My mother, my talk

Remember how two years ago I gave a talk in church and ended up spending five posts covering it?

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2022/08/my-talk-pioneer-heritage.html 

Last Sunday, I spoke in church again.

I don't believe I will spend five weeks on it, but there is one thing that really goes along with dominator culture and what I was going to write about next. 

It will probably make more sense if I explain about the talk first though. So, maybe two posts.

Like last time, I was assigned a conference talk to build from. It was "Covenant Confidence through Jesus Christ" by Elder Ulisses Soares from April 2024 (Saturday morning session).

My talking points become very clear because of an encounter Julie had with someone who used to be in our ward. She has moved in with her sister now, because both of them were recently left by their husbands for other women.

Obviously there was a sense of betrayal, but what stuck was that she felt like she was left with nothing, having been taught all along that if you married a return missionary in the temple, then everything would work out.

That has not been my experience, and not only because I have remained so consistently single. 

I remember a vivid lesson in Young Womens about all of the things that could go wrong. I mainly remember a nervous breakdown one woman had for fear of something happening with her having no skills, and a hypothetical of Prince Charming falling off of his horse and hitting his head on a rock, but I think Prince Charming going after a different princess was listed.

Also, in my project of reading all of the old conference talks, I am currently at 2011 (from 1971). In 40 years of conference talks, they mention things going wrong and being really painful a lot.

Maybe things don't always sink in. Maybe some people have more idealistically wrong youth teachers. I think we can be conditioned to hear things a certain way based on other life factors. I don't want to be too harsh, because I do have an idea of the pain. 

What I ended up largely talking about was my mother, who was also cheated on and left. 

In many ways her situation was similar. What was different was that she knew she was not left with nothing. She had her testimony and her membership and her covenants.

That doesn't mean it was easy. 

Well, let me clarify. My father first cheated when I was 9. He did not leave, but he did stop going to church then. He did not actually leave until I was in my last year of college, once all children were safely over the age of 18.

When he first stopped going to church, Mom did feel judged and gossiped about. We went back to our old ward in Tigard for about a year. Then our home ward split, and the people she had worse feelings about were in the other one (which is the one we are in now, but that was many years ago),

The point is, she kept going. She kept serving, in callings and as a visiting teacher. Once there was a temple locally, she started going regularly.  

As her memories deserted her, there was a time when she couldn't really go to the temple anymore, and a time when she couldn't really focus on church anymore. Even so, when she could still speak in complete sentences -- even though she was talking about people who were long gone or had never had those names -- she would often talk about her faith. She told me that she knew God loved her and watched over her. 

Even now, when complete sentences don't really happen anymore, she still has a peace that a lot of of other dementia patients don't. She has kept her sweetness, 

Yes, her husband broke their marriage covenants, but she didn't. She continued to be blessed by her covenants and those blessings are eternal. 

I do not doubt that she is still bound to her children, even though I don't know how that will all look on the other side. 

As I thought about that, I knew that there was no greater testimony to covenant confidence that I could give than to talk about my mother.

It also felt a lot like giving her eulogy and saying goodbye; I wonder if we are closer. There are some things you only find out by moving forward.

In all of that, with those sisters, and our mother, and other people we know, there was a high incidence of women left by husbands, much higher than the other way around. 

Dominator culture has a lot to do with how much easier it is more men to suck (specifically the patriarchy section of it).

That's what needs its own post. 

Dominator Culture and Reproductive Health

I am going to suggest a couple of things that could easily be taken as offensive, though it is not my intent. 

First of all, there has been this one thought over the past few years, that all of my friends with LGBTQIA+ children are from church. 

That includes gay kids and some transgender and non-binary children. 

It has kind of made me wonder if these children are being sent to us to force us to get right on the issue.

I can see how that would seem kind of cruel, but fortunately, these have all been supportive parents. Part of that support often leads to them no longer attending church. I cannot blame them for that, but I believe there is a better way. If we start asking the right questions and really opening our hearts we can get there.

I mention that thought because if I had never had it, I don't think the other one would have come to me. 

It also comes because I know of someone who recently moved to Texas to be near her first grandchild. I imagine there is a hope for other grandchildren.

Personally, between Cruz and Abbott, the only state I could possibly have less desire to move to is Florida, maybe, but a lot of members like getting away from liberal Oregon.

I also know of someone who recently got a new grandchild, but there were complications in the pregnancy, where there was some danger.

Are we paying attention to how much danger anti-abortion laws cause for difficult pregnancies? Are we rooting for the things that could kill our daughters and daughters-in-law?

One difficulty with political discourse lately is that a lot of people seem to end up fully divorced from reality. One really unpleasant person around here (whom I do not personally know, but we have mutual acquaintances) posts pretty frequently about how Democrats delight in abortion. Trump voters will echo claims of post-birth abortion, which, yes, would be murder, but also doesn't happen. 

I don't know where to begin to connect such a person back to reality.

I am not saying that God will smite us with dangerous pregnancies to teach us the error of our ways. I just know that if you reinforce enough cruelty, that cruelty spreads everywhere. 

If you lie to yourself about the cruelty, you can spread it further and faster. 

If you truly love babies and want to protect them, there are great starting places. We could look at extending prenatal and neonatal care, expanding WIC, making childcare more affordable, and also sex education just so that everyone is clear on where babies come from.

Naturally access to birth control would be important, but no, women should not have sex if they don't want babies, even if they already have babies, and let's get rid of the exceptions for abortion and incest, and any programs that might help a woman escape abuse and build up some independence, because that's what it's really about, control, but somehow without laws affecting men.

For an example, let's go back to Texas:

https://www.tiktok.com/@the.texas.amanda/video/7401199934600482078 

Amanda Zurawski and her husband wanted their child, but their child was dying in the womb. There was nothing that could be done about that. 

Amanda's doctors were afraid to help her because of the law. There could be fines, imprisonment, and the loss of their medical licenses. They needed her to be sick enough that her life was in danger, which has in more than one case already meant going into sepsis.

Sepsis is really dangerous. It destroys and kills. Amanda lived, but with permanent damage. Now she cannot conceive or carry a child. 

Republicans are coming for IVF too, which could effectively eliminate surrogacy. 

Is traditional conception along with adoption enough? I think that's the wrong question. 

The right question would probably be something about how to help families and protect children. 

It would have an answer that was more about helping than control. 

It would be the appropriate answer for followers of Christ, but somehow missed by many who claim to follow him.

Related posts:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2023/12/truly-being-pro-life.html 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2023/12/two-plans.html 

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2023/11/patriarchy-and-moral-issues.html 

Gender, the Olympics, and Dominator Culture

Yes, this is at least partially about the boxing, but not entirely.

Without even paying that much attention to the Olympics, I have seen many examples of dominator culture. This is primarily in how people react and when they latch on to something. It is frustrating how often those reactions are fueled by hate and ignorance.

However, in trying to defend against the hate, ignorance sometimes comes up there too. Perhaps that means what we really need is a post about how to process and share news, but this post is committed more to gender.

This article is a good initial summary:

https://www.vox.com/sports/364856/olympics-boxing-imane-khelif-angela-carini 

A few transphobes started calling the winner of the bout, Imane Khelif, a man, spreading it everywhere and fueling outrage that such a thing could happen.

I suppose one thing that helped is that Angela Carini gave up so easily; you expect someone competing in Olympic boxing to be able to take a punch. 

Another factor could have been that Khelif appears taller, though some of that could be photo angles and choices for presentation. Both women are in the 66 kg weight class (welterweight).

The biggest factor is probably that Khelif was disqualified from the 2023 World Boxing Championship by the International Boxing Association. Many people are assuming that this means she has higher testosterone levels.

That's not impossible, and we will get to that, but there are some concerns about taking that as evidence.:

1. The IBA allowed her to compete in 2022.
2. The disqualification came by a Russian official after Khelif beat a Russian boxer. The bronze medal winner, Lin Yu-ting, was also disqualified.
   
3. They say it was not a testosterone test but will not say what kind of test it was or the results. (The confidentiality is appropriate for medical issues, but it should also make people cautious about what they say.)
   
4. The IOC has banned the IBA from any Olympic regulation due to "concerns over its financial dealings, leadership, and allegations of match-fixing."

Apparently IBA president Umar Kremlev told TASS that Khelif and Taiwanese box Lin Yu-ting had XY chromosomes, and that was the reason for the disqualification.

This is why Umar Kremlev and the IBA should not be considered the most reliable sources. 

(It does give me flashbacks to the quid for pro on the 

The most obvious problem is the people spreading transphobic hate, not only detracting from someone's win, but quite possibly endangering her life. They do it with no factual basis; only a "righteous" indignation that something terrible happened, even though it didn't.

(Resounding silence on the player who served jail time for raping a 12-year old.)

The next thing you get is that people trying to defend Khalef are calling her a biological woman. They are using the same term that the transphobes use which, in a way, cedes the ground to them.

We should think twice about that. I mean, people lying to spread hate is bad, and truth is important (I wish some of the people quickly spreading lies would remember that sometimes), but is it the right counter? I am not sure.

However, another great thing to think about is that gender is not as clearly defined as you might think. 

You may know that the "I" in LGBTQIA+ is for intersex. 

That may be commonly understood to mean both male and female sex organs, but often the differences are much more subtle. It would be easy to never know that there was a hormonal or chromosomal difference.

If there is a visible difference, it is not unusual that a doctor will decide that surgery needs to be done then to correct it, which has led to later problems for many of these children.

In general, transphobes are in favor of surgery on infants to make them conform, and quite possibly with hormone supplements. They are then not in favor of gender affirmation for teenagers, when their feelings and wished could make a difference.

That is the key to dominator culture right there, wanting to be able to exert control over others, generally along traditional lines. Adults get to decide for children. Men get to decide for women. 

European people get to decide for a Northern African woman and a Taiwanese women, because they are coming after Lin now as well, because she had another win.

For sportsmanship purposes, that was a bronze that Lin lost. Khalef has lost matches. An actual transgender swimmer did break one college record, but she also lost several races to other swimmers. The unfair dominance is not happening. The old persecutions keep chugging along.

It does give me some flashbacks to Russian collaboration with the French to fix pairs figure skating and ice dancing, even though the French ice dancing couple were the clear favorites. 

People are not always logical in the ways they suck.

Here's some additional food for thought:

The estimated rate of women born with the 46,XY karyotype is about 1 in 80,000 births. For Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS, but can also be PAIS for partial) it is about 1 in 20,000.

You can find stories covering a wide variety of differences at https://www.interfaceproject.org/stories, but here's another thought for you.

There is a very good chance that you assume that your karyotype and your ability to process Androgren matches your birth certificate, driver's license, and your personal identity. It probably does, but if it doesn't, and you don't know, that's not that uncommon.

Do you think someone else should get a say in that?

Should you have to prove it to anyone? 

Reproving betimes with sharpness...

I have been meaning to get to this since June 23rd.

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2024/06/none-of-this-is-new.html

The post title refers to verse 43 of Doctrine and Covenants Section 121. I had referenced verse 37 on June 23rd.

After going over how unrighteous dominion (attempting to control others and exert authority over them) is wrong, but how it is also something people easily fall into. It talks about how you can exert influence, but "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;" (verse 41). 

Then we get to 43:

Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; 

(For the whole thing, please see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng).

So I had been wanting to get there, but then thinking about how we generally don't have authority, but some people are more likely to try to assume it anyway, while others are more likely to defer to those who try. It also led to thinking about cases where one might have authority, which of course led to parents, and possession. A month later, here we are!

With that, it frequently amazes me how much dominator culture permeates everything; I keep finding new nuances that seem worth exploring.

I hope that readers will start spotting it themselves, and will do their own exploration.

There is an election going on now, and that seems important. It looks like the trend of politics bringing out the worst in people will continue. 

Some people will be very obnoxious and love it. 

Some people will strenuously want to avoid confrontation.

Those people will not be strictly divided along party lines.

You may be wondering what your responsibility is. Can you help? If so, how?

That is not a simple yes/no question.

You may see people posting statements with no connection to reality; is it worth talking to someone like that?

It is impossible to answer for every situation. In terms of things that might be useful at a time that I believe is vitally important, yes, I am working on that. 

I am more likely to say things lately, but I think that will mainly result in people unfriending me. 

Regardless, I think there is a pattern in this verse, not specific to politics but that can apply to that, as well as other situations.

"betimes": This can mean "occasionally", but the older version -- and more likely to apply -- is "early".

Don't let things fester. There may be good reasons to wait until you are alone with someone, but there might also be times when saying it immediately and in the hearing of someone else matters. Even if some waiting seems wise, procrastinating a difficult conversation will probably only make it more difficult.

"with sharpness": That could mean "cutting", but to me it means clarity and precision.

Another potential downfall of procrastinating is that as frustration builds up, it increases the odds of an eruption where everything comes out. That could include things you don't really mean, or things that aren't false but still don't help. What is the real issue? Why is it an issue? If the top priorities are kindness and fairness, being accurate and specific are still right up there.

"showing forth afterwards an increase of love":

Ideally you are also showing love during, but criticism can be hard to take; defensiveness might prevent them from hearing the love right then. If you continue to show love, perhaps more consciously, that can clarify your message.

Sometimes the message will be right, and will be rejected, but it may still be important for you to give it. Maybe it will sink in later, or someone else will hear it... there are so many ways things can be. 

I am grateful for inspiration, but I am going to have a much easier time receiving that inspiration if I am full of love.

Therefore, as easy as it can be to feel angry and appalled, I try not to base my reaction in that.

I don't make a lot of jokes or use nicknames in my own political communication. I believe it doesn't help. (Yes, I am no fun at all.)

I try not to insult anyone's intelligence, even if it really seems deserved. 

This is not saying that political differences aren't important. They are more important than ever. 

It's just that dominator culture will still ruin everything.

Possession

After last week's post, a friend wrote about his relationship with his children, and I started remembering The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

I wrote about people who view their children as possessions who reflect on them. That can lead to tyranny and harshness, with very little sympathy for the growing pains of gaining maturity. I think many people have rejected that model, though not necessarily without a good substitute.

I see another example of that in parents who want the school systems to validate that their child is superior, often without considering what the needs of other children might be. This can help turn gifted programs into an effective resource drain, and makes me feel weird about my own time in gifted programs, many years ago.

Because in this case their child is elevated and praised, it may be easier to feel good about this, even at the expense of children with fewer advantages. After all, they're not yours.

Allow me to throw in this quote from James Baldwin, which I am thinking about more and more"

“The children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe; and I am beginning to suspect that whoever is incapable of recognizing this may be incapable of morality.”

My friend wrote about a respect for his children combined with a sense of responsibility to them. That is appropriate, and I would say it should be natural, though there are other, less positive things that can also be very natural.

What I want to do, then, is review what Lewis said about the first person possessive adjective (or determiner) "my":

The sense of ownership in general is always to be encouraged The humans are always putting up claims to ownership which sound equally funny in Heaven and in Hell and we must keep them doing so...We produce this sense of ownership not only by pride but by confusion. We teach them not to notice the different senses of the possessive pronoun — the finely graded differences that run from “my boots” through “my dog”, “my servant”, “my wife”, “my father”, “my master” and “my country”, to “my God”. They can be taught to reduce all these senses to that of “my boots”, the “my” of ownership… we have taught men to say “my God” in a sense not really very different from “my boots”, meaning “the God on whom I have a claim for my distinguished services…”

“We teach them not to notice the different sense of the possessive pronoun .. . Even in the nursery a child can be taught to mean by "my Teddy-bear" not the old imagined recipient of affection to whom it stands in a special relation (for that is what the Enemy will teach them to mean if we are not careful) but "the bear I can pull to pieces if I like.”

Certainly, if you haven't read the book, I recommend that; I am a big fan of C.S. Lewis in general.

Specific to the topic of dominator culture -- and this goes beyond parenting -- think about what "my" means.

He does write about jealousy over "my time", and how easily people can be put out that way.

This is also an area where it is easy to go wrong in the other direction, not setting boundaries and always putting the demands of others first. That is not healthy, but neither is it healthy to always choose selfishness and to always be focused on you.

It is worth thinking about what is "yours" and what that means. It doesn't have to be children: my family, my friends, my neighbors, my ward, my coworkers.  

Ideally, you like and enjoy them, though that is not always the case. You should care about them. You can probably not control them, and that is as it should be, even if there are circumstances that will make that very frustrating.

It doesn't take much to show you that you are not in complete control of your time. There are things that you can dictate, and things that you can't.

You have control over the choices you make, but not entirely over the choices with which you are presented. 

Speaking of frustrating...

Coming up against the reality that there is so much outside of your control (and there are people who fight that one a lot), the choice to do what you can to make things better is even more important. 

You can choose to respect and to love and to guide.

You can choose to recognize the ways in which you can be an influence for good, or not, and act accordingly.

Personally, my big memory of growing up (and every punishment) was feeling that I was not understood, which made it all seem very unfair. 

It would have meant so much to me if I had believed that my father was even interested in understanding my point of view.  He was very much a "My way or the highway" parent, so why would he care why I did what I did or what I was going for?

As we say, I turned out okay, but I can picture something that would have been better.

 

Request: If you have found my writing helpful or enjoyable, please consider making a donation at https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/sultryglebe
 

Teach the children well

I did offend someone over the last week, but not the way I was expecting. 

I will probably write about that at some point, but now I might as well jump right into parenting, a topic on which I have no personal experience since I was on the receiving end.

Sometimes we will notice children being loud and rowdy at church. Their parents may carry them out or plead with them or try to ignore them or actions you won't notice, but this is a common thing and it is easy to judge.

The reason I thought of this in terms of dominator culture is a combination of things, but one of the ideas at the forefront is wondering whether part of the problem is that many of us were raised where the penalty for being naughty was being beaten. You can know that's not the right answer without knowing what the right answer is, even assuming there is a single right answer.

One of the phrases going around now is "gentle parenting".

Gentle parenting: A parenting approach that encourages a partnership between you and your child to make choices based on an internal willingness instead of external pressures. 

That does not sound bad, but then you may see parents who say they are doing gentle parenting, but really what they are doing is letting their kids run wild until it's embarrassing, and then bribing them.

(I should point out here that these observations are not all from church. Having a sister who teaches kindergarten and has friends who teach other ages and do a lot of babysitting, we get a lot of input.)

I like that the definition mentions a partnership approach. This is in contrast to an authoritative approach, and the difference between those to approaches is the crux of the difference between dominator culture and partnership culture.

One thing that is worth noting is that I often see posts about people wondering if some people even like kids. 

If you are coming from a dominator culture viewpoint, where your children are possessions that reflect on you, that does not engender love on its own, and when they are acting up -- a thing that happens to the best of children -- and reflecting badly on you, it can engender much more negative feelings.

Wanting them to do well, and being willing to work with them on that, lends itself more easily to loving, but it isn't always an immediate guide.

There are a few things I remember clearly about being a child in sacrament meeting. They do not include being carried out for a spanking (that happened at other places). I remember drawing on the program. I remember believing it was important to be reverent during the sacrament, so repeating "It Shouldn't Be Hard" in my head, even drawing the lyrics on my hand with my finger, trying to concentrate on reverence. 

I also remember looking up once and the speaker said we should read the scriptures every day, and that's when I started. 

The importance of reverence came before an understanding of how to be reverent, but that one thing that you hear can influence your entire life is real, and makes listening worthwhile.

I have seen wonderful articles in church magazines, with ideas. I can't find them all, but of course I have never had to try the tips, so I don't know how effective they are. Probably a lot depends on the child.

Telling some of the things I remember may give some ideas. One father said that when his children needed to be carried out, instead of letting them run around in the foyer he would hold them tightly in a chair. Having more freedom in the foyer was a bad motivation.

One mother noticed her children looking through family photo albums with fascination, so used a small album as a quiet book. As well as family pictures there were pictures of temples and prophets.

As a nursery teacher I remember children shoving each other to get closer to the picture of Jesus, so I can see that working, or backfiring if you have children close in age.

Someone mentioned periodically whispering things like "He's talking about tithing" or "That's Joshua's daddy" to give the child a chance to connect. I also remember seeing hints to practice hymns at home so it would be easy for children to sing along.

Those are gentle guidelines. 

They take longer than spanking; a lot of it is learning that will progress with maturity. They are things that can sink more deeply, in a more positive way.

Let us also remember that children learn a lot by observing -- even more than listening -- so are you reverent? What does that mean to you?

That could require context. For example, if you are looking up scriptures on your phone or taking notes, it might look like you are not paying attention. 

Explaining what reverence means to you and what helps you be reverent can be a wonderful teachable moment.

All of those things require care for your child, but they also require respect. You are talking to an individual who will need to find their own way, and can't be forced. 

And yet, as the parent, sometimes you will need to discipline, and refuse, while holding onto that respect and understanding. 

It can be difficult, and be similar to difficulties you have with others.

That's what we will try and figure out next week.

Request: If you have found my writing helpful or enjoyable, please consider making a donation at https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/sultryglebe

Well-meaning abuse of authority

Over the next few posts, it will be very easy to offend people.

Surprisingly, my greatest fear is not that I will offend, but that I am taking too long to get to the point, especially with an election on the way. 

Sometimes we may need to offend people, so perhaps I am in the right headspace. That's not our topic for today, though. Today, I want to talk about bishops who overstep.

You can understand why this is dangerous ground.

The caveats I will add are that I have not run into it that often, personally, and I think that their intentions are generally good. It can still end up being harmful, and correlates with dominator culture.

One thing that is different about the role of a bishop is that judgment is actually part of the calling. That is pretty rare. 

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it is normal for members to receive callings that they do for some time. That can include teaching classes, directing music, and planning activities. There are organizations for adult men and women, youth, and children, generally with a president, two counselors, and a secretary, as well as various teachers. Leaders pray about whom to call and ask you to serve after getting an answer.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/calling

These callings are opportunities to serve, and should be done with love.

A bishop is called to serve and love, but he also judges. That means counseling and helping members if they are having problems (which could be due to sin, but may not be), as well as tithing settlement annually and temple recommend interviews.

Despite that, the judgment can be far less intrusive than you think. 

For example, in tithing settlement, the bishop asks if you are a full-tithe payer, and you answer "yes" or "no". There is usually some social chat -- "how are you doing?" -- and there can certainly be discussion if you have a more complex answer. If you say that you have fallen behind in your tithing and are trying to make up for it, there could be some discussion and encouragement there. 

What you generally do not have are any probing questions. You do not get asked whether you pay on the net or gross, or have the bishop request to see your W-2s and compare the totals. 

You do get a printout of your contributions, which most people use for the charitable deduction. The bishop ask you if it looks right so that errors can be corrected, but I have hardly ever even seen the bishop glance at those figures. Those are for you!

There has been an exception.

In one ward we had a new bishop, and he did look at everyone's fast offerings.

He was very open about this, encouraging everyone to increase their fast offerings. He said he was doing this, and I know that he looked over the totals because he saw that mine were really high and commended me for that, then still emphasized the importance of generous fast offerings.

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

This was inappropriate.

I know his intentions were good. I know you are blessed for generous offerings. I know people who followed his advice and were blessed.

It would not have been bad for him to testify or speak about generous fast offerings, or maybe even to add that as part of his counsel during tithing settlement, but the way he did it pushed against the limits of his calling.

He tended in that direction anyway, especially on the topic of marriage (it was a singles ward). I know someone he really helped, but I also know someone he alienated.

That's the kind of thing that can happen when you truly want to help, but you are so sure that you know best that it seems to justify coercion.

I know of one person through mutual acquaintances who no longer attends church after being questioned on an "unnecessary" sports car.

Here are some more caveats:

It is possible to spend money in ways that are not good for you. Flashy, luxury items could easily be a part of that. It is certainly possible that an appropriate mention could be made and someone would still be offended and tell a biased version of that story. 

I don't believe that is what happened.

(And while materialism can be bad, there is a lot to be said for getting to have some things that you like, and they don't have to be what other people would choose.)

The even more damaging thing you hear is about some bishops adding extra questions to whether you obey the law of chastity, being intrusive and sometimes creating some very disturbing thoughts.

That is not to say that there can't be times when inspiration will guide to an extra question, or a bishop will feel a prompting to check on someone. I have seen that happen. 

It needs to be based in love and care for the individual, not a sense of superiority and entitlement.

I'm not saying it's easy, but why would any of it be?

And of course, the majority of people don't end up in a judging position anyway. 

Many more do get to be parents, an area where there are many opportunities to correct, and where I still have no personal experience.

Will I hurt feelings and offend next week? I won't be trying to, but I can't rule it out.

Request: If you have found my writing helpful or enjoyable, please consider making a donation at https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/sultryglebe