www.tippingpointresilience.com/
That is probably for the best, but I had been waiting for about a year for a Beaverton or Aloha event where I could invite neighbors. Fortunately, NW Oregon Public Health Awareness has come up with their own program, Preparing Together:
https://www.co.washington.or.us/HHS/News/preparing-together.cfm
The logic in this is obvious. Most disasters have the potential to create large-scale health problems through issues with water sanitation or exposure to the elements. Washington County presenter Cynthia Valdivia presented at our local library.
She told us that she is the only person for Washington County, and the only Spanish-speaking presenter for the state of Oregon. There are coverage issues, and so they have helpfully made the presentation and a kit available through the library system. I currently have one checked out:
363.34 PRE Preparing Together [kit]: a discussion guide to help you, your family, neighbors and community prepare for disaster
It is an impressive kit, with the presentation and handouts available on a CD, as well as laminated copies of the presentation, other resources, and prepaid envelopes for sending in the evaluation sheets. It would be very easy - though intimidating - to give a presentation to friends or neighbors.
That could be worthwhile, because none of the neighbors came. That's really what I want to write about, but not like it sounds.
I saw the presentation was coming and thought 'This is my chance', so I made a flyer with the information and printed 13 copies for every house on the block but ours and the one where they are doing Air BnB or something. I knew it was unlikely that everyone would be home, so I took some tape so that I could leave a flyer on the door, and then my mother and I went door to door.
Most of the people we talked to had at least some interest, but were not sure if they could come. That is not surprising at all. Maybe if I do a presentation on the block some would come. Having food might help.
We talked to people at seven houses, but we saw new children and grandchildren and found out about health issues, and talked about water storage options. We have had three visits with neighbors since then. (All of which have involved a little food, actually, so that might be something.)
Building relationships takes time. Establishing trust and comfort needs time. Learning who has which skills and vulnerabilities does not only take time but is helped by that trust.
It would have been an amazing experience to walk into the library community room and find a bunch of familiar faces, but that not happening doesn't make it a waste. If people remember that preparedness is a thing, and that we are part of a community, that is good. If it reminds them that was have a library and it has events, that is a good thing.
And even something as simple as talking to a few neighbors here and there and maintaining contact can also be a very good thing.
Sadly, the person behind Prepare Out Loud has left the Red Cross and started his own company, Tipping Point Resilience:
https://www.tippingpointresilience.com/
That is probably for the best, but I had been waiting for about a year for a Beaverton or Aloha event where I could invite neighbors. Fortunately, NW Oregon Public Health Awareness has come up with their own program, Preparing Together:
https://www.co.washington.or.us/HHS/News/preparing-together.cfm
The logic in this is obvious. Most disasters have the potential to create large-scale health problems through issues with water sanitation or exposure to the elements. Washington County presenter Cynthia Valdivia presented at our local library.
She told us that she is the only person for Washington County, and the only Spanish-speaking presenter for the state of Oregon. There are coverage issues, and so they have helpfully made the presentation and a kit available through the library system. I currently have one checked out:
363.34 PRE Preparing Together [kit]: a discussion guide to help you, your family, neighbors and community prepare for disaster
It is an impressive kit, with the presentation and handouts available on a CD, as well as laminated copies of the presentation, other resources, and prepaid envelopes for sending in the evaluation sheets. It would be very easy - though intimidating - to give a presentation to friends or neighbors.
That could be worthwhile, because none of the neighbors came. That's really what I want to write about, but not like it sounds.
I saw the presentation was coming and thought 'This is my chance', so I made a flyer with the information and printed 13 copies for every house on the block but ours and the one where they are doing Air BnB or something. I knew it was unlikely that everyone would be home, so I took some tape so that I could leave a flyer on the door, and then my mother and I went door to door.
Most of the people we talked to had at least some interest, but were not sure if they could come. That is not surprising at all. Maybe if I do a presentation on the block some would come. Having food might help.
We talked to people at seven houses, but we saw new children and grandchildren and found out about health issues, and talked about water storage options. We have had three visits with neighbors since then. (All of which have involved a little food, actually, so that might be something.)
Building relationships takes time. Establishing trust and comfort needs time. Learning who has which skills and vulnerabilities does not only take time but is helped by that trust.
It would have been an amazing experience to walk into the library community room and find a bunch of familiar faces, but that not happening doesn't make it a waste. If people remember that preparedness is a thing, and that we are part of a community, that is good. If it reminds them that was have a library and it has events, that is a good thing.
And even something as simple as talking to a few neighbors here and there and maintaining contact can also be a very good thing.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Seeking the truth
About a month ago I saw two articles in the newspaper (which I saved because I knew I would eventually get to writing about them).
They would have both caught my attention anyway, but seeing them just four pages apart made a stronger impression.
False claims blur line between mass shootings, 2020 politics
by Will Weissert and Amanda Seitz of the Associated Press
https://www.apnews.com/bd653f4eb5ed4f34b6c936221c35a3e5
I saw both in The Oregonian, which changed this title to "False claims blue 2020 lines".
The article largely focused on false claims about the Odessa shooter who killed seven people, claiming that he had a Beto O'Rourke sticker on his vehicle and initially that he was a Democrat Socialist, followed by claims that he was a registered Democrat, all three of which are false.
The article focused on how quickly rumors like these spread, and how attempts to correct the false information don't gain the same traction.
The false claims fit into a framework that might warrant further exploration later, but for today's topic we are just going to go to the other article.
Why does so much news seem negative? Human attention may be to blame
by Amina Khan of the Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-09-05/why-people-respond-to-negative-news
This title was also changed, which may be something to think about when deciding if you are comfortable reading only headlines.
This article reports on a study from the University of Michigan that recruited 1156 people in 17 countries. The study's lead author was Stuart Soroka. I mention that because accepting information at face value is risky, as demonstrated by the first article. Even a compelling sample size with a clear trend can have variables and other factors, and the article gets into that.
For me, if a study sounds suspect to me, I will usually try and look at the source and methodology and sample size. Doing so often reinforces my skepticism. The problem is that if the conclusion sounds logical to me, I probably won't look it up. (Later I may wonder and have a hard time finding it, which is why I try and at least note sources now.)
Being more accepting of that which confirms your biases is nothing new; you can find lots of studies on that. However, if we are primed for the negative - which appears to be true - and false claims spread quickly - deliberately by a few and then enthusiastically by many - we get into a situation where it is easy to have a worldview that is both negative and wrong.
I am just finishing up a book on crime that talks about the misperceptions about the frequency, types, and targets of crimes versus the reality. Esther Madriz says this:
"Living with these images confuses the imagined with the real and creates a society in which most people live according to the imagined."
We cannot do that. If we believe that truth is the most precious gem, we can't go along believing falsehoods that encourage our biases about who is bad and good and smart and stupid.
So dig deeper, read more, ask questions often. Always stay close to the Spirit, remembering that the fruits of doing so are peace and love, not gloating and smugness.
It matters now and it is going to matter more.
They would have both caught my attention anyway, but seeing them just four pages apart made a stronger impression.
False claims blur line between mass shootings, 2020 politics
by Will Weissert and Amanda Seitz of the Associated Press
https://www.apnews.com/bd653f4eb5ed4f34b6c936221c35a3e5
I saw both in The Oregonian, which changed this title to "False claims blue 2020 lines".
The article largely focused on false claims about the Odessa shooter who killed seven people, claiming that he had a Beto O'Rourke sticker on his vehicle and initially that he was a Democrat Socialist, followed by claims that he was a registered Democrat, all three of which are false.
The article focused on how quickly rumors like these spread, and how attempts to correct the false information don't gain the same traction.
The false claims fit into a framework that might warrant further exploration later, but for today's topic we are just going to go to the other article.
Why does so much news seem negative? Human attention may be to blame
by Amina Khan of the Los Angeles Times
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-09-05/why-people-respond-to-negative-news
This title was also changed, which may be something to think about when deciding if you are comfortable reading only headlines.
This article reports on a study from the University of Michigan that recruited 1156 people in 17 countries. The study's lead author was Stuart Soroka. I mention that because accepting information at face value is risky, as demonstrated by the first article. Even a compelling sample size with a clear trend can have variables and other factors, and the article gets into that.
For me, if a study sounds suspect to me, I will usually try and look at the source and methodology and sample size. Doing so often reinforces my skepticism. The problem is that if the conclusion sounds logical to me, I probably won't look it up. (Later I may wonder and have a hard time finding it, which is why I try and at least note sources now.)
Being more accepting of that which confirms your biases is nothing new; you can find lots of studies on that. However, if we are primed for the negative - which appears to be true - and false claims spread quickly - deliberately by a few and then enthusiastically by many - we get into a situation where it is easy to have a worldview that is both negative and wrong.
I am just finishing up a book on crime that talks about the misperceptions about the frequency, types, and targets of crimes versus the reality. Esther Madriz says this:
"Living with these images confuses the imagined with the real and creates a society in which most people live according to the imagined."
We cannot do that. If we believe that truth is the most precious gem, we can't go along believing falsehoods that encourage our biases about who is bad and good and smart and stupid.
So dig deeper, read more, ask questions often. Always stay close to the Spirit, remembering that the fruits of doing so are peace and love, not gloating and smugness.
It matters now and it is going to matter more.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Please don't do this - First Dance Kit
I intended to write about something different today, but then this crossed my timeline:
https://twitter.com/LatterDayLes/status/1177398242998390784/photo/1
This is unusual for me, but I am going to need to use some Caps Lock.
For convenience I will transcribe the offensive flyer. Then you won't have to see the questionable font choices (possibly six different ones used) or the highlighter framing points 2 and 4, which are the most sexist, but that's probably just a coincidence. But I think I will reproduce the italics and bold type. It might be petty of me.
My second least angry thought comes from Arthur Chu in the Twitter discussion, suggesting that while most dance attendees probably do brush their teeth regularly, the suggestion to do so before the dance (but after dinner) could be helpful. When I was taking ballroom dance in college, I always reapplied deodorant and had a breath mint before I went. It was probably not necessary, but I didn't want to make anybody's experience unpleasant. (And I danced with someone with bad breath once, which really reinforced it.)
Also - regarding the discussion - someone said this was from one ward thirty years ago, but I suspect that was speculation. I never got a handout like this, but the attitude sounds so much like things I hear people saying that I would not be at all surprised if someone handed this out last week. I want to take it in to my Sunday school class next time and make sure no one is trying this with them. It is horrifyingly plausible.
Now, back to the rest of suggestion number one... I don't love it, but that might be a personal thing because I don't wear makeup. Regardless, it seems to be emphasizing the importance of girls being attractive, and having to work at it. That would only irritate me a little bit if it were not immediately followed by the crap that is number 2.
QUIT MAKING YOUNG WOMEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THOUGHTS OF YOUNG MEN!
QUIT EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF ATTRACTIVENESS TO YOUNG WOMEN AND THEN WORRYING THEM WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT TEMPTING THE BOYS TOO MUCH!
I'd also like to take a moment to remind everyone that "modest" means not being stuck up or overly concerned with appearance. Turning it into a minefield between the equal failures of not being appealing and being too appealing (sexily!) is not helpful to anyone.
I worry about that more now because members have gotten much stupider about it than when I was a youth. Girls get shamed now for shorts that are just above the knee instead of just below, or sleeves that don't go past the elbow, and then don't see the hypocrisy in looking down on hijab and burqas.
I get even more worried about it because of number 3, which emphasizes the importance of availability and accessibility to boys over friendship. Way to kill the fun in a night out! This is for a first dance, so the girl is most likely 14 years old; can she be allowed to gradually transition from more interest in friends to more interest in boys? Because if they don't have enough interest in boys to be looking at the boys and quieting down when one approaches, discouraging the conversation may not help.
But 3 is even worse because of being followed by number 4, and this is where the completely fair accusation of rape culture comes in...
GIRLS ARE NOT A REWARD FOR BOYS!
Telling girls how much a guy deserves credit for paying them any attention - and how it's unfair to say "no" - sets those girls up to accept mistreatment and abuse. Telling them to ignore their instincts when alarm bells are going off - because he was so brave and thoughtful... I need to give you a giant "NO" here. It is that bad.
The other interesting thing from the discussion was that some former young women said this was a rule, and so they would ignore boys who asked instead of actually saying the word. I promise you, that is much worse. I don't recommend teaching anyone to be passive-aggressive, but that workaround is much worse than a simple "No, thank you."
YOU ARE ALWAYS ALLOWED TO SAY "NO"!
Yes, sometimes a young woman's lack of interest in dancing with a certain partner may relate to unkindness and snobbishness. You can teach the problems with that without eroding agency and consent.
Of course, it also makes me wonder if the young men are getting a card to remind them to also ask the homely girls to dance. If she put on lip gloss, she deserves to get asked. It's only for three minutes.
Believe me, I understand that young people are often thoughtless and rude; their minds and personalities are still developing. That is all the more reason that the things we tell them matter.
Many of the things we try to teach young women are sexist and stupid.
Please don't do that.
https://twitter.com/LatterDayLes/status/1177398242998390784/photo/1
This is unusual for me, but I am going to need to use some Caps Lock.
For convenience I will transcribe the offensive flyer. Then you won't have to see the questionable font choices (possibly six different ones used) or the highlighter framing points 2 and 4, which are the most sexist, but that's probably just a coincidence. But I think I will reproduce the italics and bold type. It might be petty of me.
First Dance Kit
- Get ready for the dance. Paint your nails, wear a little lip gloss and don't forget to brush your teeth!
- Don't forget what the approved dress standards are when choosing your outfit. You don't want the embarrassment of being asked to go home and change. And you don't want the guy dancing with you to feel uncomfortable because of the questionable outfit that you justified.
- Go with a friend but don't be joined at the hip. No guy is going to interrupt the highly intense conversation that you seem to be having with your girlfriend every time he walks by you.
- Never say "NO" to a guy who had the courage to walk over and ask you to dance in the first place. (a song lasts approximately 3 minutes, it's not THAT bad)
- Know your standards (For the Strength of the Youth)
- Don't forget your dance card!
Remember who you are and have fun!
My second least angry thought comes from Arthur Chu in the Twitter discussion, suggesting that while most dance attendees probably do brush their teeth regularly, the suggestion to do so before the dance (but after dinner) could be helpful. When I was taking ballroom dance in college, I always reapplied deodorant and had a breath mint before I went. It was probably not necessary, but I didn't want to make anybody's experience unpleasant. (And I danced with someone with bad breath once, which really reinforced it.)
Also - regarding the discussion - someone said this was from one ward thirty years ago, but I suspect that was speculation. I never got a handout like this, but the attitude sounds so much like things I hear people saying that I would not be at all surprised if someone handed this out last week. I want to take it in to my Sunday school class next time and make sure no one is trying this with them. It is horrifyingly plausible.
Now, back to the rest of suggestion number one... I don't love it, but that might be a personal thing because I don't wear makeup. Regardless, it seems to be emphasizing the importance of girls being attractive, and having to work at it. That would only irritate me a little bit if it were not immediately followed by the crap that is number 2.
QUIT MAKING YOUNG WOMEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THOUGHTS OF YOUNG MEN!
QUIT EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF ATTRACTIVENESS TO YOUNG WOMEN AND THEN WORRYING THEM WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT TEMPTING THE BOYS TOO MUCH!
I'd also like to take a moment to remind everyone that "modest" means not being stuck up or overly concerned with appearance. Turning it into a minefield between the equal failures of not being appealing and being too appealing (sexily!) is not helpful to anyone.
I worry about that more now because members have gotten much stupider about it than when I was a youth. Girls get shamed now for shorts that are just above the knee instead of just below, or sleeves that don't go past the elbow, and then don't see the hypocrisy in looking down on hijab and burqas.
I get even more worried about it because of number 3, which emphasizes the importance of availability and accessibility to boys over friendship. Way to kill the fun in a night out! This is for a first dance, so the girl is most likely 14 years old; can she be allowed to gradually transition from more interest in friends to more interest in boys? Because if they don't have enough interest in boys to be looking at the boys and quieting down when one approaches, discouraging the conversation may not help.
But 3 is even worse because of being followed by number 4, and this is where the completely fair accusation of rape culture comes in...
GIRLS ARE NOT A REWARD FOR BOYS!
Telling girls how much a guy deserves credit for paying them any attention - and how it's unfair to say "no" - sets those girls up to accept mistreatment and abuse. Telling them to ignore their instincts when alarm bells are going off - because he was so brave and thoughtful... I need to give you a giant "NO" here. It is that bad.
The other interesting thing from the discussion was that some former young women said this was a rule, and so they would ignore boys who asked instead of actually saying the word. I promise you, that is much worse. I don't recommend teaching anyone to be passive-aggressive, but that workaround is much worse than a simple "No, thank you."
YOU ARE ALWAYS ALLOWED TO SAY "NO"!
Yes, sometimes a young woman's lack of interest in dancing with a certain partner may relate to unkindness and snobbishness. You can teach the problems with that without eroding agency and consent.
Of course, it also makes me wonder if the young men are getting a card to remind them to also ask the homely girls to dance. If she put on lip gloss, she deserves to get asked. It's only for three minutes.
Believe me, I understand that young people are often thoughtless and rude; their minds and personalities are still developing. That is all the more reason that the things we tell them matter.
Many of the things we try to teach young women are sexist and stupid.
Please don't do that.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Principles for Being of Help
Chapter 5 of To Be an Anchor in the Storm (by Susan Brewster M.S.S.W.) had principles of good communication, but chapter 6 - To Act as an Anchor When She Comes to You - had another list. I want to go over that to finish with the book.
Principles for Being of Help
1. Believe her
2. Take her abuse seriously
3. Remain neutral, don't take sides
4. Respect her decisions; don't judge her
5. Honor her feelings
6. Don't give advice
7. Control yourself; not her
8. Show her your reality
9. Try to empathize with her while maintaining your objectivity
10. Be a good model; fulfill your own needs
11. Let her know how you can and cannot help
12. Suggest ways of helping her which don't have strings attached
This chapter has longer sections under the different headings so there may be more room for elucidation here, but I don't intend to tell the book.
Part of why I wanted to list the principles out is that there are similar guiding principles to those for communications. There may be a desire to swoop in and fix the problems. There can be a strong desire to tell her what is what because you are so sure of her delusions. Those things that can feel so right and so much easier end up being harmful. Helping someone requires respecting their perspectives and choices, even when you see - completely objectively - that they are wrong.
Remember, this book is about helping women in abusive relationships; that means she already has someone to berate her and dictate her choices. However, in addition to being more gentle and respectful with her, you are also kinder with yourself.
Look at principles 10 and 11; your needs matter too. Even with 8, you are honest about your own situation so you can let all the pride and strain go, simply accepting what you have and changing it if you need to.
Among many things that annoy me when I read philosophy, the biggest is how works focused on state-building (think Utopia or The Republic) can't handle individuality, as if all order will crumble if people like different things. There is room for our individual wants and needs, and we can uphold those while also respecting the wants and needs of others. That is how we help each others and ourselves.
It seems worthwhile to mention the centrality of agency in our Heavenly Father's plan. It wouldn't work without a Savior, but that happens through love, and not by force. If we take Christ as our example, that's how it has to be.
Principles for Being of Help
1. Believe her
2. Take her abuse seriously
3. Remain neutral, don't take sides
4. Respect her decisions; don't judge her
5. Honor her feelings
6. Don't give advice
7. Control yourself; not her
8. Show her your reality
9. Try to empathize with her while maintaining your objectivity
10. Be a good model; fulfill your own needs
11. Let her know how you can and cannot help
12. Suggest ways of helping her which don't have strings attached
This chapter has longer sections under the different headings so there may be more room for elucidation here, but I don't intend to tell the book.
Part of why I wanted to list the principles out is that there are similar guiding principles to those for communications. There may be a desire to swoop in and fix the problems. There can be a strong desire to tell her what is what because you are so sure of her delusions. Those things that can feel so right and so much easier end up being harmful. Helping someone requires respecting their perspectives and choices, even when you see - completely objectively - that they are wrong.
Remember, this book is about helping women in abusive relationships; that means she already has someone to berate her and dictate her choices. However, in addition to being more gentle and respectful with her, you are also kinder with yourself.
Look at principles 10 and 11; your needs matter too. Even with 8, you are honest about your own situation so you can let all the pride and strain go, simply accepting what you have and changing it if you need to.
Among many things that annoy me when I read philosophy, the biggest is how works focused on state-building (think Utopia or The Republic) can't handle individuality, as if all order will crumble if people like different things. There is room for our individual wants and needs, and we can uphold those while also respecting the wants and needs of others. That is how we help each others and ourselves.
It seems worthwhile to mention the centrality of agency in our Heavenly Father's plan. It wouldn't work without a Savior, but that happens through love, and not by force. If we take Christ as our example, that's how it has to be.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Principles of Good Communication
Today's post refers to Susan Brewster's book, To Be An Anchor in the Storm: A Guide for Families and Friends of Abused Women.
In Chapter 5: To Act as an Anchor Before She Asks For Help, Brewster gives a list of eight principles, starting on page 112:
Principles of Good Communication
1. Use open body language
2. Be honest with her and yourself
3. Open ears, shut mouth
4. Ask her to clarify what you don't understand
5. Be a mirror
6. Speak only for yourself
7. Share your "secrets" with her
8. Ask open-ended questions
Obviously there was information under each principle.
It could certainly be worthwhile to read the book, but also I know that many of these principles will sound familiar, whether from missionary training or active listening practice in parenting classes. I think I remember learning about "I statements" (part of speaking only for yourself) in health class in 10th grade. I definitely saw a reference to open body language on The Big Bang Theory.
So, it may not be that helpful to go over the different principles.
What sticks out most clearly to me is that it takes humility. You can't assume that you have the answers, or even that it is your job to solve the problem. You can be a listening ear and someone who cares. For someone in an abusive relationship, there very well may be other needs than listening, but for everyone - even people in good relationships - there are probably ways in which it would be very helpful to have someone listen, and let them get these feelings out.
Humility will not cause you to do all of these things automatically, but asking for clarification, listening, speaking only for yourself instead of invoking "everybody"... those are all things that pride will make harder.
Pride can especially make it hard to share your own vulnerabilities and insecurities, but it can be necessary to help others. It can also be necessary for our own growth. It is possible to start trying to change with one particular person in mind, but then find that you are transformed, and that your relationships with other people are transformed.
There is a lot of good that can happen.
The biggest change may be that your conversations consist of more listening, less thinking about what to say next. That can be a great thing.
And, there are limitations too.
In the case of an abusive relationship, Brewster stresses both that you may decide that you cannot fill the anchor role - which can be valid - and also that there may be situations that call for professional psychiatric help. For example, maybe you can help someone decide that she is ready to leave, but to get at why she ended up in that situation in the first place might take counseling.
Realizing that you can't do what someone needs does not mean that you can't be any help to them. Maybe you can help them find a counselor. Maybe you can just affirm that their needs are valid. There are a lot of different ways that things can turn out.
Recently we were studying 1 Corinthians, and it was the first time that I noticed that the chapter on charity comes right after the one on spiritual gifts. Your gifts are only as useful as your desire to help; without that they can even be destructive. With love there can be many qualities and abilities available for help.
I don't want to give a false impression that this is easy, but there should also be hope that it is possible. If the starting place is listening, that's not so bad.
In Chapter 5: To Act as an Anchor Before She Asks For Help, Brewster gives a list of eight principles, starting on page 112:
Principles of Good Communication
1. Use open body language
2. Be honest with her and yourself
3. Open ears, shut mouth
4. Ask her to clarify what you don't understand
5. Be a mirror
6. Speak only for yourself
7. Share your "secrets" with her
8. Ask open-ended questions
Obviously there was information under each principle.
It could certainly be worthwhile to read the book, but also I know that many of these principles will sound familiar, whether from missionary training or active listening practice in parenting classes. I think I remember learning about "I statements" (part of speaking only for yourself) in health class in 10th grade. I definitely saw a reference to open body language on The Big Bang Theory.
So, it may not be that helpful to go over the different principles.
What sticks out most clearly to me is that it takes humility. You can't assume that you have the answers, or even that it is your job to solve the problem. You can be a listening ear and someone who cares. For someone in an abusive relationship, there very well may be other needs than listening, but for everyone - even people in good relationships - there are probably ways in which it would be very helpful to have someone listen, and let them get these feelings out.
Humility will not cause you to do all of these things automatically, but asking for clarification, listening, speaking only for yourself instead of invoking "everybody"... those are all things that pride will make harder.
Pride can especially make it hard to share your own vulnerabilities and insecurities, but it can be necessary to help others. It can also be necessary for our own growth. It is possible to start trying to change with one particular person in mind, but then find that you are transformed, and that your relationships with other people are transformed.
There is a lot of good that can happen.
The biggest change may be that your conversations consist of more listening, less thinking about what to say next. That can be a great thing.
And, there are limitations too.
In the case of an abusive relationship, Brewster stresses both that you may decide that you cannot fill the anchor role - which can be valid - and also that there may be situations that call for professional psychiatric help. For example, maybe you can help someone decide that she is ready to leave, but to get at why she ended up in that situation in the first place might take counseling.
Realizing that you can't do what someone needs does not mean that you can't be any help to them. Maybe you can help them find a counselor. Maybe you can just affirm that their needs are valid. There are a lot of different ways that things can turn out.
Recently we were studying 1 Corinthians, and it was the first time that I noticed that the chapter on charity comes right after the one on spiritual gifts. Your gifts are only as useful as your desire to help; without that they can even be destructive. With love there can be many qualities and abilities available for help.
I don't want to give a false impression that this is easy, but there should also be hope that it is possible. If the starting place is listening, that's not so bad.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Reasons we don't listen
Building on last week, there are a few examples of conversations we try and avoid or prevent. This is to our detriment.
One of the other books read recently was Healing Through the Dark Emotions: the Wisdom of Grief, Fear, and Despair by Miriam Greenspan.
I did not particularly like it, though I agree with many of her basic points. The part that struck me the hardest was an account of her parents and other Holocaust survivors not being able to talk about their experiences. This does not mean not being able to find the words or open their mouths, but their experiences being rejected.
One example was a man who talked about having to lie in his own feces. The psychiatrist who was listening said he had an anal fixation.
One result of Nazis spreading over Europe was that a lot of psychiatrists - many Jewish but not exclusively - came to the United States, and there were many Freudians. That we got them all at a time when people with war trauma and genocide trauma were also coming, and when society was trying to push women who has experienced greater freedom and independence back into tiny boxes... well that was pretty unfortunate, and those effects carried on for years.
(That's not really the point of this post; it just bugs me.)
So, one thing that might prevent us from listening is thinking we know more than the person about their own experience. A developing field of academics that still has a lot to learn could lead to that. Sometimes something is so far out of our experience that we can't grasp it, but that doesn't mean no one has had the experience. It is also common that differing levels of privilege could give one an unacknowledged sense of authority, where interpreting and deciding feels like a right, though it isn't.
It is not even impossible that you actually will know more. Caring for my mother who has dementia, she says things that are wrong a lot. Trying to shut her down and correct her is not helpful. Listening still can be. It may be that behind the false thing is a true thing; it may just be that she needs reassurance. You may be an expert on a relevant topic, but you are still not an expert on that person and their experience.
It is really just better to listen.
Now for a much less high-brow example: soap character Thomas from The Bold and the Beautiful recently fell off a cliff. When it was uncertain whether he would live or even wake up, his father Ridge kept fearing the worst while Ridge's wife Brooke was telling him he couldn't think like that.
We give a lot of credit to positive thinking, but a lot of the books that promote it are pretty hokey, and a lot of the people who swear by it are pretty grumpy. Wouldn't you be if you kept swearing that success was in your hands but you never actually got a firm grasp on it?
In fact, in life terrible things frequently happen - not always for a clear cause and quite often unfair (though Thomas deserved to go off that cliff!) - and refusing to acknowledge the thing you fear most is not a magic incantation that prevents it from happening.
If you go over the actual feared circumstances, there are usually possible solutions. Maybe they are not the ideal, but they are still things that can be done. It can be empowering to have a plan.
Recently I wrote out several negative emotions, but the longest list was fear. Putting them out there I realized that some of the fears were needless. Some things that I was afraid of have moved on to things I am sad about; I could not stop them from happening, but I have survived them. Some fears will be good to think about more, because preparation may be possible. All of that is only possible by facing fear; shutting it down also shuts down comfort and reassurance.
Often we may shut down someone due to our own discomfort.
I hope that the earlier part of this post has resolved one concern: that of not knowing what to say. Allowing them to talk is more important than what you say, and I think we are going to have a couple of posts on listening skills to help with that.
I also hope that a link can be seen, that as you become more comfortable facing your own issues, you will be better able to listen to others. That discomfort may come from a personal insecurity, but it is probably an insecurity that you don't need.
But the final point I want to make on that is that if you can see the feelings of other people as valid, you should be able to see your own feelings as valid too. This means that you may not feel like you can handle being the person who listens in this case, and that's okay.
If that's the way it needs to go, stick with kindness and honesty. Don't try downplaying their fears and concerns, sending a message that they are unimportant. Even when you cannot help, you can avoid causing further harm.
That has value too.
One of the other books read recently was Healing Through the Dark Emotions: the Wisdom of Grief, Fear, and Despair by Miriam Greenspan.
I did not particularly like it, though I agree with many of her basic points. The part that struck me the hardest was an account of her parents and other Holocaust survivors not being able to talk about their experiences. This does not mean not being able to find the words or open their mouths, but their experiences being rejected.
One example was a man who talked about having to lie in his own feces. The psychiatrist who was listening said he had an anal fixation.
One result of Nazis spreading over Europe was that a lot of psychiatrists - many Jewish but not exclusively - came to the United States, and there were many Freudians. That we got them all at a time when people with war trauma and genocide trauma were also coming, and when society was trying to push women who has experienced greater freedom and independence back into tiny boxes... well that was pretty unfortunate, and those effects carried on for years.
(That's not really the point of this post; it just bugs me.)
So, one thing that might prevent us from listening is thinking we know more than the person about their own experience. A developing field of academics that still has a lot to learn could lead to that. Sometimes something is so far out of our experience that we can't grasp it, but that doesn't mean no one has had the experience. It is also common that differing levels of privilege could give one an unacknowledged sense of authority, where interpreting and deciding feels like a right, though it isn't.
It is not even impossible that you actually will know more. Caring for my mother who has dementia, she says things that are wrong a lot. Trying to shut her down and correct her is not helpful. Listening still can be. It may be that behind the false thing is a true thing; it may just be that she needs reassurance. You may be an expert on a relevant topic, but you are still not an expert on that person and their experience.
It is really just better to listen.
Now for a much less high-brow example: soap character Thomas from The Bold and the Beautiful recently fell off a cliff. When it was uncertain whether he would live or even wake up, his father Ridge kept fearing the worst while Ridge's wife Brooke was telling him he couldn't think like that.
We give a lot of credit to positive thinking, but a lot of the books that promote it are pretty hokey, and a lot of the people who swear by it are pretty grumpy. Wouldn't you be if you kept swearing that success was in your hands but you never actually got a firm grasp on it?
In fact, in life terrible things frequently happen - not always for a clear cause and quite often unfair (though Thomas deserved to go off that cliff!) - and refusing to acknowledge the thing you fear most is not a magic incantation that prevents it from happening.
If you go over the actual feared circumstances, there are usually possible solutions. Maybe they are not the ideal, but they are still things that can be done. It can be empowering to have a plan.
- If Thomas dies, we will raise his son.
- If this doctor can't help him, we will bring in a specialist.
- If he has paralysis, we will modify the house to make it accessible, and we will support him.
Recently I wrote out several negative emotions, but the longest list was fear. Putting them out there I realized that some of the fears were needless. Some things that I was afraid of have moved on to things I am sad about; I could not stop them from happening, but I have survived them. Some fears will be good to think about more, because preparation may be possible. All of that is only possible by facing fear; shutting it down also shuts down comfort and reassurance.
Often we may shut down someone due to our own discomfort.
I hope that the earlier part of this post has resolved one concern: that of not knowing what to say. Allowing them to talk is more important than what you say, and I think we are going to have a couple of posts on listening skills to help with that.
I also hope that a link can be seen, that as you become more comfortable facing your own issues, you will be better able to listen to others. That discomfort may come from a personal insecurity, but it is probably an insecurity that you don't need.
But the final point I want to make on that is that if you can see the feelings of other people as valid, you should be able to see your own feelings as valid too. This means that you may not feel like you can handle being the person who listens in this case, and that's okay.
If that's the way it needs to go, stick with kindness and honesty. Don't try downplaying their fears and concerns, sending a message that they are unimportant. Even when you cannot help, you can avoid causing further harm.
That has value too.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
Healing by listening
On the main blog I regularly mention different reading lists I am working through. I have several going on now.
One of them is focused on death and grief and healing, which are obviously not all the same thing, but they do relate to each other. There is another on gendered violence and sexism. Those two lists collided recently. I guess it started with On Death and Dying, Elizabeth Kübler-Ross's exploration of end of life issues.
You are probably familiar with the five stages of grief, which has been greatly oversimplified, at least from what is in that book. It is not so much about a linear progression, but that there are common reactions to terminal illness, and they need to be resolved to get to acceptance for a peaceful end of life.
Kübler-Ross had medical students listen to a series of interviews with patients and sometimes their families. The most interesting thing to me was how often a patient or a doctor would think that the interview would have to be short, and then the interview would significantly exceed the projected time. The patients frequently felt better than expected, and wanted to keep talking. I thought it showed a real hunger to be heard.
Some people could not deal with their own death because they had unresolved grief from earlier events and were still stuck there in the past. One man thought his wife looked down on him because of his not being a high earner. Her own words indicated that too, until it was mirrored back to her and she got protective about him, lauding his honesty and kindness. Whatever time they had left, it could be better because of a new perspective they had both been given.
Not long after finishing On Death and Dying, I read To Be an Anchor in the Storm: A Guide for Families and Friends of Abused Women by Susan Brewster. (That was from the gendered violence reading.)
Brewster uses the anchor analogy because it is important that the anchor doesn't chase or try to steer the ship. The anchor is solid, and maintains a line of connection, but the person being abused needs to be in control of her own actions. The abuser has undermined confidence in her ability to choose and succeed, and the well-intentioned rescuer is recreating that dynamic. While that might succeed in getting her away temporarily, she will often go back, whereas when she can make the decision and the plan herself, then she can have the ability to make a lasting change.
It is natural to want to solve a problem that has been set before you, but if the need is being heard and you start talking, you are not solving. It is also common to try downplaying and minimizing things. We may think we are doing it to comfort the person, but it might be more a way of relieving one's own discomfort.
I had this post at twice the length and was still going, so I realize this needs to be multiple posts. The first point, then, is that we can help each other by listening to each other. Simple enough, seemingly, but often failing. The next post will be about listening better.
One of them is focused on death and grief and healing, which are obviously not all the same thing, but they do relate to each other. There is another on gendered violence and sexism. Those two lists collided recently. I guess it started with On Death and Dying, Elizabeth Kübler-Ross's exploration of end of life issues.
You are probably familiar with the five stages of grief, which has been greatly oversimplified, at least from what is in that book. It is not so much about a linear progression, but that there are common reactions to terminal illness, and they need to be resolved to get to acceptance for a peaceful end of life.
Kübler-Ross had medical students listen to a series of interviews with patients and sometimes their families. The most interesting thing to me was how often a patient or a doctor would think that the interview would have to be short, and then the interview would significantly exceed the projected time. The patients frequently felt better than expected, and wanted to keep talking. I thought it showed a real hunger to be heard.
Some people could not deal with their own death because they had unresolved grief from earlier events and were still stuck there in the past. One man thought his wife looked down on him because of his not being a high earner. Her own words indicated that too, until it was mirrored back to her and she got protective about him, lauding his honesty and kindness. Whatever time they had left, it could be better because of a new perspective they had both been given.
Not long after finishing On Death and Dying, I read To Be an Anchor in the Storm: A Guide for Families and Friends of Abused Women by Susan Brewster. (That was from the gendered violence reading.)
Brewster uses the anchor analogy because it is important that the anchor doesn't chase or try to steer the ship. The anchor is solid, and maintains a line of connection, but the person being abused needs to be in control of her own actions. The abuser has undermined confidence in her ability to choose and succeed, and the well-intentioned rescuer is recreating that dynamic. While that might succeed in getting her away temporarily, she will often go back, whereas when she can make the decision and the plan herself, then she can have the ability to make a lasting change.
It is natural to want to solve a problem that has been set before you, but if the need is being heard and you start talking, you are not solving. It is also common to try downplaying and minimizing things. We may think we are doing it to comfort the person, but it might be more a way of relieving one's own discomfort.
I had this post at twice the length and was still going, so I realize this needs to be multiple posts. The first point, then, is that we can help each other by listening to each other. Simple enough, seemingly, but often failing. The next post will be about listening better.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Protecting your knees from bees
Friday we had someone take out a nest of 200-300 yellow jackets. I talked with the pest control person a bit and am going to share some information.
First of all, here is the web site: https://www.beecontrolnw.com
There are several bee services in the area. We tried a different one first, but they were slow to respond. So one big vote in favor of Bee Control NW is their responsiveness.
I nearly referred to him as an exterminator, but that is not always the case. If you have a hive of honey bees in your backyard they may do a relocation. If solitary bees are in your house, you might wait a few weeks, break up the homes and then caulk up the holes to prevent return. We want to be careful with our pollinators.
They kill yellow jackets, though. We're okay with that.
In our case, they had moved in under an old stump, and were discovered when the lawn was being mowed. They are often discovered during yard work, sometimes in horrible ways, like maybe you are doing some watering and you don't know that you are standing on top of them until you make a wrong move and get stung twenty times in the knee! (Hence the title, but horrible. How do you even move your knee after that?)
The point of this post is largely to encourage you to take a careful look around and see if there are any nests in your yard, rather than finding out the hard way.
Here is a helpful brief video from the University of California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3wmu1KGBc
Yes, we did see yellow jackets flying around the stump, so activity is a good indicator. I don't think I ever saw more than 10 at a time, so knowing that there were hundreds and that they were breeding rapidly was a little unsettling. None of them stung me, so I feel a little bit bad about killing them, but I don't think their non-aggression would have lasted, and I was worried about the dog and the people with bee phobias. Don't judge me!
Anyway, it starts with a queen finding a hole and laying eggs. Bill (Bee Control NW owner) said the queen won't chew her way in. Chewing may very well happen once she has a horde of yellow jackets serving her, but it starts with that hole. Maybe it will be in a wall, obscured by ivy, or behind a light fixture, or under an eave that could use replacing. Just be aware.
This is not only helpful for identifying where you could have nests now, but also can be helpful in preventing new nests. Depending on the type of hole it can be caulked or filled in with dirt or removed or you can put in a cotton ball soaked with Avon Skin So Soft, because they don't like that odor.
Apparently last year was great weather for proliferation and many new queens were hatched. The weather this year led to a late start, which is why we had less than 300 instead of over 1000. Even if the extermination process is the same regardless of the number, not letting them get to thousands still seems prudent.
It is also good to know that nice weather makes it easier for queens to tolerate each other, so you may have more nests in the same area. If you have a nest, you might want to give your neighbors a heads up.
One interesting part of the web page is information on the different types of bees and what can be done with them. I have taken out a paper wasp nest on my own; we needed a professional for this. There are some DIY possibilities mentioned in the video. Use caution and good sense.
For us, it is a relief to have it gone.
First of all, here is the web site: https://www.beecontrolnw.com
There are several bee services in the area. We tried a different one first, but they were slow to respond. So one big vote in favor of Bee Control NW is their responsiveness.
I nearly referred to him as an exterminator, but that is not always the case. If you have a hive of honey bees in your backyard they may do a relocation. If solitary bees are in your house, you might wait a few weeks, break up the homes and then caulk up the holes to prevent return. We want to be careful with our pollinators.
They kill yellow jackets, though. We're okay with that.
In our case, they had moved in under an old stump, and were discovered when the lawn was being mowed. They are often discovered during yard work, sometimes in horrible ways, like maybe you are doing some watering and you don't know that you are standing on top of them until you make a wrong move and get stung twenty times in the knee! (Hence the title, but horrible. How do you even move your knee after that?)
The point of this post is largely to encourage you to take a careful look around and see if there are any nests in your yard, rather than finding out the hard way.
Here is a helpful brief video from the University of California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY3wmu1KGBc
Yes, we did see yellow jackets flying around the stump, so activity is a good indicator. I don't think I ever saw more than 10 at a time, so knowing that there were hundreds and that they were breeding rapidly was a little unsettling. None of them stung me, so I feel a little bit bad about killing them, but I don't think their non-aggression would have lasted, and I was worried about the dog and the people with bee phobias. Don't judge me!
Anyway, it starts with a queen finding a hole and laying eggs. Bill (Bee Control NW owner) said the queen won't chew her way in. Chewing may very well happen once she has a horde of yellow jackets serving her, but it starts with that hole. Maybe it will be in a wall, obscured by ivy, or behind a light fixture, or under an eave that could use replacing. Just be aware.
This is not only helpful for identifying where you could have nests now, but also can be helpful in preventing new nests. Depending on the type of hole it can be caulked or filled in with dirt or removed or you can put in a cotton ball soaked with Avon Skin So Soft, because they don't like that odor.
Apparently last year was great weather for proliferation and many new queens were hatched. The weather this year led to a late start, which is why we had less than 300 instead of over 1000. Even if the extermination process is the same regardless of the number, not letting them get to thousands still seems prudent.
It is also good to know that nice weather makes it easier for queens to tolerate each other, so you may have more nests in the same area. If you have a nest, you might want to give your neighbors a heads up.
One interesting part of the web page is information on the different types of bees and what can be done with them. I have taken out a paper wasp nest on my own; we needed a professional for this. There are some DIY possibilities mentioned in the video. Use caution and good sense.
For us, it is a relief to have it gone.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Non-emergency preparation for the Second Coming
Some of you may be noticing news stories that make you feel like we are getting closer to Christ's return, though that in itself has been going on for a while.
It is possible this is making you nervous, and that's understandable. I'm more in the space where that seems like the only possible solution for many of my present concerns. Even so, I am not actively praying for it because that feels presumptuous. I don't control the timeline, and I don't have the kind of wisdom needed for that.
This isn't so much about being scared or hopeful, but there are some people who seem to get downright gleeful when terrible things happen, taking it as a sign of apocalyptic approach.
I won't even criticize the glee, exactly, though there are certainly ways to do it wrong. What I am sure about is that you should not be doing terrible things to accelerate the timeline.
For example, you might have people in the executive branch who are destabilizing the Middle East, in an effort to bring about Biblical prophecy, where it seems to be a matter of religious conviction. I feel very comfortable condemning this.
Let's say that some of our country's actions contribute to greater production of nuclear waste, greater threat of nuclear attacks, and deaths of civilians by starvation and violence. Yes, it may go along with the circumstances that eventually lead to Israel being surrounded by many other armies and staying under siege until two men who have been holding off the enemy are killed, and then IT happens - I get it - but there are several important problems with that.
First of all, there is all of that human suffering along the way. Yes, that happens, but that is never a reason to be causing it to happen. I think a relevant scripture here is Luke 17: 1-2
Secondly, there's that presumption issue again; do you really think the Lord needs you to create havoc to give Him permission to return? That almost seems like the thought of someone who completely misses the point of Christ's teachings (and hold on to that thought).
Finally, you know, a lot of the Bible is metaphorical. Not all of it is, but we don't always know. There are a lot of scriptures that we won't fully understand until after the fact.
This is what I take from the book of Revelation: bad things will happen, but God is in charge, and good will eventually win. It is comfort, but not more important comfort than the personal relationship that comes with prayer and study.
If I take an additional message from it, it is that I want to be on the side of good. That's logical. Everything in the gospels tells me that this is about serving others, kindness, forgiveness. Yes, other people get other things from the scriptures - I remember James Watt (under Reagan) not worrying about the environment because everything was going to burn up. Well, it is; but that doesn't make pollution right. One way my comfort works is that I believe this will all be healed; it does not make me want to be the source of injury.
So if we were going to look for appropriate methods of preparing for the Second Coming - beyond collecting your emergency supplies - what would we do?
Repentance seems like a good one. How am I wrong? How can I fix that? What can I do better? Have I hurt anyone? These are good questions to ask yourself. The answers will generally relate to kindness and having greater love for people, including those you might deem enemies. (Which I strongly believe relates more to protecting people who are threatened by others rather than coddling the people who like giving the threats.)
Missionary work seems like a good one, though I worry about many people's ability to share the gospel without making it repellent to others. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. That is just something to think about.
I think the most relevant scripture for pre-Millennial preparation might be Moses 7:18...
It's weird how Jesus spent so much time condemning the wealthy and how little that seems to come up in modern Christian conversation. That might be a reason to refer back to the Book.
It is possible this is making you nervous, and that's understandable. I'm more in the space where that seems like the only possible solution for many of my present concerns. Even so, I am not actively praying for it because that feels presumptuous. I don't control the timeline, and I don't have the kind of wisdom needed for that.
This isn't so much about being scared or hopeful, but there are some people who seem to get downright gleeful when terrible things happen, taking it as a sign of apocalyptic approach.
I won't even criticize the glee, exactly, though there are certainly ways to do it wrong. What I am sure about is that you should not be doing terrible things to accelerate the timeline.
For example, you might have people in the executive branch who are destabilizing the Middle East, in an effort to bring about Biblical prophecy, where it seems to be a matter of religious conviction. I feel very comfortable condemning this.
Let's say that some of our country's actions contribute to greater production of nuclear waste, greater threat of nuclear attacks, and deaths of civilians by starvation and violence. Yes, it may go along with the circumstances that eventually lead to Israel being surrounded by many other armies and staying under siege until two men who have been holding off the enemy are killed, and then IT happens - I get it - but there are several important problems with that.
First of all, there is all of that human suffering along the way. Yes, that happens, but that is never a reason to be causing it to happen. I think a relevant scripture here is Luke 17: 1-2
Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!That almost sounds like it could relate to our immigration policy too, don't you think?
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Secondly, there's that presumption issue again; do you really think the Lord needs you to create havoc to give Him permission to return? That almost seems like the thought of someone who completely misses the point of Christ's teachings (and hold on to that thought).
Finally, you know, a lot of the Bible is metaphorical. Not all of it is, but we don't always know. There are a lot of scriptures that we won't fully understand until after the fact.
This is what I take from the book of Revelation: bad things will happen, but God is in charge, and good will eventually win. It is comfort, but not more important comfort than the personal relationship that comes with prayer and study.
If I take an additional message from it, it is that I want to be on the side of good. That's logical. Everything in the gospels tells me that this is about serving others, kindness, forgiveness. Yes, other people get other things from the scriptures - I remember James Watt (under Reagan) not worrying about the environment because everything was going to burn up. Well, it is; but that doesn't make pollution right. One way my comfort works is that I believe this will all be healed; it does not make me want to be the source of injury.
So if we were going to look for appropriate methods of preparing for the Second Coming - beyond collecting your emergency supplies - what would we do?
Repentance seems like a good one. How am I wrong? How can I fix that? What can I do better? Have I hurt anyone? These are good questions to ask yourself. The answers will generally relate to kindness and having greater love for people, including those you might deem enemies. (Which I strongly believe relates more to protecting people who are threatened by others rather than coddling the people who like giving the threats.)
Missionary work seems like a good one, though I worry about many people's ability to share the gospel without making it repellent to others. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. That is just something to think about.
I think the most relevant scripture for pre-Millennial preparation might be Moses 7:18...
And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.You can't be of one heart with everyone in the world right now, but you can try and make your heart more like Christ's, and that will work. We can work more toward a world where there are no poor by not allowing the exploitation of labor or making necessities like food, shelter, and medical care unobtainable for people. If you can root the greed out of your heart, and the bigotry that supports the greed of the top economic tiers, that is the kind of work that will have you ready for the Millennium.
It's weird how Jesus spent so much time condemning the wealthy and how little that seems to come up in modern Christian conversation. That might be a reason to refer back to the Book.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Confirmation
I am not ready to resume the series, but I keep thinking of other things that might make good posts. I especially keep thinking of something that happened Saturday that clearly I need to write about.
If my blogging ends up being more disjointed than I like now, it is only reflective of my life. I nearly said "random", but that wouldn't be quite right.
Last week was really hard, and I needed to get out of the house Saturday. I did not have a clear plan for it, which can really make getting out harder, even just getting started. That was a partly due to constantly remembering other things to do (The laundry! The dog!), but a bigger problem was feeling really indecisive on what to do.
My only clear objectives were that I needed to have some time away and that I wanted to eat Chinese food. That gave me a lot of possibilities, but none of them felt quite right for various reasons.
The idea I kept rejecting was to go to Lloyd Center and eat at the food court there. In terms of quality, convenience, and novelty, it was really the least interesting option, though it was not terrible on price. Everything that seemed like it should have been better had other objections though. Finally after false starts and missing at least one bus that either seemed early or the next one was late, that was where I ended up.
At the precise moment that I was getting to the entrance, a man came out carrying a small bag of cans and started looking in the garbage can by the entrance. I thought I should give him something, but hesitated and he disappeared into the parking garage. Then I was quite sure I should help him. He had only gone in search of the next can, and I found him and gave him $5.
He said, "Thank you. I can eat tonight."
I am pretty sure that meant that he had not eaten the previous night.
I stayed in front of the entrance for a while, thinking about the odds of my encountering him. Even on the train I had been thinking about which stop to use. Before some of the more recent construction, we always got off at 7th and entered by the Stanford's, but I had specifically decided to cut through the park on my way in, and then catch the train at 7th on my way back.
It left me with the question of whether all of the indecision and delays and reminders was all so that he could eat that night.
I am quite sure that my other possible destinations all had the potential to help someone. I also know that there had to be hundreds of people at the mall, some of whom surely could have spared a little cash or bought a meal or something.
I was trying to figure that out, and the first thought was that perhaps the point is not so much how and why I ended up there but what I did when there. That could be reassuring, but I have been in a questioning state of mind lately (you should see my journal; so many question marks) and I kept pushing.
There was guidance beyond getting there, even if it was just to give him the money. That is important to me because I have been worrying pretty regularly about whether I am doing the right things or missing things.
Even accepting that I am getting guidance on the small things, what about the big things? The things that really worry me? Then it kind of felt like maybe the guidance comes from the same place, regardless of the size of the issue, followed by the eye-rolling book title Don't sweat the small stuff (and it's all small stuff).
The last time I got a blessing it specifically referenced 1 Nephi 3, and being led without knowing beforehand what you will do. Since I had been specifically praying about the not knowing, it was not exactly the reassurance that I wanted, but probably what I needed, or what I can have at this time.
I have thought about that a lot since then. Part of that path for Nephi included killing a guy - probably not in my future, but I don't know - and that uncertainty remains frustrating. I had realized some time ago that often when you think you know what is coming, you are wrong, but there is still some comfort in having an idea.
The only answer I really have is to continue to listen, and stay close. It's not everything that I hoped for, but it has the room to contain my hopes in it.
If my blogging ends up being more disjointed than I like now, it is only reflective of my life. I nearly said "random", but that wouldn't be quite right.
Last week was really hard, and I needed to get out of the house Saturday. I did not have a clear plan for it, which can really make getting out harder, even just getting started. That was a partly due to constantly remembering other things to do (The laundry! The dog!), but a bigger problem was feeling really indecisive on what to do.
My only clear objectives were that I needed to have some time away and that I wanted to eat Chinese food. That gave me a lot of possibilities, but none of them felt quite right for various reasons.
The idea I kept rejecting was to go to Lloyd Center and eat at the food court there. In terms of quality, convenience, and novelty, it was really the least interesting option, though it was not terrible on price. Everything that seemed like it should have been better had other objections though. Finally after false starts and missing at least one bus that either seemed early or the next one was late, that was where I ended up.
At the precise moment that I was getting to the entrance, a man came out carrying a small bag of cans and started looking in the garbage can by the entrance. I thought I should give him something, but hesitated and he disappeared into the parking garage. Then I was quite sure I should help him. He had only gone in search of the next can, and I found him and gave him $5.
He said, "Thank you. I can eat tonight."
I am pretty sure that meant that he had not eaten the previous night.
I stayed in front of the entrance for a while, thinking about the odds of my encountering him. Even on the train I had been thinking about which stop to use. Before some of the more recent construction, we always got off at 7th and entered by the Stanford's, but I had specifically decided to cut through the park on my way in, and then catch the train at 7th on my way back.
It left me with the question of whether all of the indecision and delays and reminders was all so that he could eat that night.
I am quite sure that my other possible destinations all had the potential to help someone. I also know that there had to be hundreds of people at the mall, some of whom surely could have spared a little cash or bought a meal or something.
I was trying to figure that out, and the first thought was that perhaps the point is not so much how and why I ended up there but what I did when there. That could be reassuring, but I have been in a questioning state of mind lately (you should see my journal; so many question marks) and I kept pushing.
There was guidance beyond getting there, even if it was just to give him the money. That is important to me because I have been worrying pretty regularly about whether I am doing the right things or missing things.
Even accepting that I am getting guidance on the small things, what about the big things? The things that really worry me? Then it kind of felt like maybe the guidance comes from the same place, regardless of the size of the issue, followed by the eye-rolling book title Don't sweat the small stuff (and it's all small stuff).
The last time I got a blessing it specifically referenced 1 Nephi 3, and being led without knowing beforehand what you will do. Since I had been specifically praying about the not knowing, it was not exactly the reassurance that I wanted, but probably what I needed, or what I can have at this time.
I have thought about that a lot since then. Part of that path for Nephi included killing a guy - probably not in my future, but I don't know - and that uncertainty remains frustrating. I had realized some time ago that often when you think you know what is coming, you are wrong, but there is still some comfort in having an idea.
The only answer I really have is to continue to listen, and stay close. It's not everything that I hoped for, but it has the room to contain my hopes in it.
Monday, March 11, 2019
Willing to learn
I am currently in the middle of reading a lot of appalling things, where I worry about not absorbing enough. I needed to start a new document for notes.
There is some concern about writing some things too soon. That's not why I didn't write last week; that was just too much else to do. (Things have been less overwhelming this week, for now.)
My real worry - so there is a spoiler alert now - is that no matter how much of a foundation I lay for it, and as much as I write about the harm that patriarchy causes to women and people of color, that when I write that it harms white men by making them mediocre it will result in a big WHAT? FORGET YOU! and all other points will be for naught, despite their importance.
I am making my peace with that anyway, but it is a shame to not be able to move past things like this. Something I read recently gave me a way of approaching it.
One of the books I am reading is Backlash by Susan Faludi. Early on she recounts several points that could be considered to be failures of feminism and women's rights, coming out mostly in the '80s, so not long after the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, Roe v. Wade, and other things that would have people talking about feminism. I remember hearing many of these things then, and some of then being trotted out again in the '90s.
I am going to focus on the one about college educated, unwed women and the precipitous drop in their marriageability, most dramatically stated as "A woman over 40 has a better chance of getting killed by a terrorist than of getting married."
That particular phrasing misrepresents the chances of getting killed by a terrorist and ignores that the original study was specifically about university-educated women, but still had some pretty good legs on it, showing up in movies like Sleepless in Seattle and The Holiday, and frequently being referenced by depressed singles, though I admit to not having heard it lately.
What was fascinating in the book - and Backlash was published in 1991, so this knowledge has been out there for a while - was that the original study was wrong and they knew it was wrong.
Jeanne Moorman, a census bureau worker who found flaws with the original data tried to work with the study publishers and did not meet with much interest. The actual data showed that education does tend to delay marriage. Therefore, women who only complete high school tend to marry shortly after high school, but women who go to college tend to marry after that.
The first thing that makes me wonder is whether that means marriage is bad for education. Would those women who married after high school have been interested in further education but found it impossible? We all know people who have combined marriage with formal schooling, so it can be done, but what works best? What helps?
Those are questions you can get to if you are open to the truth.
This is what Jeanne Moorman got from her bosses - not the scientists who refused to let accurate data spoil their conclusion, but her bosses:
Let's say that you are religious and that you know marriage is good, ordained of God. It could be possible to feel threatened by data that seems to argue against that. However, is the data arguing against that, or against some patterns in the way we do marriage?
The other introductory studies were about how divorce was economically devastating for women after women's lib (without bothering to compare to divorce before), an infertility epidemic affecting professional women, and a great emotional burnout affecting single and working women. In some cases they didn't even involve wrong data so much as assumption.
If you think marriage involves a man providing and a woman staying home with children, finding that professional women can be happy and fulfilled and can still get pregnant might be an existential threat. What if instead it's just the wrong idea about what makes marriage work and what marriage needs?
If you are committed to defending your idea, you stay wrong. That's all the worse if marriage is important. We could be doing it perpetually wrong because we are so willing to lie about it, and that leads to great harm and stagnation.
So a really big step forward is being able to resist your leap to defensiveness and learn. If you are willing to do that, everything else needed can follow.
It's not just about being able to bear discomfort, though that relates. This is about having a willingness to, based on a desire for truth.
There is some concern about writing some things too soon. That's not why I didn't write last week; that was just too much else to do. (Things have been less overwhelming this week, for now.)
My real worry - so there is a spoiler alert now - is that no matter how much of a foundation I lay for it, and as much as I write about the harm that patriarchy causes to women and people of color, that when I write that it harms white men by making them mediocre it will result in a big WHAT? FORGET YOU! and all other points will be for naught, despite their importance.
I am making my peace with that anyway, but it is a shame to not be able to move past things like this. Something I read recently gave me a way of approaching it.
One of the books I am reading is Backlash by Susan Faludi. Early on she recounts several points that could be considered to be failures of feminism and women's rights, coming out mostly in the '80s, so not long after the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, Roe v. Wade, and other things that would have people talking about feminism. I remember hearing many of these things then, and some of then being trotted out again in the '90s.
I am going to focus on the one about college educated, unwed women and the precipitous drop in their marriageability, most dramatically stated as "A woman over 40 has a better chance of getting killed by a terrorist than of getting married."
That particular phrasing misrepresents the chances of getting killed by a terrorist and ignores that the original study was specifically about university-educated women, but still had some pretty good legs on it, showing up in movies like Sleepless in Seattle and The Holiday, and frequently being referenced by depressed singles, though I admit to not having heard it lately.
What was fascinating in the book - and Backlash was published in 1991, so this knowledge has been out there for a while - was that the original study was wrong and they knew it was wrong.
Jeanne Moorman, a census bureau worker who found flaws with the original data tried to work with the study publishers and did not meet with much interest. The actual data showed that education does tend to delay marriage. Therefore, women who only complete high school tend to marry shortly after high school, but women who go to college tend to marry after that.
The first thing that makes me wonder is whether that means marriage is bad for education. Would those women who married after high school have been interested in further education but found it impossible? We all know people who have combined marriage with formal schooling, so it can be done, but what works best? What helps?
Those are questions you can get to if you are open to the truth.
This is what Jeanne Moorman got from her bosses - not the scientists who refused to let accurate data spoil their conclusion, but her bosses:
The head office handed down a directive, ordering her to quit speaking to the press about the marriage study because such critiques were "too controversial." When a few TV news shows actually invited her to tell the other side of the man-shortage story, she had to turn them down. She was told to concentrate instead on a study that the White House wanted--about how poor unwed mothers abuse the welfare system.Yes, of course it was Reagan.
Let's say that you are religious and that you know marriage is good, ordained of God. It could be possible to feel threatened by data that seems to argue against that. However, is the data arguing against that, or against some patterns in the way we do marriage?
The other introductory studies were about how divorce was economically devastating for women after women's lib (without bothering to compare to divorce before), an infertility epidemic affecting professional women, and a great emotional burnout affecting single and working women. In some cases they didn't even involve wrong data so much as assumption.
If you think marriage involves a man providing and a woman staying home with children, finding that professional women can be happy and fulfilled and can still get pregnant might be an existential threat. What if instead it's just the wrong idea about what makes marriage work and what marriage needs?
If you are committed to defending your idea, you stay wrong. That's all the worse if marriage is important. We could be doing it perpetually wrong because we are so willing to lie about it, and that leads to great harm and stagnation.
So a really big step forward is being able to resist your leap to defensiveness and learn. If you are willing to do that, everything else needed can follow.
It's not just about being able to bear discomfort, though that relates. This is about having a willingness to, based on a desire for truth.
Monday, February 25, 2019
Slowing down the forgiveness
Yes, I know this sounds rebellious. Hear me out.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we often talk about the steps of repentance. We do that because we know that it requires a change, and that change isn't going to come with automatically saying "I'm sorry". You can go through the motions and not mean it. Maybe some of those motions will help put you in a better position, but if you have ever been forced by your parent to apologize to a sibling, you probably know it is not foolproof.
A change of heart sometimes happens very quickly, where we don't have to spend a lot of time on the steps, but the goal of repentance is change, which is usually very hard and requires work.
Maybe we don't think about the goals of commandments enough, but it is generally possible to ponder a commandment and understand its purpose better, which then strengthens faith.
It is probably more obvious why we need to repent than why we need to forgive, but we should think about that.
Sometimes it can bring an attitude adjustment. We might get angry at people for things that are not their fault, or that are not even wrong. It is easy to take things personally that aren't personal. This can happen a lot with small children who have recently learned the word "No" or teenagers who have apparently forgotten how to be pleasant. Some parents may feel offended and have to find understanding and forgiveness for the sake of peace in the home and effective parenting. It is important for the relationships, but also, taking that time to understand the other point of view might be really helpful in reaching that peace and understanding.
There are also things that cause real harm. Surprisingly, they are often not personal, and maybe even not intentional, but the harm is still real.
Yes, I believe in forgiveness. God chooses to forgive, and we are required. I also know that God can heal my pain. That gives some weight to the command, but also there is the desire for us to be healed which is important to remember for our role.
Taking a look at why people make certain choices and understanding agency and results can really help us gain greater perspective and grow in wisdom. I am all about that.
Continuing to cling to feelings of resentment and replaying the things that hurt you over and over in your mind can be unhealthy. I get that.
But rushing people through their healing - often by trying to get them to suppress their pain instead of working through it - that is something different, and we do that.
I remember how quickly the survivors and families from the Charleston church shooting expressed forgiveness for the shooter - who had not repented - and yes I guess they offered that forgiveness freely, but it also felt like there was pressure. Some of that may have been because they were from a church community, and religion asks you to forgive, but a lot of it was probably also that they were directly victims of white supremacy, and our society defers to power.
For an example of this you could look at all the non-apology apologies: I'm sorry if you were offended. They tend to come because of a use of language that is a slur for a marginalized group used by someone who is not part of that group, relating directly to power.
For a different example, I don't remember calls for forgiveness of Al-Qaeda after 9-11. I'm not saying there should have been, but I think it is worth thinking about when we demand forgiveness.
Though it may be easy to forget with the way I have wandered, this current series is about gender roles and prejudices. I am reading a lot about gendered violence. No, we don't usually specifically ask women to forgive their rapists (though that does happen, especially in cases of abuse from family members) but instead the women are questioned about all of the ways in which it might have been somehow their fault. This does not encourage healing. It does reaffirm male supremacy, and it is rotten to the core.
We have not thought enough about the process of forgiveness, but I imagine it might be somewhat like the process of repentance. What are those 5 R's?
I believe that mental part - the recognition - means that we have to accept that a lack of harmful intent does not mitigate harm, and be aware of power structures and how they encourage patterns of abuse.
I believe that emotionally - the remorse - we should want people to heal and be whole.
After knowing and feeling, what do we do?
Sometimes that is going to involve working to change abusive power structures. It may mean adding protection, so that someone trying to heal does not have to be preoccupied with worrying about future harm. It may involve counseling or community engagement to reaffirm that person's value. So much about being hurt is the message that you don't matter. We should never be reinforcing that.
It can also take time, whether to grieve, or for physical healing, or for chances to talk or be silent and to work through the emotions, rather than pushing them aside. Sometimes making a person whole involves money or medical care or replacement or repair of something damaged.
Can we promise the person in need of healing that they are safe, and that it won't happen again? If not, are there other ways we can help mitigate the potential damage? What can we do to make this a better world? What can we do to build Heaven on Earth? We probably can't get there all the way, but that is no excuse for making things more like Hell, and we do that a lot.
The last post was about being able to deal with the uncomfortable. Dealing with hurts that you personally can't heal is uncomfortable. Dealing with hurts you caused is uncomfortable. Challenging power structures is uncomfortable.
Those things are also necessary to what we need to be.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we often talk about the steps of repentance. We do that because we know that it requires a change, and that change isn't going to come with automatically saying "I'm sorry". You can go through the motions and not mean it. Maybe some of those motions will help put you in a better position, but if you have ever been forced by your parent to apologize to a sibling, you probably know it is not foolproof.
A change of heart sometimes happens very quickly, where we don't have to spend a lot of time on the steps, but the goal of repentance is change, which is usually very hard and requires work.
Maybe we don't think about the goals of commandments enough, but it is generally possible to ponder a commandment and understand its purpose better, which then strengthens faith.
It is probably more obvious why we need to repent than why we need to forgive, but we should think about that.
Sometimes it can bring an attitude adjustment. We might get angry at people for things that are not their fault, or that are not even wrong. It is easy to take things personally that aren't personal. This can happen a lot with small children who have recently learned the word "No" or teenagers who have apparently forgotten how to be pleasant. Some parents may feel offended and have to find understanding and forgiveness for the sake of peace in the home and effective parenting. It is important for the relationships, but also, taking that time to understand the other point of view might be really helpful in reaching that peace and understanding.
There are also things that cause real harm. Surprisingly, they are often not personal, and maybe even not intentional, but the harm is still real.
Yes, I believe in forgiveness. God chooses to forgive, and we are required. I also know that God can heal my pain. That gives some weight to the command, but also there is the desire for us to be healed which is important to remember for our role.
Taking a look at why people make certain choices and understanding agency and results can really help us gain greater perspective and grow in wisdom. I am all about that.
Continuing to cling to feelings of resentment and replaying the things that hurt you over and over in your mind can be unhealthy. I get that.
But rushing people through their healing - often by trying to get them to suppress their pain instead of working through it - that is something different, and we do that.
I remember how quickly the survivors and families from the Charleston church shooting expressed forgiveness for the shooter - who had not repented - and yes I guess they offered that forgiveness freely, but it also felt like there was pressure. Some of that may have been because they were from a church community, and religion asks you to forgive, but a lot of it was probably also that they were directly victims of white supremacy, and our society defers to power.
For an example of this you could look at all the non-apology apologies: I'm sorry if you were offended. They tend to come because of a use of language that is a slur for a marginalized group used by someone who is not part of that group, relating directly to power.
For a different example, I don't remember calls for forgiveness of Al-Qaeda after 9-11. I'm not saying there should have been, but I think it is worth thinking about when we demand forgiveness.
Though it may be easy to forget with the way I have wandered, this current series is about gender roles and prejudices. I am reading a lot about gendered violence. No, we don't usually specifically ask women to forgive their rapists (though that does happen, especially in cases of abuse from family members) but instead the women are questioned about all of the ways in which it might have been somehow their fault. This does not encourage healing. It does reaffirm male supremacy, and it is rotten to the core.
We have not thought enough about the process of forgiveness, but I imagine it might be somewhat like the process of repentance. What are those 5 R's?
- Recognition
- Remorse
- Resolution (to change, but maybe this should be Requesting forgiveness from God)
- Restitution
- Reformation
I believe that mental part - the recognition - means that we have to accept that a lack of harmful intent does not mitigate harm, and be aware of power structures and how they encourage patterns of abuse.
I believe that emotionally - the remorse - we should want people to heal and be whole.
After knowing and feeling, what do we do?
Sometimes that is going to involve working to change abusive power structures. It may mean adding protection, so that someone trying to heal does not have to be preoccupied with worrying about future harm. It may involve counseling or community engagement to reaffirm that person's value. So much about being hurt is the message that you don't matter. We should never be reinforcing that.
It can also take time, whether to grieve, or for physical healing, or for chances to talk or be silent and to work through the emotions, rather than pushing them aside. Sometimes making a person whole involves money or medical care or replacement or repair of something damaged.
Can we promise the person in need of healing that they are safe, and that it won't happen again? If not, are there other ways we can help mitigate the potential damage? What can we do to make this a better world? What can we do to build Heaven on Earth? We probably can't get there all the way, but that is no excuse for making things more like Hell, and we do that a lot.
The last post was about being able to deal with the uncomfortable. Dealing with hurts that you personally can't heal is uncomfortable. Dealing with hurts you caused is uncomfortable. Challenging power structures is uncomfortable.
Those things are also necessary to what we need to be.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Sitting with the uncomfortable
I am going to refer to someone else's words tonight, based largely on the recommendation of a friend:
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/eric-d-huntsman_hard-sayings-and-safe-spaces-making-room-for-both-struggle-and-faith/
It came up in the conversation because we were talking about the way people resist knowledge that doesn't feel good, and she mentioned this theme of taking time to sit with the discomfort.
The talk has a broader range than I expected, with one point of annoyance when he refers to safe spaces and trigger warnings in a way that shows he does not understand their point. (His note refers to another author, but I am not bothering with it for now. I will link to this: https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2017/06/trigger-warnings-and-ptsd.html)
Moving on, I am currently reading about issues with reconciling abuses - especially via the Indian residential school system - in Canada. Some of the most interesting material was about the mythology that Canadians have maintained about being peacemakers, which was partly a way of defining themselves against their US neighbors to the South. It ignores some very literal violence, but also broken treaties and other bad dealing. (US mythology has often embraced the violence.)
There are bad feelings that happen when you go into this. People may feel guilty and disappointed, but they also may often feel hostile and resentful. The belief they had was a lie, but they don't want to lose that lie.
I believe next week I am going to write about forgiveness, and I may not be completely traditional in how I do that. However, if we want to get to a point where wrongs are truly healed, that is going to require puncturing the myths. It will have to require acknowledging wrong beliefs, often wrong actions, and accepting times when we have gotten benefits that we did not deserve. That is uncomfortable.
I do think a normal reaction to learning about a wrong is wanting to fix it. When that seems impossible, there may be a certain logic to resisting that knowledge. The logic falls apart under closer examination. While the past cannot be changed, the present can, and those can be really good changes that bless us all.
Last week I mentioned being overwhelmed at times. When I am retaining presence of mind, I let that overwhelming feeling wash over me, like a wave crashing. I feel it, and then I move on.
That technique started for me when sometimes my mind would balk at eternal concepts, literally like eternity and infinity and things that are too far outside a mortal frame of reference. I would feel sick to my stomach, and push the thoughts away, often with really shallow pop music. That did not feel quite right, and I started just letting the feeling wash over me. I don't comprehend it, and that's okay. I will keep going.
Just as there are times when we can fight uncertainty or embrace it; we can do that with discomfort as well.
I know which one has resulted in more peace.
https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/eric-d-huntsman_hard-sayings-and-safe-spaces-making-room-for-both-struggle-and-faith/
It came up in the conversation because we were talking about the way people resist knowledge that doesn't feel good, and she mentioned this theme of taking time to sit with the discomfort.
The talk has a broader range than I expected, with one point of annoyance when he refers to safe spaces and trigger warnings in a way that shows he does not understand their point. (His note refers to another author, but I am not bothering with it for now. I will link to this: https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2017/06/trigger-warnings-and-ptsd.html)
Moving on, I am currently reading about issues with reconciling abuses - especially via the Indian residential school system - in Canada. Some of the most interesting material was about the mythology that Canadians have maintained about being peacemakers, which was partly a way of defining themselves against their US neighbors to the South. It ignores some very literal violence, but also broken treaties and other bad dealing. (US mythology has often embraced the violence.)
There are bad feelings that happen when you go into this. People may feel guilty and disappointed, but they also may often feel hostile and resentful. The belief they had was a lie, but they don't want to lose that lie.
I believe next week I am going to write about forgiveness, and I may not be completely traditional in how I do that. However, if we want to get to a point where wrongs are truly healed, that is going to require puncturing the myths. It will have to require acknowledging wrong beliefs, often wrong actions, and accepting times when we have gotten benefits that we did not deserve. That is uncomfortable.
I do think a normal reaction to learning about a wrong is wanting to fix it. When that seems impossible, there may be a certain logic to resisting that knowledge. The logic falls apart under closer examination. While the past cannot be changed, the present can, and those can be really good changes that bless us all.
Last week I mentioned being overwhelmed at times. When I am retaining presence of mind, I let that overwhelming feeling wash over me, like a wave crashing. I feel it, and then I move on.
That technique started for me when sometimes my mind would balk at eternal concepts, literally like eternity and infinity and things that are too far outside a mortal frame of reference. I would feel sick to my stomach, and push the thoughts away, often with really shallow pop music. That did not feel quite right, and I started just letting the feeling wash over me. I don't comprehend it, and that's okay. I will keep going.
Just as there are times when we can fight uncertainty or embrace it; we can do that with discomfort as well.
I know which one has resulted in more peace.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Hang in there
I don't necessarily mean hang in there and stick around for my slow progress in breaking down gender constructs, though I hope you do.
What I mean for now (and it is an interruption in the gender series) is that I want to take a moment to acknowledge that things are hard out there.
Between financial issues and my mother's health, I am always running pretty close to empty anyway, but this week was worse. It was worse on a personal level with some distressing news and tests needed. They probably aren't even going to turn out that horribly, but the efforts required and the dread that certain words inspire was enough to make a difference.
On an external level, news of racism and natural disaster took an emotional toll as well. I know there is always news like that, but that's exactly the problem. If you care about things and are aware, this is a much more discouraging world than it was a few years ago, and it could be pretty discouraging then.
If there is one thing I have learned through the blog it is that I am not the only one who feels this way. Therefore, I know that there are other people who are sensitive and down, and today I want to throw out some words of encouragement to you.
It isn't just you.
There is room for all of it under the Atonement.
Hang in there.
I also want to share a story.
I pray a lot. I try not to get so overcome with my needs that I forget to count blessings and express gratitude, and that is often very helpful. When I am overwhelmed I try and find just the next thing to do (out of many possibilities). Last night, though, I tried to have a prayer like that, and I stumbled and I was just "Send food. Send money. Send."
He sent food right away. He sent food through two different sources. I still have leftovers of the food that was sent.
Also, part of that was that I really could not deal with cooking then. Tonight I finally did get around to cooking and it went better than I thought it would.
That was incredibly encouraging.
I don't want to read too much into it, assuming that the money and the other request are on their way. I also don't want to read too much into the people who brought the food getting things that were close to what I would have gotten, but were not in fact the things that I would have gotten. It was enough for then.
Sometimes all you need is a bump to get you through to the next moment and it comes. Sometimes the answers are just comfort and guidance and sufficient strength, all of which are really wonderful things. I understand the good in things not always being easy.
It also really helps that every now and then something is easy.
I hope that for all of you too.
What I mean for now (and it is an interruption in the gender series) is that I want to take a moment to acknowledge that things are hard out there.
Between financial issues and my mother's health, I am always running pretty close to empty anyway, but this week was worse. It was worse on a personal level with some distressing news and tests needed. They probably aren't even going to turn out that horribly, but the efforts required and the dread that certain words inspire was enough to make a difference.
On an external level, news of racism and natural disaster took an emotional toll as well. I know there is always news like that, but that's exactly the problem. If you care about things and are aware, this is a much more discouraging world than it was a few years ago, and it could be pretty discouraging then.
If there is one thing I have learned through the blog it is that I am not the only one who feels this way. Therefore, I know that there are other people who are sensitive and down, and today I want to throw out some words of encouragement to you.
It isn't just you.
There is room for all of it under the Atonement.
Hang in there.
I also want to share a story.
I pray a lot. I try not to get so overcome with my needs that I forget to count blessings and express gratitude, and that is often very helpful. When I am overwhelmed I try and find just the next thing to do (out of many possibilities). Last night, though, I tried to have a prayer like that, and I stumbled and I was just "Send food. Send money. Send
He sent food right away. He sent food through two different sources. I still have leftovers of the food that was sent.
Also, part of that was that I really could not deal with cooking then. Tonight I finally did get around to cooking and it went better than I thought it would.
That was incredibly encouraging.
I don't want to read too much into it, assuming that the money and the other request are on their way. I also don't want to read too much into the people who brought the food getting things that were close to what I would have gotten, but were not in fact the things that I would have gotten. It was enough for then.
Sometimes all you need is a bump to get you through to the next moment and it comes. Sometimes the answers are just comfort and guidance and sufficient strength, all of which are really wonderful things. I understand the good in things not always being easy.
It also really helps that every now and then something is easy.
I hope that for all of you too.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Where credit is due
Last month I had a post - "The special gift" - that argued against women's intuitive understanding of men's needs being a special quality given from God:
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-special-gift.html
(Yes, I know I am going slowly.)
That post was in large part a reaction to a talk, and a use there that struck me as profoundly incorrect Then last week's post was about how there isn't really a scriptural prescription for strong gender differences.
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2019/01/this-may-be-stating-obvious.html
I hope those two can be building blocks as I briefly go over three specific harms that come from incorrectly attributing various skills and behaviors to God-given gender differences. There could be more to be said about these specific harms, and they are not the only harms that come from the current structure, but I think they are nonetheless important and need to be said.
The first is on a very simple level that we are not seeing reality clearly, which matters a lot to me.
A good analogy might be how we often talk about gifted musicians. Perfect pitch may have a real hereditary element, and there are a lot of genetic factors that can help or hinder. For example, having larger hands (especially with longer fingers) can help you reach notes that are further apart, but can get in the way of playing speed, at least on piano. At some point, though, what matters most is the actual practice time involved. An early inclination can help, a family can nurture that inclination, a home full of music can create a powerful background, but being good at music takes becoming a skilled musician, with a lot of time spent developing that skill. It is not just accepting a gift.
Crediting large-scale accommodation to women's intuition leads to underestimating women, and not crediting their actual experiences and abilities. "They're supposed to be that way" does not really appreciate the work that goes into it, which frankly is often exhausting.
Perhaps it is inevitable that the other side of not given women credit for their labor (or exhaustion) is not offering support.
I have thought of this more since reading Rene Denfield's Kill the Body, the Head Will Fall: A Closer Look at Women, Violence, and Aggression, inspired by Denfield's own foray into boxing.
One of the examples involved a mother with a colicky baby who was having a hard time dealing with the negative feelings this caused, including frustration and anger with her child. She even sought psychiatric help, but was only assured that her maternal instincts would keep her from harming her child.
It can be convenient to think that something is wrong with any mother who harms her child, but that philosophy left this mother who was not harming her child feeling like there was something inherently wrong with her. If the unwomanly thing is not acting on the feelings, but having the feelings in the first place, all that could leave her with was more stress and feelings of failure, with a vicious cycle. If you can admit that crying is stressful, and more stressful when you can't comfort the child but feel you should be able to (because of the power of a mother's love), and we can look at things like sleep deprivation and providing support to new mothers, and finding better treatments for colic, all of that is more helpful. It seems glaringly obvious, but then you hear the things people say on Mother's Day, and it clearly is not. This is not really doing mothers any favors.
But it also isn't doing men any favors to say that they lack emotional intelligence, or that they can't help themselves, and to excuse it all as boys being boys. That is the kind of thing that encourages men in mediocrity. That has no place in a church that believes in eternal progression.
And it is terrible to have smugly mediocre people in charge so much of the time.
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-special-gift.html
(Yes, I know I am going slowly.)
That post was in large part a reaction to a talk, and a use there that struck me as profoundly incorrect Then last week's post was about how there isn't really a scriptural prescription for strong gender differences.
https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2019/01/this-may-be-stating-obvious.html
I hope those two can be building blocks as I briefly go over three specific harms that come from incorrectly attributing various skills and behaviors to God-given gender differences. There could be more to be said about these specific harms, and they are not the only harms that come from the current structure, but I think they are nonetheless important and need to be said.
The first is on a very simple level that we are not seeing reality clearly, which matters a lot to me.
A good analogy might be how we often talk about gifted musicians. Perfect pitch may have a real hereditary element, and there are a lot of genetic factors that can help or hinder. For example, having larger hands (especially with longer fingers) can help you reach notes that are further apart, but can get in the way of playing speed, at least on piano. At some point, though, what matters most is the actual practice time involved. An early inclination can help, a family can nurture that inclination, a home full of music can create a powerful background, but being good at music takes becoming a skilled musician, with a lot of time spent developing that skill. It is not just accepting a gift.
Crediting large-scale accommodation to women's intuition leads to underestimating women, and not crediting their actual experiences and abilities. "They're supposed to be that way" does not really appreciate the work that goes into it, which frankly is often exhausting.
Perhaps it is inevitable that the other side of not given women credit for their labor (or exhaustion) is not offering support.
I have thought of this more since reading Rene Denfield's Kill the Body, the Head Will Fall: A Closer Look at Women, Violence, and Aggression, inspired by Denfield's own foray into boxing.
One of the examples involved a mother with a colicky baby who was having a hard time dealing with the negative feelings this caused, including frustration and anger with her child. She even sought psychiatric help, but was only assured that her maternal instincts would keep her from harming her child.
It can be convenient to think that something is wrong with any mother who harms her child, but that philosophy left this mother who was not harming her child feeling like there was something inherently wrong with her. If the unwomanly thing is not acting on the feelings, but having the feelings in the first place, all that could leave her with was more stress and feelings of failure, with a vicious cycle. If you can admit that crying is stressful, and more stressful when you can't comfort the child but feel you should be able to (because of the power of a mother's love), and we can look at things like sleep deprivation and providing support to new mothers, and finding better treatments for colic, all of that is more helpful. It seems glaringly obvious, but then you hear the things people say on Mother's Day, and it clearly is not. This is not really doing mothers any favors.
But it also isn't doing men any favors to say that they lack emotional intelligence, or that they can't help themselves, and to excuse it all as boys being boys. That is the kind of thing that encourages men in mediocrity. That has no place in a church that believes in eternal progression.
And it is terrible to have smugly mediocre people in charge so much of the time.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
This may be stating the obvious
This series is focusing (if somewhat circumspectly) on the harm caused by gender dogma. I realize that it may be hard for some people to give that up, because it feels so essential and right: men are supposed to be strong and women are supposed to be soft and we totally respect both of them but they are eternally different and YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT!
To which I pose this question: is it women or men who are supposed to pattern themselves on the Savior?
Are men not supposed to be compassionate? Are women not supposed to have integrity? Are any of us supposed to be cowardly or prideful?
I don't see a strong scriptural basis for gender differences. There is definitely representation of existing cultural traditions, but if the best you can offer for proof is the Pauline Epistles (which I read, but I take some of it with more than a grain of salt) you are not making a convincing case.
I have referenced racial prejudice before for comparison; let's remember that people - including church leaders - accepted the prevailing beliefs of the time, even though we know it was wrong now. Part of their ability to do so related to the deep roots of those prevailing beliefs. There is a structure that is accepted, and there is social conditioning that reinforces the structure.
Looking at the gender structure for our day, sometimes that results in women judging other women and being catty to them. This is a way of exerting dominance in a culture where the men have dominance, and it totally isn't ladylike to exert physical dominance anyway, so all you have is gossip and insinuation. That happens, we all know people who were very successful at that and people who were hurt by it, but is it Christ-like? Absolutely not. Not even when the gossip and insinuation is about sluttiness which makes it seem like a Christian concern. It is a terrible thing to do, and should not be done.
What is the point of Christianity if it leaves us sniping at each other and contending for power? What is the point if we look at the world through the exact same eyes as those who don't believe in him?
Think about the belief that men are naturally bigger and stronger. There are averages, but think of the tall women and short men, the women who are more physically powerful and the men less - sometimes through working out or not, but genetics plays a role - and is there a problem with that variety?
There is a similar natural variation of temperaments and inclinations. Foolishly labeling specific traits as masculine or feminine primarily serves to make a lot of people feel like there is something wrong with them. Again, if you want to be sniping and grasping for power, that is a helpful system, but that is not for followers of Christ.
Perhaps most important point here is that we don't get there automatically when the structure is so pervasive. Even regular scripture reading and church attendance will not get you there. Those beliefs need to be ruthlessly examined and evaluated against those things that we truly know to be important rather than simply customary.
My circumspection is not so much a fear of offending; some days there is so much crap out there I want to offend people, though I would still question its usefulness. However, the real reason I drag things out slowly, taking a long time to make a point, is that hope that the quiet chipping away will do the work better. That if enough stories and verses and points get out there, it will be self-evident before I say it.
But let me make one more point back on that original question: who is supposed to try and be like Christ?
From Matthew 23:37... "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
That is feminine imagery, and Jesus was not afraid or uncomfortable to apply it to himself. If his tenderness is feminine, then all men should be feminine, but maybe it is just better to quit obsessing over gender.
To which I pose this question: is it women or men who are supposed to pattern themselves on the Savior?
Are men not supposed to be compassionate? Are women not supposed to have integrity? Are any of us supposed to be cowardly or prideful?
I don't see a strong scriptural basis for gender differences. There is definitely representation of existing cultural traditions, but if the best you can offer for proof is the Pauline Epistles (which I read, but I take some of it with more than a grain of salt) you are not making a convincing case.
I have referenced racial prejudice before for comparison; let's remember that people - including church leaders - accepted the prevailing beliefs of the time, even though we know it was wrong now. Part of their ability to do so related to the deep roots of those prevailing beliefs. There is a structure that is accepted, and there is social conditioning that reinforces the structure.
Looking at the gender structure for our day, sometimes that results in women judging other women and being catty to them. This is a way of exerting dominance in a culture where the men have dominance, and it totally isn't ladylike to exert physical dominance anyway, so all you have is gossip and insinuation. That happens, we all know people who were very successful at that and people who were hurt by it, but is it Christ-like? Absolutely not. Not even when the gossip and insinuation is about sluttiness which makes it seem like a Christian concern. It is a terrible thing to do, and should not be done.
What is the point of Christianity if it leaves us sniping at each other and contending for power? What is the point if we look at the world through the exact same eyes as those who don't believe in him?
Think about the belief that men are naturally bigger and stronger. There are averages, but think of the tall women and short men, the women who are more physically powerful and the men less - sometimes through working out or not, but genetics plays a role - and is there a problem with that variety?
There is a similar natural variation of temperaments and inclinations. Foolishly labeling specific traits as masculine or feminine primarily serves to make a lot of people feel like there is something wrong with them. Again, if you want to be sniping and grasping for power, that is a helpful system, but that is not for followers of Christ.
Perhaps most important point here is that we don't get there automatically when the structure is so pervasive. Even regular scripture reading and church attendance will not get you there. Those beliefs need to be ruthlessly examined and evaluated against those things that we truly know to be important rather than simply customary.
My circumspection is not so much a fear of offending; some days there is so much crap out there I want to offend people, though I would still question its usefulness. However, the real reason I drag things out slowly, taking a long time to make a point, is that hope that the quiet chipping away will do the work better. That if enough stories and verses and points get out there, it will be self-evident before I say it.
But let me make one more point back on that original question: who is supposed to try and be like Christ?
From Matthew 23:37... "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"
That is feminine imagery, and Jesus was not afraid or uncomfortable to apply it to himself. If his tenderness is feminine, then all men should be feminine, but maybe it is just better to quit obsessing over gender.
Monday, January 14, 2019
Possibly the thing I hate the most
Our general topic is still sexism, but I am going to approach it via racism.
From 1849 to 1978, Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That meant that they were not able to participate in temple ordinances and affected their ability to hold callings.
I was only 6 when that ended, but it sounds like it was not common knowledge that the ban did not start until 19 years after the organization of the church. There were people who expected it to change - even Brigham Young (who started the ban) said it would end - but there were also people who were not ready to accept that. I have heard that my own father said that if Black men were ever given the priesthood he would leave the church. (He did, though it took a few years and did not seem to be directly related.)
In 2013 the church's web site put out a number of gospel "topics" about things we don't talk too much about, like the ban and polygamy. Although the articles didn't use very strong language about being wrong, some people found them really disturbing. I thought they were overly gentle and glossy.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#14
I am sure some of the reason for not discussing things further was discomfort. It is embarrassing to be on the wrong side of history. Probably there was relief that we didn't need to worry about it anymore; since 1978 everything was good except for occasional awkward questions.
For my next anecdote, I can't remember if it came from an institute teacher or a mission president. Both of my mission presidents were church education men, so there were some similarities. As it was definitely either from college or mission, it occurred sometime between 1991 and 1996.
He was relaying a story of a Black girl (teenager or maybe young adult) talking about Black men not getting the priesthood, and she explained it as her Black brothers playing basketball in the pre-mortal life instead of doing the things that they should have been doing.
Now, this is an old theory, referenced in a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith in 1907 (see notes at the previous link), though at the time he acknowledges that while it is generally believed it was merely an opinion and not official.
There was never a good explanation given for the ban, because there was no good explanation. It was racism, it was common, and that doesn't sound good so we will say it is temporary and move on. It should have been clear that would never work; if you don't give people an explanation, they will imagine one.
So the thing I hate is that this imagined reason carried through the years and became a reason for this girl to look down on people who looked like her. It gave her a reason to think that her father and brothers and any male relatives were inferior. As it was a priesthood-specific issue, maybe she could tell herself that it did not apply to Black women. Maybe after 1978 she could tell herself it was just the older people, her ancestors that were inferior but her living family was good.
It is still a rotten thing to do to someone.
And I know that white man - and without remembering exactly which one he was, I know he was a good man that I was very fond of - used that story because her saying it made it better. If even one of their own accepts that it is not simple racism, then it's fine, even though it was wrong all along.
I hate that the people of the church taught her that, and that the leaders of the church did not prevent it.
I remember similar instructors also saying how the ban never applied to people of Asian descent or Native American people, and even some people who looked pretty dark but were not from Africa. There was still some pride there, a good decade after the ban, because it was just being descended from Ham (also debunked), and it was not simple racism. A more complex look at racism could have factored in anti-Blackness and model minorities, but they didn't go there.
Of course, if they had really dug into it, they would have had to examine and realize and remove the ban much sooner.
No one wants to think Brigham Young was racist, or all the others after him who did not lift the ban, or grant temple access to Black men who had gotten the priesthood before the ban (which also happened) were racist, because we also know them to be good men who did good things. It's uncomfortable (and might threaten your confidence in your own lack of racism) so we try to not think about it so much.
That's exactly how we avoid improvement. That's how we leave really good people responsible for justifying our racist acts.
We have to stop that.
From 1849 to 1978, Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That meant that they were not able to participate in temple ordinances and affected their ability to hold callings.
I was only 6 when that ended, but it sounds like it was not common knowledge that the ban did not start until 19 years after the organization of the church. There were people who expected it to change - even Brigham Young (who started the ban) said it would end - but there were also people who were not ready to accept that. I have heard that my own father said that if Black men were ever given the priesthood he would leave the church. (He did, though it took a few years and did not seem to be directly related.)
In 2013 the church's web site put out a number of gospel "topics" about things we don't talk too much about, like the ban and polygamy. Although the articles didn't use very strong language about being wrong, some people found them really disturbing. I thought they were overly gentle and glossy.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#14
I am sure some of the reason for not discussing things further was discomfort. It is embarrassing to be on the wrong side of history. Probably there was relief that we didn't need to worry about it anymore; since 1978 everything was good except for occasional awkward questions.
For my next anecdote, I can't remember if it came from an institute teacher or a mission president. Both of my mission presidents were church education men, so there were some similarities. As it was definitely either from college or mission, it occurred sometime between 1991 and 1996.
He was relaying a story of a Black girl (teenager or maybe young adult) talking about Black men not getting the priesthood, and she explained it as her Black brothers playing basketball in the pre-mortal life instead of doing the things that they should have been doing.
Now, this is an old theory, referenced in a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith in 1907 (see notes at the previous link), though at the time he acknowledges that while it is generally believed it was merely an opinion and not official.
There was never a good explanation given for the ban, because there was no good explanation. It was racism, it was common, and that doesn't sound good so we will say it is temporary and move on. It should have been clear that would never work; if you don't give people an explanation, they will imagine one.
So the thing I hate is that this imagined reason carried through the years and became a reason for this girl to look down on people who looked like her. It gave her a reason to think that her father and brothers and any male relatives were inferior. As it was a priesthood-specific issue, maybe she could tell herself that it did not apply to Black women. Maybe after 1978 she could tell herself it was just the older people, her ancestors that were inferior but her living family was good.
It is still a rotten thing to do to someone.
And I know that white man - and without remembering exactly which one he was, I know he was a good man that I was very fond of - used that story because her saying it made it better. If even one of their own accepts that it is not simple racism, then it's fine, even though it was wrong all along.
I hate that the people of the church taught her that, and that the leaders of the church did not prevent it.
I remember similar instructors also saying how the ban never applied to people of Asian descent or Native American people, and even some people who looked pretty dark but were not from Africa. There was still some pride there, a good decade after the ban, because it was just being descended from Ham (also debunked), and it was not simple racism. A more complex look at racism could have factored in anti-Blackness and model minorities, but they didn't go there.
Of course, if they had really dug into it, they would have had to examine and realize and remove the ban much sooner.
No one wants to think Brigham Young was racist, or all the others after him who did not lift the ban, or grant temple access to Black men who had gotten the priesthood before the ban (which also happened) were racist, because we also know them to be good men who did good things. It's uncomfortable (and might threaten your confidence in your own lack of racism) so we try to not think about it so much.
That's exactly how we avoid improvement. That's how we leave really good people responsible for justifying our racist acts.
We have to stop that.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
The strength of our youth
This is going to seem like a digression from the current series, but I am confident it will end up fitting in.
A few months ago I was reading a conference talk that quoted a survey saying LDS youth lead the pack in all measurable ways. I immediately questioned it.
That wasn't so much due to my general negativity (which probably looks worse than it is) as it was due to two specific things. One is a memory of a person in a Gospel Doctrine class saying that our youth are so naturally good it's like they don't even have to try (questionable in its accuracy, not a good policy anyway) but also my knowledge that more missionaries are coming home early, encountering difficulties with completing their service.
(Perhaps add in that the missionaries I am encountering seem remarkably shallow and naive, though it is not affecting their ability to stay in the field.)
Anyway, I looked up the reference for the quoted survey and found that it was from a book with a 2005 publication date, based on a survey that had happened mostly in 2002. (The survey was part of a larger research project.)
The talk may have been as old as 2014, but the data was still older. You'd hope that the positive results still hold true, but it may be past time for bragging rights.
Obviously I had to read the book.
Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers; by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton; Osford University Press, USA 2005.
From the first chapter the praise seemed like an exaggeration. Yes, LDS youth ranked highly in many fields, but Black Protestant youth were often pretty comparable, followed by conservative (as opposed to mainline) Protestant youth. The conference speaker left that out!
I did eventually find a quote that backed the speaker up: "...it is Mormon teenagers who are sociologically faring the best." (p. 261)
That is missing some context, but okay, the book did technically say we were doing the best, at least thirteen years ago, so bragging rights are there. Hurray for us!
If we are going to add context, some of the measures they looked at were risk factors for teen well-being, like drinking, smoking, and experimentation with drugs. Many churches may not want their youth to smoke or drink, but do not have specific proscriptions, and have adults who do them. It is not surprising that the church that completely forbids those substances - even for adults - would have more teens abstaining. (And it is a wonderful thing, no question.)
What I found more interesting in terms of where our youth do better is in understanding doctrine and being able to articulate their own beliefs. With Sunday school, seminary, Family Home Evening, testimony meetings, and that continual emphasis on being able to get answers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, we should be doing well there. That is something precious.
Here's another interesting tidbit, in terms of what the book found. A lot of adults had expressed concerns that new religions were tempting kids away. Evidence indicated that it was the reverse. Bluntly, parents that are Buddhist or Wiccan are far more likely to have their children become Christian than vice versa. Actually, a key point from the book is that children pretty consistently follow their parents. Whether that is encouraging or discouraging depends on you.
I think I had actually heard of this survey before. I remember some study coming out that was indicating that while parents thought that the friends of their children had more influence, the parents had a strong influence on the child's friendships. We may not always know which influences are working, but the parental influence is strong. That is good, but if you are kind of lukewarm in your faith, there is a downside.
We have very good things about our church that work, and they should, but that is not just a matter of "We're true, you're false, neiner-neiner." It is good to understand what we are doing well, and it is critical to understand what we are not doing well, including understanding that there are things that we are not doing well.
Is it possible that we are sheltering children too much? Are some getting so protected from the world that they don't know how to function in it when they get out there? Or do they have such a poor understanding of it that they can only spout the shallowest of platitudes when people are confronted with real problems? Perhaps even after successfully completing the mission?
Here was another interesting thing: a lot of adults feared a more tumultuous outside world, remembering the sexual revolution and campus discord and things like that, which did not really apply to their children. The youth of that survey were living in more of a "whatever" time, where the more likely pitfall was apathy. Parents were trying to solve the wrong problems.
As always, we can do better. Still as always, it's going to take more than relying on old patterns and habits, but on asking and seeking so we can be finding. It will take scrupulous honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable.
One final thing that I liked: as the book was concluding it pointed out that many teen issues are also adult issues. Many adults think of the youth as scary and incomprehensible; they are like us. Some listening should make that clear very quickly.
As we get back to exploring gender roles, let's remember how many men find women mysterious and unknowable, and see if we might not detect some patterns.
A few months ago I was reading a conference talk that quoted a survey saying LDS youth lead the pack in all measurable ways. I immediately questioned it.
That wasn't so much due to my general negativity (which probably looks worse than it is) as it was due to two specific things. One is a memory of a person in a Gospel Doctrine class saying that our youth are so naturally good it's like they don't even have to try (questionable in its accuracy, not a good policy anyway) but also my knowledge that more missionaries are coming home early, encountering difficulties with completing their service.
(Perhaps add in that the missionaries I am encountering seem remarkably shallow and naive, though it is not affecting their ability to stay in the field.)
Anyway, I looked up the reference for the quoted survey and found that it was from a book with a 2005 publication date, based on a survey that had happened mostly in 2002. (The survey was part of a larger research project.)
The talk may have been as old as 2014, but the data was still older. You'd hope that the positive results still hold true, but it may be past time for bragging rights.
Obviously I had to read the book.
Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers; by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton; Osford University Press, USA 2005.
From the first chapter the praise seemed like an exaggeration. Yes, LDS youth ranked highly in many fields, but Black Protestant youth were often pretty comparable, followed by conservative (as opposed to mainline) Protestant youth. The conference speaker left that out!
I did eventually find a quote that backed the speaker up: "...it is Mormon teenagers who are sociologically faring the best." (p. 261)
That is missing some context, but okay, the book did technically say we were doing the best, at least thirteen years ago, so bragging rights are there. Hurray for us!
If we are going to add context, some of the measures they looked at were risk factors for teen well-being, like drinking, smoking, and experimentation with drugs. Many churches may not want their youth to smoke or drink, but do not have specific proscriptions, and have adults who do them. It is not surprising that the church that completely forbids those substances - even for adults - would have more teens abstaining. (And it is a wonderful thing, no question.)
What I found more interesting in terms of where our youth do better is in understanding doctrine and being able to articulate their own beliefs. With Sunday school, seminary, Family Home Evening, testimony meetings, and that continual emphasis on being able to get answers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, yes, we should be doing well there. That is something precious.
Here's another interesting tidbit, in terms of what the book found. A lot of adults had expressed concerns that new religions were tempting kids away. Evidence indicated that it was the reverse. Bluntly, parents that are Buddhist or Wiccan are far more likely to have their children become Christian than vice versa. Actually, a key point from the book is that children pretty consistently follow their parents. Whether that is encouraging or discouraging depends on you.
I think I had actually heard of this survey before. I remember some study coming out that was indicating that while parents thought that the friends of their children had more influence, the parents had a strong influence on the child's friendships. We may not always know which influences are working, but the parental influence is strong. That is good, but if you are kind of lukewarm in your faith, there is a downside.
We have very good things about our church that work, and they should, but that is not just a matter of "We're true, you're false, neiner-neiner." It is good to understand what we are doing well, and it is critical to understand what we are not doing well, including understanding that there are things that we are not doing well.
Is it possible that we are sheltering children too much? Are some getting so protected from the world that they don't know how to function in it when they get out there? Or do they have such a poor understanding of it that they can only spout the shallowest of platitudes when people are confronted with real problems? Perhaps even after successfully completing the mission?
Here was another interesting thing: a lot of adults feared a more tumultuous outside world, remembering the sexual revolution and campus discord and things like that, which did not really apply to their children. The youth of that survey were living in more of a "whatever" time, where the more likely pitfall was apathy. Parents were trying to solve the wrong problems.
As always, we can do better. Still as always, it's going to take more than relying on old patterns and habits, but on asking and seeking so we can be finding. It will take scrupulous honesty, especially when it is uncomfortable.
One final thing that I liked: as the book was concluding it pointed out that many teen issues are also adult issues. Many adults think of the youth as scary and incomprehensible; they are like us. Some listening should make that clear very quickly.
As we get back to exploring gender roles, let's remember how many men find women mysterious and unknowable, and see if we might not detect some patterns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)