Wow. I am writing a lot this week.
This will be a short one...just a link to a news story that has me still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Busy Youth: Clarifying my T&S comment
I made a comment in a T&S conversation last night, but comments are closed and I never got a chance to explain what I was thinking, and some of the comments left me feeling like people might misunderstand me.
The conversation was about Seminary and the busy-ness of youth with the many programs they have. I said, more in a musing mode:
Julie says:
It's not that I don't have confidence in LDS families, it's just that youth are easily pulled into a variety of activities. If they are going to be socializing and busy, why not be doing it with youth in the Church who share their values? I'm NOT advocating useless activities, or overcramming to the point of trying to take over the family's role. This is something Elder Oaks also just talked about, and I think it's obvious that we still don't fully "get it" since our leaders keep repeating this counsel. But at the same time, our leaders haven't removed Seminary, or weekly activities, or BYC, or Scouts, or.... And so I trust that the problem isn't in the structure, its in the implementation.
I also was going off of something my sister has said. She has six children, and holds a busy leadership calling. She expressed to me how she was feeling that things were a bit crazy with all the different activities of all her children, many of them Church-related. In the penultimate Conference, she felt some perspective and felt that it was a good thing that our youth are kept busy with Church activities. There is so much that youth can get busy with that isn't as useful (again NOT to suggest that activities are more important than family; I'm saying something different).
Like I said in my comment, though, I am not at that stage yet, so all of what I said was sort of thinking out loud. I just wanted to be sure that people understood that I am not trying to say the Church should take over the family. That said, our leaders have acknowledged that:
Again, though, his most recent Conference talk really came down hard on church activities that are not focused and purposeful. How we spend our time in our families and in the Church needs to be tightened.
I think Elder Oaks talks about both keeping Church activities tight but also the risk that is there if the Church were to reduce activity time.
It cuts both ways. We need to be sure that Church activities count, but also that whatever time we don't spend involved with Church stuff is not spent on good-but-not-essential stuff. A hard balance all around, no?
The conversation was about Seminary and the busy-ness of youth with the many programs they have. I said, more in a musing mode:
I can’t help but wonder if the repetition in the youth programs is on purpose. If they weren’t busy with good church stuff, isn’t it likely that they’d be busy with other stuff that might not be as wholesome? I think getting youth together to strengthen each other often takes more than once a week. I dunno…I’m not at that stage yet, but I can’t help but think that it’s not redundancy without some intent.
Julie says:
It sounds like you don’t have much confidence in LDS families. I imagine some youth (like those in Adam’s ward) are better off at another YM/YW activity than at home, but others . . . I was thinking of Pres. Packer’s (and others) comments before Mark IV even posted them. Church leaders warn repeatedly that the church isn’t supposed to take the place of the primary unit: the family.
It's not that I don't have confidence in LDS families, it's just that youth are easily pulled into a variety of activities. If they are going to be socializing and busy, why not be doing it with youth in the Church who share their values? I'm NOT advocating useless activities, or overcramming to the point of trying to take over the family's role. This is something Elder Oaks also just talked about, and I think it's obvious that we still don't fully "get it" since our leaders keep repeating this counsel. But at the same time, our leaders haven't removed Seminary, or weekly activities, or BYC, or Scouts, or.... And so I trust that the problem isn't in the structure, its in the implementation.
I also was going off of something my sister has said. She has six children, and holds a busy leadership calling. She expressed to me how she was feeling that things were a bit crazy with all the different activities of all her children, many of them Church-related. In the penultimate Conference, she felt some perspective and felt that it was a good thing that our youth are kept busy with Church activities. There is so much that youth can get busy with that isn't as useful (again NOT to suggest that activities are more important than family; I'm saying something different).
Like I said in my comment, though, I am not at that stage yet, so all of what I said was sort of thinking out loud. I just wanted to be sure that people understood that I am not trying to say the Church should take over the family. That said, our leaders have acknowledged that:
We need both Church activities and family activities. If all families were complete and perfect, the Church could sponsor fewer activities. But in a world where many of our youth grow up in homes where one parent is missing, not a member, or otherwise inactive in gospel leadership, there is a special need for Church activities to fill in the gaps (Dallin H. Oaks, “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church,” Liahona, Nov 2005, 24–27).
Again, though, his most recent Conference talk really came down hard on church activities that are not focused and purposeful. How we spend our time in our families and in the Church needs to be tightened.
I think Elder Oaks talks about both keeping Church activities tight but also the risk that is there if the Church were to reduce activity time.
Stake presidencies and bishoprics need to exercise their authority to weed out the excessive and ineffective busyness that is sometimes required of the members of their stakes or wards. Church programs should focus on what is best (most effective) in achieving their assigned purposes without unduly infringing on the time families need for their "divinely appointed duties."
But here is a caution for families. Suppose Church leaders reduce the time required by Church meetings and activities in order to increase the time available for families to be together. This will not achieve its intended purpose unless individual family members—especially parents—vigorously act to increase family togetherness and one-on-one time. Team sports and technology toys like video games and the Internet are already winning away the time of our children and youth. Surfing the Internet is not better than serving the Lord or strengthening the family. Some young men and women are skipping Church youth activities or cutting family time in order to participate in soccer leagues or to pursue various entertainments. Some young people are amusing themselves to death—spiritual death.
It cuts both ways. We need to be sure that Church activities count, but also that whatever time we don't spend involved with Church stuff is not spent on good-but-not-essential stuff. A hard balance all around, no?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
"Latter-day Saint Women Should be the Very Best..."
There has been much ado about Sister Beck's recent talks. One element of her talks that has gotten a lot of attention is reflected in the title of this post. She asserts that Latter-day Saint women should be the "very best in the world at upholding, nurturing, and protecting families."
Many people have interpreted this as a statement of either self-righteousness or competition -- as if we are somehow to compare ourselves to the world and come out on top. I would like to consider her words in a different light, because I think such interpretations may be misrepresenting her message.
First of all, in all but one of her comments that I could see, Sister Beck didn't say that we are the best. She said that we should be the best. I hear this as an invitation to consider who we are and what we are here to do.
I hear her call to us as being similar to what the Savior said to His followers:
We are a covenant people. As such, we are supposed to be different. The Lord expects something from us. We are asked by the Lord to be a light to the world. I think Sister Beck is calling to us in a similar way. At the end of her Relief Society broadcast talk, she said the following:
I think Sister Beck is trying to remind us of the need for us to rise above the philosophies and practices of the world. We should understand the importance of faith, family and relief better than anyone because we have the knowledge the restored gospel and continuing revelation give us. There are those outside our faith who are doing MUCH good in these regards, but they don't have the fullness of the gospel to frame what they do and believe. They don't know of temple covenants that bind families together. They may not fully understand the "doctrine of the family" to which Sister Beck refers. But we do (or we should), and it is on our shoulders to put that light on a candlestick and "be the very best" so that, among other things, others can know that there is a better way. There is more light and knowledge about the family than the world knows. How will they know if we don't live what we know?
Does this mean other people can't be or aren't excellent parents, loving Christians, deeply good and God-fearing people? Of course not. Does this mean that we reject the good that others do? Absolutely not. We rejoice in the good others outside the Church do. We stand together with good people all over the world to serve, to defend marriage and to strengthen the family, and to try to make the world a better place. We are deeply grateful for those who respond to the light of Christ in their lives and recognize the importance of God and family above all else.
But we are the only people in the world bound by priesthood covenants to do these things. We are the only group of people led by prophets called as mouthpieces for the Lord Himself. That gives us not a reason to boast, but rather a sobering responsibility.
I hear Sister Beck expressing hope that we will rise to the duty that is ours to respond to the light that is ours by nature of the blessings of the Restoration. And seek to share that light in word and action. We should be living lives consistent with gospel principles better than anyone, not in a spirit of competition, but simply because we are the ones who know and have them. We can always do better, and I hear our leaders (all of them!) inviting us to do just that.
Many people have interpreted this as a statement of either self-righteousness or competition -- as if we are somehow to compare ourselves to the world and come out on top. I would like to consider her words in a different light, because I think such interpretations may be misrepresenting her message.
First of all, in all but one of her comments that I could see, Sister Beck didn't say that we are the best. She said that we should be the best. I hear this as an invitation to consider who we are and what we are here to do.
I hear her call to us as being similar to what the Savior said to His followers:
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5:14-16; see also 3 Nephi 12:14-16; 15:12)
We are a covenant people. As such, we are supposed to be different. The Lord expects something from us. We are asked by the Lord to be a light to the world. I think Sister Beck is calling to us in a similar way. At the end of her Relief Society broadcast talk, she said the following:
Our prophet, whom I sustain with all my heart, has said that there is a better way than the way of the world.
I think Sister Beck is trying to remind us of the need for us to rise above the philosophies and practices of the world. We should understand the importance of faith, family and relief better than anyone because we have the knowledge the restored gospel and continuing revelation give us. There are those outside our faith who are doing MUCH good in these regards, but they don't have the fullness of the gospel to frame what they do and believe. They don't know of temple covenants that bind families together. They may not fully understand the "doctrine of the family" to which Sister Beck refers. But we do (or we should), and it is on our shoulders to put that light on a candlestick and "be the very best" so that, among other things, others can know that there is a better way. There is more light and knowledge about the family than the world knows. How will they know if we don't live what we know?
Does this mean other people can't be or aren't excellent parents, loving Christians, deeply good and God-fearing people? Of course not. Does this mean that we reject the good that others do? Absolutely not. We rejoice in the good others outside the Church do. We stand together with good people all over the world to serve, to defend marriage and to strengthen the family, and to try to make the world a better place. We are deeply grateful for those who respond to the light of Christ in their lives and recognize the importance of God and family above all else.
But we are the only people in the world bound by priesthood covenants to do these things. We are the only group of people led by prophets called as mouthpieces for the Lord Himself. That gives us not a reason to boast, but rather a sobering responsibility.
For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation (D&C 82:3).
I hear Sister Beck expressing hope that we will rise to the duty that is ours to respond to the light that is ours by nature of the blessings of the Restoration. And seek to share that light in word and action. We should be living lives consistent with gospel principles better than anyone, not in a spirit of competition, but simply because we are the ones who know and have them. We can always do better, and I hear our leaders (all of them!) inviting us to do just that.
An Example of Why "Two-deep Leadership" is a Good Idea
This story reiterates to me the importance of always having two adults when a man is working with children: to have an adult witness in case accusations are made. If this man is truly innocent, this is a horrible tragedy in his life.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Thoughts on Sister Becks' Talk
I finally have a moment to write (and not long). So I'll try to follow through on a promise I made to BiV to share my thoughts on Sister Beck's talk.
I listened to it again and took copious notes, so I could not simply be going on first impressions, but focusing more on the specific things she said.
After listening to the talk again, and paying particular attention to what got so much attention, I was struck by how much it seemed people missed in their first impressions. Her talk was about so much more than just housekeeping, or about ironed clothes on Sunday. It was about having a spiritual and eternal perspective in our most important roles and responsibilities.
Everything she addressed in my mind came back to one main thing -- that we need more than ever to be vigilant in focusing on creating an environment in the home where children can best grow spiritually and temporally. We need to prepare them for the future. What comes to mind is what then-Elder Eyring said:
Sister Beck also talked about our perilous times, and how much vigilance we need as parents to make sure our children can face the challenges and responsibilities that lie ahead. If it will be harder as we go along to keep our covenants, that would suggest that we need to raise the bar in what we are doing in our spiritual lives and in our homes. That is what I see Sister Beck doing -- giving guidance on what mothers can do to make sure that they are doing 'all we can do' as leaders in our homes. I hear her reminding us that NOTHING else matters more. This is not new...we constantly hear that family responsibilities come first.
(Important to note is that she talked about being equal partners with our husbands in leading a 'great and eternal organization.')
BiV asked me specifically what my thoughts were on a few specific points, so I'll focus on those specifics first.
Education: Sister Beck said that education is not really worthwhile if we don't use our knowledge to create a climate for spiritual growth. In other words, I hear her saying that education is not an end, it is a means. Too often, I think we approach our goals as ends rather than means to help us help God fulfill His purposes. And too often, we put good things above what is essential. I think that is what she is driving at.
My impression with her words, especially when taken in context with other counsel we have received, is that if we pursue education for the sake of education and primarily for position, prestige and influence outside the home, we are missing the mark. All that we do should come back to God's work and glory, and that is focused on saving souls, particularly those in our families.
The prophets have also encouraged education in large measure as part of welfare principles of preparedness, not simply for personal fulfillment. (Sister Beck addressed the false doctrine of personal fulfillment in her RS talk as well.)
I believe an educated mother can benefit her children and her home in significant ways. The more educated we are, the more education will matter to our children, and the more prepared they will be for their future. Women will also be better able to provide (or help provide) for basic needs if necessary. And they will be better positioned to serve elsewhere (in the community, etc.) as guided by the Spirit. But Sister Beck's ordering of priorities is consistent with prophetic counsel. And it's clear she is inviting us to do more in our homes, which requires doing less elsewhere.
Nurturing, homemaking, etc.: Sister Beck defined nurturing more broadly than what has been focused on by many. She first defined nurturing as cultivating, caring for and making grow. She admonished us to 'create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth.' I think that is the backdrop for her comment that another word for nurturing is homemaking. But note that homemaking doesn't just mean housecleaning. It's making a home -- what I think she defined as a place for spiritual and temporal growth.
PART of helping children grow is being good examples of people who work, people who care about their surroundings. It also includes caring for the physical needs of our families, which means that we cook and clean. She in no way limited nurturing to only housekeeping chores, however. She also never said that men could never help with these things. (Did anyone notice that the picture shown when she mentioned the cooking, cleaning and such showed a DAD helping the children do dishes? I can't believe that was an accident. Again, equal partners work together to make sure these things happen. They work together to make a home. But the Proclamation teaches the rule that mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture and care of the children, because they are the ones who are counseled to be home during the day.)
She also made clear that keeping an orderly home isn't just about physical needs, or temporal training of our children (teaching them how to work), even though those things are important. An orderly home can help with spiritual growth as well.
I should say that perhaps my weakest point in mothering is housekeeping. That is made worse by chronic illness issues. Keeping a spotless house is nearly impossible for me, given my limited energy and my lack of ability in that area. So, sometimes when I hear counsel given to keep a clean house, I feel inadequate and overwhelmed, even depressed. I started down that path with her talk, but as I talked with my husband, I realized, as I am trying to remind myself constantly, that motherhood is a process. And I am trying to make improvements in our home so that we can have more order. I'm trying to rally the troops to do more to help with that. We are working together more in our family toward more cleanliness. Is not the process part of the counsel? Is there not much to be gained in trying to improve, even if the end result isn't perfect? Of course there is. Gospel living is always a process. And there is an Atonement to make up the difference when we have done the "very best we can" (quoting Pres. Hinckley).
I also will add something that brought a great deal of peace and perspective to me. Sister Beck talked about how the value we place on motherhood and attaining attributes of motherhood (even if we don't have children of our own!) will rise with us in the resurrection. Motherhood is about becoming. It is what MATTERS to us that matters to God. None of us will be perfect in what we do, in any facet of our lives. But if we are striving to be better, caring about what matters most, focusing on the 'best' (channeling Elder Oaks) things, the needful things, we will be blessed for our desires. God knows that I care about these things, and I'm trying to make changes toward making my mothering matter more. Isn't that what it's all about? We aren't being given END goals, we are being given guidance on the MEANS to eternally-important ends -- a spiritual home and an eternal family.
As to the Sunday best issue, there is another example of where I fall short, so my natural woman wanted to hide (or be frustrated) when she shared an example of children with pressed dresses and perfect hair.
But then I pondered the principle she was trying to teach. Was it really about appearances? NO. She was sharing an example of the way a woman can teach her children respect and honor for sacred ordinances and covenants. How many of us will get our children primped to perfection for a family photo, or impressing an important somebody (even Grandma) who is coming to dinner, or...(you get the drift). On the flip side, are you ever like me, trying to catch that extra 10 minutes of sleep on Sunday morning (because you stayed up too late Saturday night), and thus rush about, getting after (read: sometimes yelling at) your kids to hurry, only to get to church (frazzled) and look over at children with bed-head or mismatched clothes? If not, kudos to you. But I saw in what she was saying an invitation to give my best to the Lord, and to teach my children that NOTHING else matters more than our relationship with Him.
Immediately after talking about honoring sacred covenants and ordinances, Sister Beck talked about pointing our children to the temple. Would we go wrinkly and messy-haired to the temple? Probably not. (If we do, we probably shouldn't.) But is all this shallow stuff about appearances? No, I believe it's about heart. It's about respect. It's about a spirit of sacrifice and humility. Doesn't the Lord deserve our best efforts? Our best clothes? Our best teaching? Our best example?
This isn't about fodder for criticizing others, either. I'm grateful for kind ward members who understand that mornings are hard for me. But even so, can't I do a little better? Of course I can. And I should do it because I care about doing my best for God and teaching my children that the firstfruits of my life should be God's -- not because I care about what others think of me or my kids, but because I care about giving my best to the Lord...not because He needs it but because I do.
So there are some specific thoughts. I also just wanted to note all of the things that she mentioned that can help create a home that can foster spiritual and temporal growth. Since I'm a visual person, I like to SEE all that she said, to see all the meat that was in her talk.
- Know God, know who we are, make and honor covenants
- Welcome children into our home - it's a commandment that is 'still in force'! (Too many cultures have devalued children. MANY of our leaders have talked about this. As Latter-day Saints, we believe in having children, and that family goals come first.)
- We place value on motherhood and strive to develop the traits of divine motherhood. (That was in my words, but think of that.)
- Point children to the temple.
- Prepare children for missions (have a home as a pre-MTC).
- Help them plan for their ETERNAL FUTURE.
- Teach by example.
- Use our skills and knowledge toward our eternal goals.
- Foster an environment of organization (disorganization is a distraction and an energy drain...ask me, I know!), patience, love and work.
- Work beside children, teach and model qualities that we want our children to emulate (I would add that they will NEED to face the future).
- Work as equal partners in this 'great and eternal organization' -- the family!
- Realize that we are never off-duty. We are teachers, not merely babysitters. (The thought I had is that I should be spent at the end of a day like I was on my mission -- because there I gave ALL I had to that role. I sometimes don't do that as a mom. I hear her inviting me to give more of my heart to this role. As I do, I believe I will be giving more of my heart to the Lord.)
- Help our children prepare to be the future fathers and mothers and church leaders for the next generation; teach them to follow the Lord's pattern, not worldly patterns and social pressures. Teach them to be leaders by being leaders ourselves. (This implies the importance of being spiritually and temporally grounded ourselves.)
- Family home evening, family prayer, family scripture study, meal times are all times when we can teach. (We should be constantly teaching! This reminds of another then-Elder Eyring quote:
- Do less; focus on what will bear fruit eternally and reduce that which will not (this includes less media, less distraction, less activities that pull children out of the home)
- Live on less and consume less. (This isn't a save-the-environment plea, although that is a side benefit) -- this was direction given to spend more time with our children.
- We should spend more time eating together, working together, talking, laughing, singing, reading.
- Choose carefully what to do -- don't try to do it all. (Can't remember if she said this here or in the RS broadcast, but we should make sure that we are conserving our energy to focus on the things that matter eternally.)
- We should excel as members of the Church in upholding, nourishing and protecting families. She expresses her confidence that we will rise to this challenge!
There is SO much there!
I listened to it again and took copious notes, so I could not simply be going on first impressions, but focusing more on the specific things she said.
After listening to the talk again, and paying particular attention to what got so much attention, I was struck by how much it seemed people missed in their first impressions. Her talk was about so much more than just housekeeping, or about ironed clothes on Sunday. It was about having a spiritual and eternal perspective in our most important roles and responsibilities.
Everything she addressed in my mind came back to one main thing -- that we need more than ever to be vigilant in focusing on creating an environment in the home where children can best grow spiritually and temporally. We need to prepare them for the future. What comes to mind is what then-Elder Eyring said:
The prophets of God have foreseen the times in which we live. The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.” Anyone with eyes to see the signs of the times and ears to hear the words of prophets knows that the peril is great. The peril comes from the forces of wickedness. Those forces are increasing. And so it will become harder, not easier, to keep the covenants we must make to live the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sister Beck also talked about our perilous times, and how much vigilance we need as parents to make sure our children can face the challenges and responsibilities that lie ahead. If it will be harder as we go along to keep our covenants, that would suggest that we need to raise the bar in what we are doing in our spiritual lives and in our homes. That is what I see Sister Beck doing -- giving guidance on what mothers can do to make sure that they are doing 'all we can do' as leaders in our homes. I hear her reminding us that NOTHING else matters more. This is not new...we constantly hear that family responsibilities come first.
(Important to note is that she talked about being equal partners with our husbands in leading a 'great and eternal organization.')
BiV asked me specifically what my thoughts were on a few specific points, so I'll focus on those specifics first.
Education: Sister Beck said that education is not really worthwhile if we don't use our knowledge to create a climate for spiritual growth. In other words, I hear her saying that education is not an end, it is a means. Too often, I think we approach our goals as ends rather than means to help us help God fulfill His purposes. And too often, we put good things above what is essential. I think that is what she is driving at.
My impression with her words, especially when taken in context with other counsel we have received, is that if we pursue education for the sake of education and primarily for position, prestige and influence outside the home, we are missing the mark. All that we do should come back to God's work and glory, and that is focused on saving souls, particularly those in our families.
The prophets have also encouraged education in large measure as part of welfare principles of preparedness, not simply for personal fulfillment. (Sister Beck addressed the false doctrine of personal fulfillment in her RS talk as well.)
I believe an educated mother can benefit her children and her home in significant ways. The more educated we are, the more education will matter to our children, and the more prepared they will be for their future. Women will also be better able to provide (or help provide) for basic needs if necessary. And they will be better positioned to serve elsewhere (in the community, etc.) as guided by the Spirit. But Sister Beck's ordering of priorities is consistent with prophetic counsel. And it's clear she is inviting us to do more in our homes, which requires doing less elsewhere.
Nurturing, homemaking, etc.: Sister Beck defined nurturing more broadly than what has been focused on by many. She first defined nurturing as cultivating, caring for and making grow. She admonished us to 'create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth.' I think that is the backdrop for her comment that another word for nurturing is homemaking. But note that homemaking doesn't just mean housecleaning. It's making a home -- what I think she defined as a place for spiritual and temporal growth.
PART of helping children grow is being good examples of people who work, people who care about their surroundings. It also includes caring for the physical needs of our families, which means that we cook and clean. She in no way limited nurturing to only housekeeping chores, however. She also never said that men could never help with these things. (Did anyone notice that the picture shown when she mentioned the cooking, cleaning and such showed a DAD helping the children do dishes? I can't believe that was an accident. Again, equal partners work together to make sure these things happen. They work together to make a home. But the Proclamation teaches the rule that mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture and care of the children, because they are the ones who are counseled to be home during the day.)
She also made clear that keeping an orderly home isn't just about physical needs, or temporal training of our children (teaching them how to work), even though those things are important. An orderly home can help with spiritual growth as well.
I should say that perhaps my weakest point in mothering is housekeeping. That is made worse by chronic illness issues. Keeping a spotless house is nearly impossible for me, given my limited energy and my lack of ability in that area. So, sometimes when I hear counsel given to keep a clean house, I feel inadequate and overwhelmed, even depressed. I started down that path with her talk, but as I talked with my husband, I realized, as I am trying to remind myself constantly, that motherhood is a process. And I am trying to make improvements in our home so that we can have more order. I'm trying to rally the troops to do more to help with that. We are working together more in our family toward more cleanliness. Is not the process part of the counsel? Is there not much to be gained in trying to improve, even if the end result isn't perfect? Of course there is. Gospel living is always a process. And there is an Atonement to make up the difference when we have done the "very best we can" (quoting Pres. Hinckley).
I also will add something that brought a great deal of peace and perspective to me. Sister Beck talked about how the value we place on motherhood and attaining attributes of motherhood (even if we don't have children of our own!) will rise with us in the resurrection. Motherhood is about becoming. It is what MATTERS to us that matters to God. None of us will be perfect in what we do, in any facet of our lives. But if we are striving to be better, caring about what matters most, focusing on the 'best' (channeling Elder Oaks) things, the needful things, we will be blessed for our desires. God knows that I care about these things, and I'm trying to make changes toward making my mothering matter more. Isn't that what it's all about? We aren't being given END goals, we are being given guidance on the MEANS to eternally-important ends -- a spiritual home and an eternal family.
As to the Sunday best issue, there is another example of where I fall short, so my natural woman wanted to hide (or be frustrated) when she shared an example of children with pressed dresses and perfect hair.
But then I pondered the principle she was trying to teach. Was it really about appearances? NO. She was sharing an example of the way a woman can teach her children respect and honor for sacred ordinances and covenants. How many of us will get our children primped to perfection for a family photo, or impressing an important somebody (even Grandma) who is coming to dinner, or...(you get the drift). On the flip side, are you ever like me, trying to catch that extra 10 minutes of sleep on Sunday morning (because you stayed up too late Saturday night), and thus rush about, getting after (read: sometimes yelling at) your kids to hurry, only to get to church (frazzled) and look over at children with bed-head or mismatched clothes? If not, kudos to you. But I saw in what she was saying an invitation to give my best to the Lord, and to teach my children that NOTHING else matters more than our relationship with Him.
Immediately after talking about honoring sacred covenants and ordinances, Sister Beck talked about pointing our children to the temple. Would we go wrinkly and messy-haired to the temple? Probably not. (If we do, we probably shouldn't.) But is all this shallow stuff about appearances? No, I believe it's about heart. It's about respect. It's about a spirit of sacrifice and humility. Doesn't the Lord deserve our best efforts? Our best clothes? Our best teaching? Our best example?
This isn't about fodder for criticizing others, either. I'm grateful for kind ward members who understand that mornings are hard for me. But even so, can't I do a little better? Of course I can. And I should do it because I care about doing my best for God and teaching my children that the firstfruits of my life should be God's -- not because I care about what others think of me or my kids, but because I care about giving my best to the Lord...not because He needs it but because I do.
So there are some specific thoughts. I also just wanted to note all of the things that she mentioned that can help create a home that can foster spiritual and temporal growth. Since I'm a visual person, I like to SEE all that she said, to see all the meat that was in her talk.
- Know God, know who we are, make and honor covenants
- Welcome children into our home - it's a commandment that is 'still in force'! (Too many cultures have devalued children. MANY of our leaders have talked about this. As Latter-day Saints, we believe in having children, and that family goals come first.)
- We place value on motherhood and strive to develop the traits of divine motherhood. (That was in my words, but think of that.)
- Point children to the temple.
- Prepare children for missions (have a home as a pre-MTC).
- Help them plan for their ETERNAL FUTURE.
- Teach by example.
- Use our skills and knowledge toward our eternal goals.
- Foster an environment of organization (disorganization is a distraction and an energy drain...ask me, I know!), patience, love and work.
- Work beside children, teach and model qualities that we want our children to emulate (I would add that they will NEED to face the future).
- Work as equal partners in this 'great and eternal organization' -- the family!
- Realize that we are never off-duty. We are teachers, not merely babysitters. (The thought I had is that I should be spent at the end of a day like I was on my mission -- because there I gave ALL I had to that role. I sometimes don't do that as a mom. I hear her inviting me to give more of my heart to this role. As I do, I believe I will be giving more of my heart to the Lord.)
- Help our children prepare to be the future fathers and mothers and church leaders for the next generation; teach them to follow the Lord's pattern, not worldly patterns and social pressures. Teach them to be leaders by being leaders ourselves. (This implies the importance of being spiritually and temporally grounded ourselves.)
- Family home evening, family prayer, family scripture study, meal times are all times when we can teach. (We should be constantly teaching! This reminds of another then-Elder Eyring quote:
We have the greatest opportunity with the young. The best time to teach is early, while children are still immune to the temptations of their mortal enemy, and long before the words of truth may be harder for them to hear in the noise of their personal struggles.
A wise parent would never miss a chance to gather children together to learn of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Such moments are so rare in comparison with the efforts of the enemy. For every hour the power of doctrine is introduced into a child’s life, there may be hundreds of hours of messages and images denying or ignoring the saving truths.
The question should not be whether we are too tired to prepare to teach doctrine or whether it wouldn’t be better to draw a child closer by just having fun or whether the child isn’t beginning to think that we preach too much. The question must be, “With so little time and so few opportunities, what words of doctrine from me will fortify them against the attacks on their faith which are sure to come?” The words you speak today may be the ones they remember. And today will soon be gone.
- Do less; focus on what will bear fruit eternally and reduce that which will not (this includes less media, less distraction, less activities that pull children out of the home)
- Live on less and consume less. (This isn't a save-the-environment plea, although that is a side benefit) -- this was direction given to spend more time with our children.
- We should spend more time eating together, working together, talking, laughing, singing, reading.
- Choose carefully what to do -- don't try to do it all. (Can't remember if she said this here or in the RS broadcast, but we should make sure that we are conserving our energy to focus on the things that matter eternally.)
- We should excel as members of the Church in upholding, nourishing and protecting families. She expresses her confidence that we will rise to this challenge!
There is SO much there!
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Discussion-Induced Disappointment Disorder
Update: Julie M. Smith provides a useful remedy for my troubles today, by adding some reason and perspective to the reactions to Sister Beck that dominated discussions today. Yeah for Julie.
Yeah for Keryn, too, who really, really captured the blessings that can come from catching the spirit of what Sister Beck said. Thanks, Keryn!!!!
Ouch.
I just jumped on to check into the pulse of things after Conference. I went from a spiritual high to feeling sick to my stomach. I am deeply disappointed in much of the discussion I saw. I was feeling some of that yesterday, as it seemed that people were just too quick to complain or criticize instead of just soak in the wonder that is Conference weekend.
I love the benefits of discussion. It's why I blog. I love interacting with people and sharing ideas back and forth. But sometimes I think people take things too far. The negativity I have seen today is bordering on shocking to me. I don't want to take away the way discussion can help people sort through thoughts, but there has to be a better way that can keep the spirit of what we heard alive. Much of what I read -- criticism, nitpicking, complaining -- took away from that spirit. It saddened me to hear the people I have grown to care about in the bloggernacle tear apart talks from some of the people I respect and sustain as my leaders.
Our leaders have expressed confidence in us. I'm particularly thinking of Sister Beck and the confidence she has expressed in us as women -- that we will be united, one voice, together behind what she taught as true and correct. I was amazed at how people would pick and choose what they liked and didn't like from last week's Relief Society broadcast (they are a united front, a united presidency -- do we really think that they don't support what the other says, that they haven't talked about what they were going to share?) And today, it's been even worse.
Our leaders aren't simply a bunch of individuals just out to push their individual agendas. I believe they speak as a united group. They spend weeks, if not months, seeking the Lord's guidance and seeking to find what HE would have them say.
I can't imagine that presenting their messages is easy; they speak to a worldwide audience whose individual lives vary in many ways. They only have a few minutes to try to cover deep and crucial topics. Are they perfect? They would be the first to admit that they are not.
And yet, our prophet recommended ALL of Conference to us for our review and pondering. He made no qualification of that recommendation. I am astounded at the level of negativity I have seen. I understand wanting to sort through ideas, but again, there has to be a better way than what I have seen today. Can't we do better?
If there is something we struggle with, something that didn't sit quite right, Elder Eyring gave us the key to what we could do (from the press conference). It was the counsel Pres. Faust gave him -- to go to God. Public criticism and fault-finding and negative hyper-analysis seems wholly inappropriate to me, and distracting from the amazing spirit that was present during this wonderful weekend.
I also think that if we struggle with something one person has said, almost surely someone else will have addressed our concern in another talk. The way I see it, their talks are interconnected, and part of a larger picture that no one person could capture in a 15-minute address. No one talk will be able to cover the vastness of the gospel message, nor of the many ways we could improve living it and enjoying its blessings. I think it is completely unfair to expect one person to say everything we want to hear, or to say something that applies to every single person all of the time, or to cover even all the bases that that person surely wants to cover. Try to imagine it!
I would have hoped for more testimony-building discussion. I leave my computer tonight stunned and disappointed. I will say thanks to those who did report and discuss in positive ways. I will try to read more of your words later. But for now, I am hurting that there could be as much discord and criticism as there was, and the (what feels to me) cavalier assumptions and discussions that somehow seem to imply that any of us could know better than our heaven-called leaders about what should have been said.
Addendum: I want to reiterate that I am not anti-discussion. I just think there are ways we can engage each other without being critical of our leaders and negative in our approach.
Yeah for Keryn, too, who really, really captured the blessings that can come from catching the spirit of what Sister Beck said. Thanks, Keryn!!!!
Ouch.
I just jumped on to check into the pulse of things after Conference. I went from a spiritual high to feeling sick to my stomach. I am deeply disappointed in much of the discussion I saw. I was feeling some of that yesterday, as it seemed that people were just too quick to complain or criticize instead of just soak in the wonder that is Conference weekend.
I love the benefits of discussion. It's why I blog. I love interacting with people and sharing ideas back and forth. But sometimes I think people take things too far. The negativity I have seen today is bordering on shocking to me. I don't want to take away the way discussion can help people sort through thoughts, but there has to be a better way that can keep the spirit of what we heard alive. Much of what I read -- criticism, nitpicking, complaining -- took away from that spirit. It saddened me to hear the people I have grown to care about in the bloggernacle tear apart talks from some of the people I respect and sustain as my leaders.
Our leaders have expressed confidence in us. I'm particularly thinking of Sister Beck and the confidence she has expressed in us as women -- that we will be united, one voice, together behind what she taught as true and correct. I was amazed at how people would pick and choose what they liked and didn't like from last week's Relief Society broadcast (they are a united front, a united presidency -- do we really think that they don't support what the other says, that they haven't talked about what they were going to share?) And today, it's been even worse.
Our leaders aren't simply a bunch of individuals just out to push their individual agendas. I believe they speak as a united group. They spend weeks, if not months, seeking the Lord's guidance and seeking to find what HE would have them say.
I can't imagine that presenting their messages is easy; they speak to a worldwide audience whose individual lives vary in many ways. They only have a few minutes to try to cover deep and crucial topics. Are they perfect? They would be the first to admit that they are not.
And yet, our prophet recommended ALL of Conference to us for our review and pondering. He made no qualification of that recommendation. I am astounded at the level of negativity I have seen. I understand wanting to sort through ideas, but again, there has to be a better way than what I have seen today. Can't we do better?
If there is something we struggle with, something that didn't sit quite right, Elder Eyring gave us the key to what we could do (from the press conference). It was the counsel Pres. Faust gave him -- to go to God. Public criticism and fault-finding and negative hyper-analysis seems wholly inappropriate to me, and distracting from the amazing spirit that was present during this wonderful weekend.
I also think that if we struggle with something one person has said, almost surely someone else will have addressed our concern in another talk. The way I see it, their talks are interconnected, and part of a larger picture that no one person could capture in a 15-minute address. No one talk will be able to cover the vastness of the gospel message, nor of the many ways we could improve living it and enjoying its blessings. I think it is completely unfair to expect one person to say everything we want to hear, or to say something that applies to every single person all of the time, or to cover even all the bases that that person surely wants to cover. Try to imagine it!
I would have hoped for more testimony-building discussion. I leave my computer tonight stunned and disappointed. I will say thanks to those who did report and discuss in positive ways. I will try to read more of your words later. But for now, I am hurting that there could be as much discord and criticism as there was, and the (what feels to me) cavalier assumptions and discussions that somehow seem to imply that any of us could know better than our heaven-called leaders about what should have been said.
Addendum: I want to reiterate that I am not anti-discussion. I just think there are ways we can engage each other without being critical of our leaders and negative in our approach.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Lights Out!
This is great.
The story I read earlier today said that the Church was planning on turning off lights on Temple Square.
Reading some numbers about what a difference five light bulbs can make multiplied by lots of people gives me more motivation to be more careful about turning off lights. You know, sometimes it feels like our little efforts aren't really a drop in the bucket, but if we all do a little....
The story I read earlier today said that the Church was planning on turning off lights on Temple Square.
Reading some numbers about what a difference five light bulbs can make multiplied by lots of people gives me more motivation to be more careful about turning off lights. You know, sometimes it feels like our little efforts aren't really a drop in the bucket, but if we all do a little....
Friday, September 14, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Utah Pandemic Plan -- Input Needed
For all you Utahns, if you haven't heard about this, it's worth a read. I'm thrilled that they are asking for public input. Here's a chance to get involved directly with something that could potentially impact us all personally.
Gotta Love Pres. Hinckley
Pres. Hinckley just received an award. This story captures his delightful personality, his sharp mind, and the impact he has had on many people. I was moved by the prayer given by bishop of the Catholic Diocese in Salt Lake.
It's a story well worth the read.
It's a story well worth the read.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Thoughts on Church History
The internet has been abuzz with discussions about the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all the more so since the PBS special that aired a while back, and now the talk about the movie "September Dawn." Surveys have even been conducted, asking Church members how much history they think the Church should share. Discussions such as this one show up not infrequently.
This is a topic on which there is obviously a range of opinions. It's one I have mulled over for months. Several weeks ago, I decided to turn to the Book of Mormon to see if I could find some insight on this topic of history. I searched on the word "history" and was surprised to find only six occurrences of the word. Interestingly, all of them are found within the first three books. I studied those six verses in addition to other related verses, and discovered what I think is a profound scriptural model for handling history.
This is a topic on which there is obviously a range of opinions. It's one I have mulled over for months. Several weeks ago, I decided to turn to the Book of Mormon to see if I could find some insight on this topic of history. I searched on the word "history" and was surprised to find only six occurrences of the word. Interestingly, all of them are found within the first three books. I studied those six verses in addition to other related verses, and discovered what I think is a profound scriptural model for handling history.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Some Brief Reviews of "September Dawn"
This is probably not new to anyone keeping track of responses to the film, but for those who are interested in a brief story on some of the reviews, you can go here.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Thoughts on the Bloggernacle, Panel
There has been much discussion about the much-discussed panel (and about the bloggernacle as a result -- after seeing a link to this blog post, I wanted to point out that the comma in the title was deliberate!), and I want to throw in my few cents' worth.
First of all, I listened to the recording, and thought the panelists all did a good job. Although I think Kaimi greatly overstated the fraction of the church elephant that the bloggernacle represents, I thought he came up with an interesting analogy. I loved Kristine's more personal approach; she read some powerful blog posts and interesting comments. And for all that Russell said he would be boring, he wasn't. I thought his analysis was well done and well presented. I particularly liked that he recognized the limitations of blogging, but recognized its strengths (conversation and interaction).
And then there was Lisa.
Anyone who has ever listened to her will know that she is funny, fun, and real. She's really a delight to listen to, personable and honest. (I will say that she needs to stop apologizing for who she is or what she think she is not.. She doesn't need a Ph.D. to communicate and to communicate well. :) )
Her honesty is something I appreciated in this panel. When the topic of the panel came up at DMI Dave's blog, I agreed with something said C Jones said about conservatives being somewhat excluded from the bloggernacle. I have seen this dynamic multiple times, and have repeatedly experienced it first hand in the year+ I have been blogging. I have close friends who have also felt this exclusion, to the point of essentially retreating and more or less giving up on commenting, particularly on the "big blogs." Just because some very, very small conservative blogs exist doesn't mean that the bloggernacle is fundamentally a welcoming place for conservatives. It's often not.
And yet, Lisa is possibly the first person I have heard who has so publicly and clearly admitted and recognized this. I read comments and emails from people who say that they care about community (and I believe they do) but few seem to really acknowledge the fact that there is a serious rift in this community or express a desire to do something about it. (I do remember reading a couple of good posts on BCC, one that was fairly recent, that tried to address the potential lack of community. I also have appreciated watching Deborah and Kathryn Lynard Soper recently try to build a bridge of understanding and camaraderie. I'd love to see more of this!)
I'm not saying the rift exists 100% of the time, and I do know that there are those who care deeply about this divide, but it seems there is often a sense of denial and/or defensiveness when the subject is broached. And the rift exists enough to make conservatives sometimes feel unwelcome, hesitant, even driven out. Unless this changes (getting to the question the panel set out to address), I don't see how we could think of the bloggernacle as really representative of Mormonism if it tends to exclude some of the very voices that are more typical of mainstream Mormonism.
So, back to Lisa. I actually couldn't decide whether to cheer or to cry when she quipped that (paraphrasing): "We berate conservatives/orthodox [her words] folks because we don't want to hear what we hear at church" and "we nudge some people like that out, because after all, if they want to talk churchy stuff, they can go somewhere else and do it in their own space." (For now, I'll try to ignore the fact that those in attendance laughed when she joked about berating conservative folks. Imagine if the tables were turned at church. Is berating or nudging someone out ever funny?)
Now, before you go all wonky on me (loved that word; I'm stealing it from Lisa), please don't misunderstand. I totally recognize and appreciate the fact that some people need a place where they can go to sort through their mind vomit (another one of Lisa's clever terms) and to come to grips with dissonance they might feel between the church and some of their personal perspectives. I understand that some people have had bad experiences with people in their family or in their church circle totally dismissing their questions and concerns, and/or unkindly "calling them to repentance." This should not be. Wherever we are, we need to feel loved and listened to, in spite of our questions or concerns or weaknesses. I feel saddened that people like Lisa feel excluded at church and have turned to the bloggernacle for a feeling of acceptance and support. And I am glad that some people have found reasons to stay, thanks to the bloggernacle. I tend to agree that a lot of these discussions really can't happen in a 30-minute Sunday-school lesson.
I do think, though, that we need to somehow learn to talk more freely with fellow church members in our real lives about our struggles. But, alas, I'm getting ahead of myself.
My blogging experience has given me a greater appreciation for the fact that we are all at different places in our journey of faith, and if we turn to God, however and wherever we can, He can bless us and help us move forward. I feel that I have learned better how to listen (even if people don't believe that's true), and I have gained more understanding of different points of view. This is extremely important to me, and it's a big reason why I blog.
But, to be honest, I think that "liberals" don't often take the time to really understand "conservatives'" point of view. Perhaps because conservative points of view have added to people's pain and struggle, I feel sometimes these perspectives are too easily and quickly dismissed. The "I get that at church" mindset often seems to create a barrier to listening and seeking to understand.
So if I may, I want to say this: Just because you hear similar thoughts at church doesn't mean that you really understand those like me who blog, and it doesn't mean our motives are the same as those who may have caused you pain (if their motives were truly malignant). We wouldn't be blogging if we weren't interested in discussion beyond what happens at church as well, so perhaps it's NOT all like what you get at church. :)
And please, please, don't assume that by sharing church-like thoughts, someone's intentions are to self-righteously call someone to repentance, to call someone else an apostate, or to try to shut down discussion. (These are all arguments I have seen repeatedly and usually unfairly used to shut down (nudge out) commenters like me.) Most of the time, people like me are also trying to work through our own thoughts, to understand others' points of view, and sometimes, yes, to represent the oft-underrepresented and -unspoken mainstream point of view. After all, people ARE turning to the bloggernacle more and more for understanding of Mormonism. If we don't allow for mainstream points of view, what kind of disservice might we be doing to the Church and to those who want to understand it?
I've talked about the problem of exclusion of conservatives, and addressed concerns about the public face of the bloggernacle. I have another bloggernacle concern that relates to all of this.
I think that as long as there are divisions -- "ites" if you will -- like liberal and conservative, orthodox and new order (don't know if those are actual opposites, but you get where I'm going), feminist and not-so-feminist, mainstream and closer-to-the-edge, we (either on- or off-line) won't truly be able to be a community. Of course, as Elder Holland recently explained, the blessings of church membership come with a price, and we cannot simply remove the price tag at will, even for the sake of community. But so often, we have rifts between those of us who are striving to pay the price, those for whom church membership is a precious element of life. In fact, I feel that sometimes more effort is made to reach out to those not of or formerly of our faith, rather than to those who might be different from us within the faith.
If all we do is find our corner of the internet to simply be comfortable without sometime, somehow learning to come together in spite of our differences, I think we are missing the full meaning and purpose of our membership. It's not just about personal peace. It's about being one in a community, united in Christ.
I think J. Daniel Crawford said it well in the post I linked to above:
I hope that especially those who have power and influence in the bloggernacle will give some consideration to these wise words. Actually, though, I think it is something we all need to consider. I think too often, we allow ourselves to stay stuck in mindsets and modes of interaction that reinforce and facilitate the divisions and contentions that the Lord has asked us to leave behind. I think that only through a love and a unity that binds us together in spite of insecurities, struggles, frustrations, and even misunderstandings will we hope to come close to representing what the gospel and the church are about. Because ultimately, the gospel and church are about the Savior and His saving grace and about coming unto Him, and doing it together -- not about polygamy, or the Word of Wisdom, or politics, or most of the other comment-driving, conversation-producing, controversial topics we may discuss. I think we need to do better about helping people see that side of our faith that so far, the press has largely missed.
Actually, sometimes I think we miss it, too.
First of all, I listened to the recording, and thought the panelists all did a good job. Although I think Kaimi greatly overstated the fraction of the church elephant that the bloggernacle represents, I thought he came up with an interesting analogy. I loved Kristine's more personal approach; she read some powerful blog posts and interesting comments. And for all that Russell said he would be boring, he wasn't. I thought his analysis was well done and well presented. I particularly liked that he recognized the limitations of blogging, but recognized its strengths (conversation and interaction).
And then there was Lisa.
Anyone who has ever listened to her will know that she is funny, fun, and real. She's really a delight to listen to, personable and honest. (I will say that she needs to stop apologizing for who she is or what she think she is not.. She doesn't need a Ph.D. to communicate and to communicate well. :) )
Her honesty is something I appreciated in this panel. When the topic of the panel came up at DMI Dave's blog, I agreed with something said C Jones said about conservatives being somewhat excluded from the bloggernacle. I have seen this dynamic multiple times, and have repeatedly experienced it first hand in the year+ I have been blogging. I have close friends who have also felt this exclusion, to the point of essentially retreating and more or less giving up on commenting, particularly on the "big blogs." Just because some very, very small conservative blogs exist doesn't mean that the bloggernacle is fundamentally a welcoming place for conservatives. It's often not.
And yet, Lisa is possibly the first person I have heard who has so publicly and clearly admitted and recognized this. I read comments and emails from people who say that they care about community (and I believe they do) but few seem to really acknowledge the fact that there is a serious rift in this community or express a desire to do something about it. (I do remember reading a couple of good posts on BCC, one that was fairly recent, that tried to address the potential lack of community. I also have appreciated watching Deborah and Kathryn Lynard Soper recently try to build a bridge of understanding and camaraderie. I'd love to see more of this!)
I'm not saying the rift exists 100% of the time, and I do know that there are those who care deeply about this divide, but it seems there is often a sense of denial and/or defensiveness when the subject is broached. And the rift exists enough to make conservatives sometimes feel unwelcome, hesitant, even driven out. Unless this changes (getting to the question the panel set out to address), I don't see how we could think of the bloggernacle as really representative of Mormonism if it tends to exclude some of the very voices that are more typical of mainstream Mormonism.
So, back to Lisa. I actually couldn't decide whether to cheer or to cry when she quipped that (paraphrasing): "We berate conservatives/orthodox [her words] folks because we don't want to hear what we hear at church" and "we nudge some people like that out, because after all, if they want to talk churchy stuff, they can go somewhere else and do it in their own space." (For now, I'll try to ignore the fact that those in attendance laughed when she joked about berating conservative folks. Imagine if the tables were turned at church. Is berating or nudging someone out ever funny?)
Now, before you go all wonky on me (loved that word; I'm stealing it from Lisa), please don't misunderstand. I totally recognize and appreciate the fact that some people need a place where they can go to sort through their mind vomit (another one of Lisa's clever terms) and to come to grips with dissonance they might feel between the church and some of their personal perspectives. I understand that some people have had bad experiences with people in their family or in their church circle totally dismissing their questions and concerns, and/or unkindly "calling them to repentance." This should not be. Wherever we are, we need to feel loved and listened to, in spite of our questions or concerns or weaknesses. I feel saddened that people like Lisa feel excluded at church and have turned to the bloggernacle for a feeling of acceptance and support. And I am glad that some people have found reasons to stay, thanks to the bloggernacle. I tend to agree that a lot of these discussions really can't happen in a 30-minute Sunday-school lesson.
I do think, though, that we need to somehow learn to talk more freely with fellow church members in our real lives about our struggles. But, alas, I'm getting ahead of myself.
My blogging experience has given me a greater appreciation for the fact that we are all at different places in our journey of faith, and if we turn to God, however and wherever we can, He can bless us and help us move forward. I feel that I have learned better how to listen (even if people don't believe that's true), and I have gained more understanding of different points of view. This is extremely important to me, and it's a big reason why I blog.
But, to be honest, I think that "liberals" don't often take the time to really understand "conservatives'" point of view. Perhaps because conservative points of view have added to people's pain and struggle, I feel sometimes these perspectives are too easily and quickly dismissed. The "I get that at church" mindset often seems to create a barrier to listening and seeking to understand.
So if I may, I want to say this: Just because you hear similar thoughts at church doesn't mean that you really understand those like me who blog, and it doesn't mean our motives are the same as those who may have caused you pain (if their motives were truly malignant). We wouldn't be blogging if we weren't interested in discussion beyond what happens at church as well, so perhaps it's NOT all like what you get at church. :)
And please, please, don't assume that by sharing church-like thoughts, someone's intentions are to self-righteously call someone to repentance, to call someone else an apostate, or to try to shut down discussion. (These are all arguments I have seen repeatedly and usually unfairly used to shut down (nudge out) commenters like me.) Most of the time, people like me are also trying to work through our own thoughts, to understand others' points of view, and sometimes, yes, to represent the oft-underrepresented and -unspoken mainstream point of view. After all, people ARE turning to the bloggernacle more and more for understanding of Mormonism. If we don't allow for mainstream points of view, what kind of disservice might we be doing to the Church and to those who want to understand it?
I've talked about the problem of exclusion of conservatives, and addressed concerns about the public face of the bloggernacle. I have another bloggernacle concern that relates to all of this.
I think that as long as there are divisions -- "ites" if you will -- like liberal and conservative, orthodox and new order (don't know if those are actual opposites, but you get where I'm going), feminist and not-so-feminist, mainstream and closer-to-the-edge, we (either on- or off-line) won't truly be able to be a community. Of course, as Elder Holland recently explained, the blessings of church membership come with a price, and we cannot simply remove the price tag at will, even for the sake of community. But so often, we have rifts between those of us who are striving to pay the price, those for whom church membership is a precious element of life. In fact, I feel that sometimes more effort is made to reach out to those not of or formerly of our faith, rather than to those who might be different from us within the faith.
If all we do is find our corner of the internet to simply be comfortable without sometime, somehow learning to come together in spite of our differences, I think we are missing the full meaning and purpose of our membership. It's not just about personal peace. It's about being one in a community, united in Christ.
I think J. Daniel Crawford said it well in the post I linked to above:
If we were one in Christ, I believe that we would be encouraged to treat everyone as a whole person, not simply as an amalgam of desirable and undesirable characteristics [might I add points of view?].... If we have [the love of Christ] I don’t believe our goal would be to create and reinforce the divisions among us. Instead, we would be bound in one great whole.
I hope that especially those who have power and influence in the bloggernacle will give some consideration to these wise words. Actually, though, I think it is something we all need to consider. I think too often, we allow ourselves to stay stuck in mindsets and modes of interaction that reinforce and facilitate the divisions and contentions that the Lord has asked us to leave behind. I think that only through a love and a unity that binds us together in spite of insecurities, struggles, frustrations, and even misunderstandings will we hope to come close to representing what the gospel and the church are about. Because ultimately, the gospel and church are about the Savior and His saving grace and about coming unto Him, and doing it together -- not about polygamy, or the Word of Wisdom, or politics, or most of the other comment-driving, conversation-producing, controversial topics we may discuss. I think we need to do better about helping people see that side of our faith that so far, the press has largely missed.
Actually, sometimes I think we miss it, too.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Circle of Life
I said good-bye to Grandma today, probably for the last time.
Grandpa may be losing his mind, but his body is strong, so I might see him again.
But probably not Grandma.
I wasn't really prepared for it all. I came to the family reunion specifically knowing that it might be the last time I see them. I knew they weren't doing well, but....
I had the privilege of sitting next to Grandma. Of holding her soft hand. Of feeding her spoonfuls of yogurt. Of giving her glimpses of who and what she couldn't see. She would break into a huge grin when she would hear the sweet sound of the small children's laughter and chatter.
She kept talking of how much she wished she could see all the grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had gathered to honor her and Grandpa. I tried to communicate the love and honor that we feel. Tears came to my eyes as she simply turned the glory to God. Her humility in her suffering touched me.
Indeed, God has been so good to us. And how can I be anything but grateful to have had loving grandparents who have lived for this long, and to have so many wonderful, wonderful memories?
But with the gratitude, of course, comes great sadness. I finally had to take a walk to let the tears flow. They flowed again as Dad wheeled Grandma away toward the car. The realization of the temporary finality of it all was too much for me.
The emotion is draining, and I also find myself in a reflective mood. How strange it was to be at Grandma and Grandpa's house, but not to be the one splashing in the pool. I and my cousins and siblings are the parents now, and our parents are now the grandparents. I watched my dad holding one of my nephews and wondered what the next couple of decades will bring for us all as the circle of life continues.
This process of birth, life and death is a rich and fulfilling one. But it's also sobering. Time passes, and it passes quickly. Moments like these cause me to reflect on the importance of savoring life's stages, of making memories that can last, of putting God and family first.
Someday my children will sit by the side of their grandparents as they prepare to pass on. I hope they will feel the joy that I have felt that comes of sweet memories, of fun, of love, of the treasure that is family.
Grandpa may be losing his mind, but his body is strong, so I might see him again.
But probably not Grandma.
I wasn't really prepared for it all. I came to the family reunion specifically knowing that it might be the last time I see them. I knew they weren't doing well, but....
I had the privilege of sitting next to Grandma. Of holding her soft hand. Of feeding her spoonfuls of yogurt. Of giving her glimpses of who and what she couldn't see. She would break into a huge grin when she would hear the sweet sound of the small children's laughter and chatter.
She kept talking of how much she wished she could see all the grandchildren and great-grandchildren who had gathered to honor her and Grandpa. I tried to communicate the love and honor that we feel. Tears came to my eyes as she simply turned the glory to God. Her humility in her suffering touched me.
Indeed, God has been so good to us. And how can I be anything but grateful to have had loving grandparents who have lived for this long, and to have so many wonderful, wonderful memories?
But with the gratitude, of course, comes great sadness. I finally had to take a walk to let the tears flow. They flowed again as Dad wheeled Grandma away toward the car. The realization of the temporary finality of it all was too much for me.
The emotion is draining, and I also find myself in a reflective mood. How strange it was to be at Grandma and Grandpa's house, but not to be the one splashing in the pool. I and my cousins and siblings are the parents now, and our parents are now the grandparents. I watched my dad holding one of my nephews and wondered what the next couple of decades will bring for us all as the circle of life continues.
This process of birth, life and death is a rich and fulfilling one. But it's also sobering. Time passes, and it passes quickly. Moments like these cause me to reflect on the importance of savoring life's stages, of making memories that can last, of putting God and family first.
Someday my children will sit by the side of their grandparents as they prepare to pass on. I hope they will feel the joy that I have felt that comes of sweet memories, of fun, of love, of the treasure that is family.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
A Couple More Links
In a recent conversation elsewhere, I said that I'm not sure that the Founding Fathers would have wanted decisions made (such as what to do about marriage in our nation) without the consideration of moral -- even religious -- principles. I just wanted to provide a couple of links (here and here) that expound a bit more (better than I could) on the topic.
I could add here that two of my "non-religious" concerns with gay marriage relate to Constitutional rights: religious rights (see this article for an interesting discussion of this topic) and free speech rights. I am concerned that these rights could be threatened if gay rights prevail.
Please note that what I said earlier when I posted on this topic applies to these posts as well:
I realize this is an issue many people are tired of discussing. If that describes you, please feel free to ignore what I have said. It might be better if you do. :) I also realize how strongly people can feel about this topic. I respectfully ask that any comments be about the information, issues, and concerns that have been brought up, and not include personal attacks (or attacks on my faith or my Church) or bullying. If you have evidence to counter my concerns, by all means, feel free to share. I don't pretend to have a full understanding of this issue.
I do moderate comments. Inflammatory, attacking comments will either be edited or left out entirely. I don't expect that everyone will agree, and I'm open to listening to any point of view as long as it keeps on the topic at hand and I feel it remains respectful. Thank you.
I could add here that two of my "non-religious" concerns with gay marriage relate to Constitutional rights: religious rights (see this article for an interesting discussion of this topic) and free speech rights. I am concerned that these rights could be threatened if gay rights prevail.
Please note that what I said earlier when I posted on this topic applies to these posts as well:
I realize this is an issue many people are tired of discussing. If that describes you, please feel free to ignore what I have said. It might be better if you do. :) I also realize how strongly people can feel about this topic. I respectfully ask that any comments be about the information, issues, and concerns that have been brought up, and not include personal attacks (or attacks on my faith or my Church) or bullying. If you have evidence to counter my concerns, by all means, feel free to share. I don't pretend to have a full understanding of this issue.
I do moderate comments. Inflammatory, attacking comments will either be edited or left out entirely. I don't expect that everyone will agree, and I'm open to listening to any point of view as long as it keeps on the topic at hand and I feel it remains respectful. Thank you.
"The Social Value of Traditional Marriage"
Elder Bruce C. Hafen spoke at the World Congress on Families in May of this year. Here is a link to his talk.
I include this in part because some people have asked what some of my more "non-religious" concerns are with gay marriage. This talk reflects some of them. (For example, note his extensive comments about the problems that have (and continue to) come as individual rights are put before the welfare of society as a whole; the concerns about less-than-ideal situations for children (where the ideal is to be raised by biological parents); and the potential threat to democratic society if marriage is undermined (although my concerns regarding democracy take a different road than his).)
While I realize that some will want to take issue with some of his points (I think I can predict which ones will get the most reaction), I think he makes a good case for leaving marriage as it has always been defined: between a man and a woman.
I include this in part because some people have asked what some of my more "non-religious" concerns are with gay marriage. This talk reflects some of them. (For example, note his extensive comments about the problems that have (and continue to) come as individual rights are put before the welfare of society as a whole; the concerns about less-than-ideal situations for children (where the ideal is to be raised by biological parents); and the potential threat to democratic society if marriage is undermined (although my concerns regarding democracy take a different road than his).)
While I realize that some will want to take issue with some of his points (I think I can predict which ones will get the most reaction), I think he makes a good case for leaving marriage as it has always been defined: between a man and a woman.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Learning a bit About Minerva Teichert
This was a fun story. Maybe you knew more about her than I did, but I learned something. (I never knew there was such a thing as an art mission. Did you?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
