Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
Sorry for the similarity with Nat’s post, “Bending and Breaking,” a couple of weeks back. I’d been fiddling with this post for a few weeks. I thought about discarding it when Nat’s went up, but I eventually decided the angle was different enough to share.
Is there such a condition as Religious Multiple Religion Disorder? If so, I’ve got it in spades. I consistently find myself embracing seemingly opposing opinions on various religious principles at the same time.
I think we get far too worked up about how we “keep the Sabbath day holy.” The leaders of the Church have long discouraged commerce or economically productive work on Sundays (barring essential community services). We have a pretty well established dress and grooming code for worship services. TV was banned (aside from KBYU and other Church broadcasts) in my house growing up, as was playing with friends, or any outdoor activity aside from family walks. Other families I know stay in their Sunday best all day to stay reverent. Fine for them, I suppose. I just don’t think the Lord freaks out if we spend or earn money on the Sabbath. I don’t believe he gets too worked up about whether women wear nylons or open-toed shoes, or whether men have some color in their shirts. I see no evidence that electronic transmissions disrupt the influence of the spirit. I don’t want to be bothered by all your little rules, man!
Yet at the same time I don’t believe I take the Sabbath seriously enough. Does a day of rest just mean a day for napping after services, perhaps with a little lesson preparation or scripture study thrown in if I have time after some serious lounging? What better day is there, what better way to worship the Savior, than to spend the time fulfilling my covenant to “comforting those that stand in need of comfort,” or to seek out and serve the “least of these,” to be anxiously engaged in good causes to show forth love for our brothers and sisters? Really, if you’re doing what you can to strengthen your spiritual bond with our Father and our brothers and sisters, are we going to have time to turn on the tube?
I get really tired of Elders Quorum presidents who constantly beat the drum for getting home teaching done early, for reaching that 100% nirvana. It can be a real pain to get the schedules of my companion, me, and our assigned families to match up. The Church isn’t going to collapse if I don’t make it once a month with a family who I see and exchange pleasantries with most every Sunday. They know I’m there if they need me.
Then again, I believe that home teaching is among the most potentially community building and transforming components of the Church. A monthly summation of the First Presidency message from the Ensign, an obligatory “is there anything we can do to help?”, and a quick prayer just doesn’t seem to cut it. Were I really seeking to magnify my calling, I would anxiously engaged in seeking opportunities to serve my families, pursuing an open communication with the families for whose spiritual and physical welfare the Lord has given me some stewardship. It wouldn’t be about scheduling visits, it would be about a constant concern and deepening love.
Then there is the Word of Wisdom. I don’t really believe that a taste for tea or coffee is such serious offense to the Lord. I don’t think that an occasional glass of wine or a beer with friends drowns the spirit away. No, I haven’t pushed at those rules, but I don’t care for the panic those issues raise among many Mormons. If others have chosen to moderately enjoy those pleasures, who am I to fret?
Yet just because I don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs, can I really claim to live the Word of Wisdom? If I were really trying, wouldn’t I give up all those tasty pastries I so relish (doughnuts…mmmmmm…)? Sugary drinks and snacks, processed foods, and the reliance on meat are about as likely to harm our bodies as alcohol, coffee, and tobacco. How is that caring for temples which are our bodies?
I’m not a big fan of “every worthy young man a missionary.” Some number of 18 year old boys, while not guilty of any sin which would disqualify them for the work, simply don’t have a deep conviction of the truthfulness of the Gospel. Why pressure them to serve a principle they don’t necessarily believe just so they can undergo some rite of passage? Why these “challenges” to “place a Book of Mormon” in our wards or quorums, as if passing out books is some contest, something to cross off a list to get the Ward Mission Leader off my back? We should testify because it feels natural, not because it’s some assignment.
Yet shouldn’t I be eager to share what ostensibly brings us such happiness, contentment, and joy with anyone who will listen? I’ll recommend Queen to anyone, because I love their music and it makes me happy. Same with the novels of Michael Moorcock, the research of H.W. Branks or David Korten, or film such as Pan’s Labyrinth or The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill and Came Down a Mountain. What does it say about my relationship to the Savior that I’m much more eager to talk about pleasant entertainment than the one who offers me daily guidance and exaltation?
Again and again, in all sorts of different aspects of religion, I feel torn between these sorts of apparently contradictory beliefs.
So what’s the verdict, doctor? Do we fill out the paperwork for some serious medication? Or is there some chance that I’m not crazy, and these opinions aren’t as mutually exclusive as it seems?
coming out of lurkdom for one minute to say: Derek, I admire you and your insight into the difficult issues.
Comment by numi — July 29, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
I’d tell you not to worry, ’cause I’d need the same medication, but I really AM on medication, so maybe you should worry.
Comment by Jessica — July 29, 2010 @ 8:52 pm
Oh man, Derek, you’ve captured EXACTLY how I feel about H/V teaching. It is such an awesome concept. I love love love the notion of every person being accounted for.
But I don’t know a single sister I’m assigned to, soo…… Lame. I’m lame.
I think a big difference you are describing here is the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. You want to live principles, and you really feel the spirit behind how those principles should be manifest in your behavior. The little rules, the “hedge around the law”, exist to define the principle. But often, they can be counterproductive. If one feels morally fulfilled adhering sincerely to the principle behind the rules, I think the exact observance of detailed rules is a little irrelevant.
And don’t worry, I’d say this is definitely a bit of a different concept than my “to hell with the rules!” manifesto.
Comment by nat kelly — July 29, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
I’m glad you went ahead and posted, Derek. Well, a counselor woul probably recommend a support group. Oh, yeah, that’s what we do here. I agree with nat. I think she nailed it.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 29, 2010 @ 9:37 pm
Great job, Derek. I get see many of these conflicts in myself.
Quality vs. quantity of H/V teaching is a good one. High quality won’t help if it only reaches 10% of a Ward, yet some out there are hostile to anyone from the Church visiting them, at all.
The Word of Wisdom: Yep, there’s members who won’t touch even caffeine, yet think nothing of their needing to loose 100-200 pounds. Yet, I wonder about the imbalances in my diet.
Part of the Baptismal Covenants is to help bear each other’s burdens. But, every possible excuse comes to mind to keep some members from working at a homeless shelter, or some won’t give a dime to Fast Offerings.
As a counter to that, some in the Church feel inadequate if they can’t solve everyone else’s crises, and they are sincere about wanting to do that.
We here calls to have members get involved in Government & Public issues, yet some members use that counsel as a platform to claim that even giving out band aids to the sick or injured is communistic.
Then I think of when was the last time I went to a City Council Meeting.
Comment by Mike H. — July 29, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
et’s see if I have this right.
you want to spend the sabbath in meaningful ways, connecting with your Heavenly Father & brothers & sisters. you want home teaching to be about communication, love, and support. you care about the spirit of the word of wisdom, and caring for the body temple. you want to testify of the gospel from your heart when it feels right.
you find Sabbath & appearance rules tedious and perhaps even irrelevant to both yourself and God. you don’t like focusing on the numbers or the calendar. you find pigging out but not drinking, smoking, etc. unhealthy & perhaps hypocritical. you don’t think young men should feel pressured to serve a mission just because they “should”.
perhaps your conflict is between following the Savior and following your religion. and you are prioritizing the Savior and His teachings.
you say this like it’s a bad thing.
I say congratulations.
Comment by venus — July 29, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
Medication? Nah. You only describe the dichotomy between theory and practice. I think we have to prioritize what we can do sincerely - in ways that express our love for each other and our God. If something doesn’t feel that way, it’s probably not of particular importance to us spiritually, because God knows our hearts, and that’s what really matters.
Comment by Kimberly — July 29, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
With our strict rules and continuous preaching that we need to be doing more good, be better people, be serving more, be more righteous, etc., we are creating a culture where many among us suffer from depression and/or OCD. The stress that the strict interpretation of religious doctrine creates is harming marriages and causing people to throw their hands up in frustration and leave the Church.
You make an important point, Derek. Perhaps our leaders should emphasize the spirit of the law a lot more and emphasize the legalism of it a lot less.
Comment by Chris — July 29, 2010 @ 11:19 pm
I’m an atheist… but from my observations I think that there is a continuum ranging from people who are religious people and people who are spiritual people (amongst believer types).
IMO, from reading this and your previous comments and postings, Derek you strike me as a very spiritual (and I’ll add ethical and just too) man trying to squish yourself into a religious paradigm. Square peg, round hole.
I personally think you are too good for religion… that might not make sense.
Comment by barmy stoat — July 29, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
I think the problem with the rules the church tries to implement and the continual bellyaching they have is because of the majority, not the minority. The minority of the church care, fulfill their callings with love and compassion, coordinate their day around the Savior (even if they must occasionally go to the store on Sunday, go out to eat on a Sunday, do HT/VT at church or over the phone or by mail, or drink a cola. The majority cannot seem to lift a nail to assist or show up or support anyone without a strict and unbending rule (much like the children of Israel under Moses) and that is why I think the church lays down its sometimes seemingly ridiculous rules. I agree with you, Derek, that it is a bit contradictory as you try and live your life to love the Savior and do His will, but get caught in the web of confusion of living the letter, doing your best, and retaining the spirit of what the law was originally for. I shall reflect a bit more.
Comment by Keith — July 30, 2010 @ 3:15 am
It sounds more like spiritual bipolar disorder. Come on in and we’ll talk about it.
Comment by LDS Family Services — July 30, 2010 @ 7:05 am
After preparing a lesson on how to raise your family in a spiritual environment, I found myself scrutinizing our sabbath activities. That Saturday and my non LDS husband suggested we go to a movie. We hurried to get ready but found that we wouldn’t be able to make it in time. He suggested we go the next day, after church. Of course I had just spent the week reading about all the things you should and shouldn’t do and while no one said don’t go to the movies it was an obvious don’t.
Standing up for this small principle that I really wanted to be part of my belief ended in a two week freeze. In the end I decided that the best thing for our home is love and harmony. So last week when my husband suggested stopping at the carnival on the way home from a Sunday visit I agreed without hesitation.
We dropped some cash and made small talk with some (perhaps unsavory) characters, but we were together and happy.
Comment by tia — July 30, 2010 @ 9:14 am
tia- That’s where it can become dicey within a non-member/mixed-member family. I have gotten flak at church for going out to dinner with my family on Sunday- only dh, ds and I are LDS members. The majority of my family work Mon-Sat, leaving Sunday as the only option for gatherings. I try to hold the majority of the gatherings here, but sometimes, we meet in the middle at an easily accessible restaurant. I used to wonder if I was compromising my church ethics and then, I wondered, why would I alienate my entire family by imposing limitations they do not believe in? As a result of my willingness to compromise, I have found that my family is equally respectful- they try very hard not to schedule much on Sundays and usually agree to the extra travel by coming to our house.
The other thing I’ve caught criticism over is serving coffee at family functions. I don’t drink it myself, but most of my family members do. So, I offer it because following the WoW is my choice, not theirs. One member told me I was enabling them to sin in my own home. I just don’t see it that way and never will.
Comment by Kimberly — July 30, 2010 @ 9:32 am
Kimberly, growing up most of my dad’s family weren’t active members. We went out to eat on Sundays with them all the time. I bet if you asked most members, they would tell you it would teach your children to be lax and that keeping the Sabbath day holy isn’t important. But, that isn’t the idea I ever got at all. I learned that people are more important than rules, and that we shouldn’t make other people uncomfortable. I always understood that their ideas were different than what we decided to do in our family and that we should never make them feel bad about it or make them feel like we were better than them because of it.
Because of that lesson, I think I’ve been able to relate to others better, particularly when they make different choices than I do. And all in all, it makes me better able to love others as Christ does. And isn’t that the goal of the gospel? The rules mean nothing nothing if they don’t bring us to Christ and allow us to bring others unto him.
Comment by ClaudiaHen — July 30, 2010 @ 9:46 am
I’ve never much liked those challenges either. Having goals for progress and improvement is one thing. Aggressively having everyone report their numbers is another. The point is not the numbers. The point is that we’re caring for one another and not afraid to share the things we find beautiful about the gospel with others.
I guess it’s a question of cause/effect and, by extension, faith/works. I don’t like the challenges because it focuses on numbers and such, and everyone gets excited about numbers and bears their testimonies of those numbers. But the numbers are the effects of righteousness, not the causes. If you truly want to care for your fellow men, you’ll do what that requires. if that means always doing H/V teaching in the first week of the month, great. If not, there are other ways to do that. If we’re just trying to check things off, we’re missing the point, and our hearts probably aren’t in the right place. We’re worshipping the institution of service rather than using service to earnestly serve one another.
I bring up faith and works because (and I know this is unorthodox in most Mormon circles) I believe that, even though a Christian’s life is going to be full of good works, it is not the good works that makes her a Christian. She is a Christian if she has faith in Christ and she accepts Him into her heart and her life. By letting Christ influence her in her life, her life will naturally be full of good works. It’s faith and righteousness that cause good works, not good works that cause righteousness. I mean, of course it is good to do good and God recognizes that, but I don’t think going through the motions does anyone much good if their hearts aren’t in it.
I suppose that’s a really mainstream Christian way of looking at things, but it makes sense to me when I realize that I have done some evil things and have therefore fallen from perfection. I cannot possibly earn or deserve God’s mercy, but He gives it to me anyway because He loves me. Therefore, I must have faith and gratitude for Him for giving me that gift, and if I therefore let God influence me and work through me, I will do good works. I don’t think that the good works I do, especially if done out of obligation rather than faith, are just bargaining chips that I can use to buy my way into the Celestial Kingdom.
Comment by AllieKay — July 30, 2010 @ 10:59 am
I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking about rules vs principles as it relates to the LDS faith but also as it relates to the world. Take, for example, the accounting profession (I’m a CPA). There was a time in history when the profession was principle based - there was no letter of the law to follow but a principle and it was expected that professionals act ethically and in the spirt of the principle. But not everyone acted that way so the pendulum swung and strict rules were enacted. However, it was found that no amount of rules could possibly cover all situations and it created loopholes to allow people to follow the law but violate the principle (the pendulum is starting to swing back).
My conclusion is that rules can never force someone to act ethically but only impose unnecessary restrictions on those of us who are principle based. I call it the “least common denominator game”. There are millions of people in the world - every single one with a different situation. Rules cannot possibly take into account everyone. But a principle gives us the freedom and flexibility to do what we feel is right. If some can’t handle that responsibility why should others that can suffer for it?
Comment by Veronica — July 30, 2010 @ 11:08 am
Oh my goodness, I remember this principle causing a huge ordeal with my family when I got married. My husband is the only member in his family and, in order to make them comfortable and show them that we care about them, we wanted to make them as comfortable as possible. That is, we wanted to have a secular ceremony after the sealing with a reception following that didn’t feel like a “Mormon” wedding. No basketball courts, no metal folding chairs, no photo slideshow. in short, my parents had a collective ongoing tantrum about this. The rhetoric I kept hearing over and over was, “You don’t care about the traditions of your faith!” “You’re showing them you don’t care about you’re religion!” “Don’t you want to show them that the church matters to you!?” “Don’t you want them to join the church someday!?” “You’re spiting your family!” “You’re being wordly!” “You’re being prideful!”, and my personal favorite, courtesy of my father, “OF COURSE our traditions matter more than theirs! They’re not Mormon!”
All I wanted was to show my new in-laws that we loved them and they mattered to us just as much as anyone else, yes, even though they weren’t Mormon. We ended up having to compromise on a lot of things. (i.e. We didn’t have a secular ceremony because my parents said they wouldn’t come to my wedding if I had one, but ALL of his family waited outside the temple for us while only a few select members of my family were there.) I was so upset and so hurt that my efforts to include people and show them love were not appreciated by my own family. I thought they’d be proud of me for showing that compassion. The rules (not even rules, just cultural trends) of the church, however, meant more to my family than that. It broke my heart that they wanted me to put arbitrary rules before my own family because the rules were part of the One True Church (TM) and my new family was not.
Comment by AllieKay — July 30, 2010 @ 11:13 am
Yes, AllieKay, yours is another example of how, in a situation that could actually attract non-members into inquiring further into the church, they end up being put off by non-inclusion and potentially feeling hostile instead.
That’s what I worked hard at doing from the start- informing my family of the changes I was making but making it clear that I wasn’t expecting them to drop their own beliefs and take mine up. My father was already very skeptical about me joining- he told me that from what he knew of Mormonism, women were not encouraged to be as independent as I was. He settled down about it within about 5 years, when he saw that I didn’t become a brain-washed doormat- and, when he met other Mormon women who were friends of mine (naturally, no more inclined to doormatism than I am).
Comment by Kimberly — July 30, 2010 @ 11:55 am
Sorry for getting all rabid-like. I harbour a lot of resentment about the ordeal.
Comment by AllieKay — July 30, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
AllieKay… what you wanted to do with your wedding is what I hope my children might want to do with theirs if they choose to get married in the temple. Really, who does it hurt to have a traditional ceremony afterwords? sigh. Sorry you had to go through that. I have issues with certain things my In-Laws have done that I resent (they are VERY orthodox LDS) I feel you there.
Comment by April — July 30, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
AllieKay-
I really understand where you are coming from. I feel the same way.
I went to a wedding last summer where something like that happened.
I think sometimes as members we need to be reminded of the words Elder Ballard spoke in 2001,
“Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belong to our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot comprehend why any member of our Church would allow these kinds of things to happen. I have been a member of this Church my entire life. I have been a full-time missionary, twice a bishop, a mission president, a Seventy, and now an Apostle. I have never taught—nor have I ever heard taught—a doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths.
The Lord expects a great deal from us. Parents, please teach your children and practice yourselves the principle of inclusion of others and not exclusion because of religious, political, or cultural differences……I now speak to all those who are not of our faith. If there are issues of concern, let us talk about them. We want to be helpful. Please understand, however, that our doctrines and teachings are set by the Lord, so sometimes we will have to agree to disagree with you, but we can do so without being disagreeable. In our communities we can and must work together in an atmosphere of courtesy, respect, and civility. ”
It frustrates me when I see situations where those who are not of our faith make the effort to be respectful and supportive and then do not receive the same in return.
Comment by Crystal — July 30, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Awesome post, Derek. I agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I’m starting to sound like a broken record because every time I teach the adults in our ward (sometimes Gospel Doctrine, sometimes RS) I manage to talk about this.
I really hate when we lose sight of the Savior and focus on the letter of the law.
I
Comment by the milk (of the gospel) — July 30, 2010 @ 12:48 pm
Is it bad that I am just too tired to think about stuff like this? I used to think about stuff like this all the time. I just don’t have the time in my life to worry about stuff like this. Ugh. I’m tired. This kind of discussion is very valid, it just wears me out.
Comment by AmazonaWomona — July 30, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
I found it easier to just say “I am an East Coast Mormon.” That meant that I loved my Jesus but didn’t get too worked up about any of the “rules”
Comment by StillConfused — July 30, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
Growing up, I think I just assumed that whatever was least pleasant was the right thing to do. And then did it. Or, rather, didn’t do whatever was opposite. Whatever “it” was that “we” didn’t do, because we don’t. You can’t sin on the sabbath if you wear uncomfortable clothes and don’t move much or enjoy much. But nature abhors a vacuum and all that. Something’s going to happen during those hours. What if we concentrated on Sunday “dos” What if we even killed a few of our meetings and spent the extra hour or two serving meals to the needy or helping with other urgent community needs? PS- on the Prufrockesque comment. It’s Friday afternoon.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — July 30, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
PS- #17, AllieKay: You have my sympathy and a bit of empathy too. I wish I had taken more control over my wedding and hadn’t let cultural expectations take precedence over loved ones and my own feelings.
Comment by Moniker Challenged — July 30, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
#24
How about cafeteria Mormon? Works for the catholics.
Comment by Ruby — July 30, 2010 @ 5:43 pm
(i.e. We didn’t have a secular ceremony because my parents said they wouldn’t come to my wedding if I had one)
Yikes. Here’s the part I don’t get about this–what are we afraid of? Would parents really miss their child’s wedding because their child wanted to include their future in-laws in some meaningful way? Seriously? Imo, it makes us look like we can’t handle real world situations.
(AllieKay, if it makes you feel any better, my grandmother said she wouldn’t go to my wedding if I married a man of a certain race. Then she amended it to say she would but she’d cry the whole time. Which of course made me REALLY want to marry a man of a certain race. Family–you can’t make stuff like this up
Comment by Lupita — July 30, 2010 @ 6:16 pm
Lupita,
Wow. That’s really awful. My dad has a similar story, but not quite as shocking. He told me once that he seriously dated an Asian girl in college, and when he showed a picture of her to his parents, they said something to the effect of, “Well, sure, but you wouldn’t actually marry someone like that, would you?” Apparently, living through WWII had left them with some baggage.
It sometimes make me wonder what we’re doing now that our children will be appalled at in the future.
Anyhow, back to religious multiple personality disorder.
Comment by AllieKay — July 30, 2010 @ 7:11 pm
15 - “She is a Christian if she has faith in Christ and she accepts Him into her heart and her life. By letting Christ influence her in her life, her life will naturally be full of good works. It’s faith and righteousness that cause good works, not good works that cause righteousness.”
I really like how you phrased that, AllieKay.
Comment by Matt A. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:40 pm
Hmmm… breaking the WoW is only a sin to those who have covenanted to keep the commandments, etc, and understand their covenants, but to non-members? not so much.
We had a “ring ceremony” at the chapel, after the temple, but before the reception. The bishop got to talk about the symbolism of rings, eternity, etc, and the covenants we made that day, in front of all the non-mormon and non-active friends and family. Rings are not part of the temple ceremony, and this was suggested to us as a good way to include everyone.
There are always exceptions to trules, but we will be held accountable for our choices, so we should be careful when we exempt ourselves from certain principles.
Food on the Sabbath is a big one, if I’m sick and DH has to work (his business is open 365 days a year) you betcha he’s bringing home pizza!
We just have to do our best - I totally agree we should not use our beliefs to exclude others!
Comment by SarahJane — July 30, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
I see this essay as being very different from nat’s B & B. That was about actions, this is about opinions/feelings.
And a lot of those same mixed-up feelings are expressed in a variety of church settings that might surprise some members, even.
Comment by Naismith — July 30, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
t about the ordeal.
(((Hugs))) to you, Allie Kay, under the circumstances, I think your comments were moderate and certainly nowhere near “rabid.” The idea that parents would not attend their daughter’s wedding unless the wedding was exactly to their specifications……..is really sad.
Rather than attract prospective members, this kind of behavior serves as a deterrent. Lupita put it best — what is it that Mormons are so afraid of? This kind of behavior is heartbreaking, and it gives credence to the belief that the
LDS community is culturally rigid.
Comment by Wonderment — July 30, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
Whoops! Looks like I forgot to turn the italics off.
Comment by AllieKay — July 30, 2010 @ 11:38 pm
1) I love the point that SaraJane makes: “There are always exceptions to trules, but we will be held accountable for our choices, so we should be careful when we exempt ourselves from certain principles.” I do believe there is danger in believing too often that I am the exception to the rule and that I am okay because “I’m living the spirit of the law.”
2) WHAT we do does not matter as much as WHY we do it. Let our motivation be charity.
3) As much as we want to do things not caring about what others think, we ought to care, lest we be a stumbling block for those around us. 1 Corinthians 8:9-13
Comment by Alicia — July 30, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
It bothers me that “visihome teaching” (let’s see if that catches on) tends to mostly be bestowed upon active wardies who are seen regularly at church. I agree that it should focus on the ones who aren’t seen yukkin’ it up in the foyer - the lonely, the offended, the embittered, the unsure. The problem is that I think many of those good people view visihome teaching as some uncomfortable sort of role-playing
P.S. #11 actually made me l-o-l.
Comment by James McOmber — July 31, 2010 @ 2:15 am
James McOmber. It’s about time I see you around these parts.
Comment by nat kelly — July 31, 2010 @ 7:53 am
“There must needs be opposition in all things” uses the word “all“.
Sounds like you are healthy, Derek.
We tend to want to eliminate opposition, but even our perception of God includes opposition in His existence. It’s worth considering, at least.
Comment by Ray — July 31, 2010 @ 11:26 am
My daughter and granddaughters worry me most when they abdicate their power and reasoning to others. I imagine my heavenly parents standing before me with that concerned parental look on their faces saying, “You know how much we love you, so when we say this it is out of love, but for heavens sake what were you thinking? We told you not to follow the crowd, to think for yourself, and to follow your heart. Now get back out there and do us proud. We gave you that brain for a purpose. Use it, keep in touch, and we’ll talk latter when you’re done.”
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 11:47 am
After reading my comment, I realized that it could be taken to mean the opposite of what I intended. Depending on whether you think that following the letter of the law is following the crowd or not, you could see it either way. I guess if you know me then you know my intent was that our Heavenly Parents would want us to find the true meaning, realize the spirit of the law and follow accordingly. Perception is everything. Apparently, I see our HP’s as very pragmatic and infused with common sense: Not too rigid or authoritarian.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Just to pipe up about the v/h teaching and who it ought to be bestowed to, I think that in some cases it really doesn’t matter.
I am pretty much inactive by this point, but my husband still attends. What I mean by that is this statement is my assigned v/h teachers, who I am sure are kind and good spirited people who are trying to fulfill their callings, come by (even after I have requested them not too) to share the “spirit” and coax me back into attendance.
Maybe that is my paranoid, offended, rigid perception of their intentions, however I am at the point where it probably would not matter who was at my door from the church. I would still be annoyed at having to sit through another uncomfortable round of why the church and ward is so great.
Sometimes its the message (oh poor outcaste you, you need a friend so that you can come back to church) not the messenger that is the problem.
Comment by LindseyM — July 31, 2010 @ 12:40 pm
I know I’m in trouble the minute I start thinking “I don’t think the Lord……” because I actually have no idea. If I did I wouldn’t be thinking about it at all, I’d be doing it or not doing it. I have not seen any convincing evidence that God thinks one way or another when it comes to rules. In fact, it is just as likely s/he is a stickler for rules than s/he is not a stickler. If that is the case, I would hope that s/he cares more about how those rules are implemented than the rules themselves.
Comment by JNR — July 31, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
All I wanted was to show my new in-laws that we loved them and they mattered to us just as much as anyone else, yes, even though they weren’t Mormon. We ended up having to compromise on a lot of things. (i.e. We didn’t have a secular ceremony because my parents said they wouldn’t come to my wedding if I had one, but ALL of his family waited outside the temple for us while only a few select members of my family were there.) I was so upset and so hurt that my efforts to include people and show them love were not appreciated by my own family. I thought they’d be proud of me for showing that compassion. The rules (not even rules, just cultural trends) of the church, however, meant more to my family than that. It broke my heart that they wanted me to put arbitrary rules before my own family because the rules were part of the One True Church (TM) and my new family was not.
The easy solution would have been to not invite your family. Let them sit outside with his family.
Comment by queuno — July 31, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
#42
I agree, and I think not knowing the mind of our God and trying to figure it out via revelation is how we get ourselves into these messes in the first place. Think about it, when we are presented these “rules” from people who claim to have the inside info what God wants from us, how much room does that leave for what we believe he wants?
Comment by Andiep — July 31, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Over at the Natasha Helfer Parker’s site, there is a poll up about the effect of the church on our mental health. In the results, 42% responded that they view the church and the gospel as similar, and 49% see the gospel and the church as vastly different. Seems related to this post. See the poll: http://mormontherapist.blogspot.com/?zx=d1c71de3bc664ee6
Comment by cantinflas — July 31, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
When do we quit trying to control our children?
And who’s wedding is it?
Both big questions,I appreciate,but we should ask ourselves these things.The devil is in the detail,as Derek points out.Why are we doing stuff,and are the consequences tending towards building unity,or conflict?Who’s ends are furthered by conflict?
I tend to step back with my adult children,and offer my opinion only when it is sought,and even then with fear and trembling.
It’s my job to get out of the way.
My guess,at this point,is that this may be God’s take,but we need a little training when we are spiritual kids.
Comment by wayfarer — July 31, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
queno-
Believe it or not, my husband and I actually figured this might be the best way to go, but by the time I brought it up with my parents, they had already called up all of my extended family inviting them to the sealing. So much for that.
Comment by AllieKay — July 31, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
I am totally with wayfarer on this one. The wedding should be the preference of the bride and groom, end of story. Couples whose parents throw a temper tantrum need to ignore the parents, just like the parents ignored the child when they were toddlers and threw such fits.
All of our older children married into families with significant numbers of non-temple-attending relatives (non-members and non-temple-attending of various stripes). There are so many options available to one, even without a civil ceremony per se, which is not allowed according to the handbook. It was sad that the parents couldn’t use some creativity to come up with alternatives that would be positive.
As an example, for our last one, we did the sealing around 2 p.m. (only endowed family made the trek to temple) and were back in town by about 5 p.m. for an intimate extended family dinner with everyone, including close friends, etc. The reception was to be in the cultural hall, the dinner was in the RS room. The bride and groom read poetry to each other and exchanged rings, various family gave toasts and roasts, people did music (guitar), my husband gave a short and interesting talk about why temple marriage was important, and so on. All very informal, and a great spirit in the room. To us, this was making the non-members feel very included while not backing down on having the temple sealing. Also, by eating a meal before the reception that followed, we were able to chat and greet without starving, as happened with another of our weddings.
This comes across as very demeaning of a setup that can be very functional. A lot of us live in small towns without a lot of possible venues, don’t have access to a country club, and don’t have or want to sink the money that a hotel wedding would cost. Although I admit that by the time we put around the thousands of dollars of potted trees lent at no cost by a friend who owns a nursery, that cultural hall looked pretty nice.
So just because there can’t be a civil ceremony doesn’t mean there can’t be nothing.
Comment by Naismith — July 31, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
Ambivalence is a lovely word. It pretty much covers everything Derek said. It is a part of life. There is no denying it. Lehi called in opposition in all things.
I have just read a piece that says we are free because we must make choices. We just have to learn how to live with that other option that keeps popping up.
Comment by Claudia — July 31, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
I somewhat agree with this, except that I think the stewardship as a parent never ends.
We are not entitled to know what an adult child is supposed to choose, we are sometimes told what we should say to an adult child.
I have no illusion that what I say to them is the best choice for them. It may simply be something that the Lord would have them consider in making the best choice.
In such instances, I say my piece, step back, and never worry for a second about whether they did what I recommended or not.
Comment by Naismith — July 31, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
Amen.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — July 31, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
Interesting thoughts on reconciling these two impulses. I agree that, in many ways, they aren’t truly contradictory. I’d never really seen the “letter vs. spirit” or the “faith vs. works” angles, but they make some sense. I tend to see it as an issue of commitment vs. conformity. I understand that it takes some level of commitment to automatically obey or follow, but it takes another level of commitment to actively seek out the best method of applying a given principle. One can just kind of skate through life reflexively obeying every concrete rule and cultural more. But that takes very little mental and spiritual effort, it seems to me. More effort is exerted–and more growth therefore possible–when one is continuously evaluating the best application of a given abstract principle–applications which may vary from day to day, or even hour to hour, based on the unique circumstances of any given instance. Of course, this is more tricky to accomplish, to stay on-task, because it is incredibly easy to rationalize bad decisions (at least, I find it so).
And I’m not dismissing the value of rules at all. When we are still spiritually/emotionally/mentally juvenile, we need rules to give us a foundation for understanding those principles. Its only natural that we see things in a more binary, black-and-white manner while we’re still coming to understand the principles. But it seems to me that we should avoid complacency while in that stage, thinking that reflexive obedience to all the hedges are the ultimate goal. After all, the Lord did brilliant work concocting the marvelous instrument which is our brain. I can hardly believe he doesn’t want us to learn to master it’s power. How else will we be able to effectively use the power divine to which we will be heirs in the Celestial kingdom but through knowing how to make decisions in applying the universal, eternal principles of life?
re: faith vs. works (15)
I agree entirely, AllieKay. Though it’s also something of a chicken and an egg thing: We will be judged by our heart, which is manifest to some degree by our fruits (our works). Yet it is also the works which we do which train our heart, allow us (or rather, enable us to allow the Lord) to rewire or reprogram our heart, which is largely wired to follow the “Natural Man” in the beginning, to a more divine standard. Get what I mean? But that’s another entire discussion, perhaps for another time.
And my goodness, I can’t blame you for still being all worked up about your wedding fiasco. A cultural hall wedding isn’t a meaningful Mormon tradition! It is a means by which to accomplish a reception at minimal expense. As Naismith suggests, That isn’t a bad thing at all. But that doesn’t make it tradition! There is no cultural symbolism to the cultural hall/basketball court, no special meaning to the slideshows, etc. To get worked up about those trivial “traditions” and details is extremely petty and rather un-Christian. I feel for you.
Comment by Derek — July 31, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
Naismith-
I didn’t mean to demean those who do more practical receptions at the church building. What I meant was that we didn’t want ours in a Mormon church because 1) my in-laws would have felt out of their element, especially since they weren’t allowed to the actual wedding, and 2) in their family, they are more used to the look of traditional weddings where people go all out. I thought, as long as we’re doing the wedding my parents’ way, we can at least try to have the reception in a way that’s more familiar to my in-laws. Yes, we spent a bit more than many do, but that doesn’t mean there is a problem with that way. Yes, I’ve been to many tacky cultural hall receptions, but for every tacky one there is a classy one where a little creativity made all the difference.
Anyhow, we’ve gotten way off-topic. Sorry about that.
Comment by AllieKay — July 31, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
@AllieKay
I was kind of on the other side of you as far as my wedding was concerned. It was MY family who couldn’t go with us to the temple. We weren’t worthy to go to the temple, but we seriously contemplated taking a step back for a year, repenting, and then getting married in the temple. And then I envisioned my temple wedding. No one…literally no one that meant boo to me in my life would be there and I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t look my Dad in the eye and say, “sorry you’re not my religion so you can’t be there when your first child to get married is there.” I couldn’t tell my Mom, whom I was soooo close to, that she knew what the right thing was to do so get your butt in gear and take out your endowments. That wasn’t any of my business. So we decided to go ahead and get married and not wait the year and do it civilly. Our attitude was anyone who would judge us for not getting married in the temple could go hug themselves.
My in-laws were devastated to say the least. Here was their perfect RM son, the oldest child, the example to all of his siblings, not getting married in the temple. Seriously, it was worse to them than one of their other sons being in jail for drugs. So finally I sat down with them and said, “look, whether we get married in the temple or not, you get to be there. My family can’t.” They finally got it.
So we were married at a reception center, by a judge. I didn’t want a Bishop because I had been at other weddings where the Bishops had alluded to them not getting married in the “right” place. Well my wedding was a celebration, dammit, and anyone who didn’t act like it was, wasn’t welcome. Plus, my Mom was a court clerk, had an in with the judges, and our judge performed the most beautiful ceremony.
Fast forward 6 years and we had worked hard and really prepared to be sealed in the temple. And our 2 oldest children were with us. No one can ever take the memory away from me of my two children kneeling at the alter with us with their hands on ours. It made me kinda sad that our 3rd child was born in the covenant because we didn’t get to go back and experience that all over again. The best part was by that time my brother was able to go to the temple with us and my Mom, Dad, and sister were waiting outside for us. It is a day I will never forget.
I will never regret getting married civilly first. I honored my family by doing that. Especially now that my mother is gone, how could I ever get over the fact that she wasn’t there? And I had the honor of taking out her endowments for her. If family is the most important thing like we claim it is, we need to honor our families whether they’re members or not.
Comment by Risa — July 31, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
I don’t get all the little rules either. My grandparents were two of the most faithful LDS members that ever were. My g-grandparents left an affluent lifestyle in Denmark to live above a bakery in Logan with their 8 kids because of joining the church. However, whenever I went to church with my grandparents, they would take me out to lunch afterward. If someone ever told me that they weren’t good members because of that, I would laugh in their faces.
I don’t understand how a person with a second earring pierce, or a tattoo, or a goatee is a bad person. My Dad has had a beard and mustache long before I was ever born and he kind of stood out in our predominantly LDS community. If having facial hair and drinking coffee makes him a bad person, than I don’t understand this church.
Like Derek, I long to serve the Lord through service to others. I long to emulate Christ-like compassion and love for my neighbors. What I don’t long for is putting myself in a cage and measuring my righteousness by how well I can stay in this cage.
I’m an adult. I should be trusted to make my own decisions about my own life. I should be able to serve the Lord as I see fit. I don’t have a second earring pierce or a tattoo, but those things hardly qualify me as a good person. It’s the service that I render to my fellow citizens of earth and the compassion and love I have for those I come in contact with is what makes me a true disciple of Christ.
Comment by Risa — July 31, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
I’m not sure what it is about human beings. Once we start making a few rules, they blossom into more and more of them. Mabye it’s competitiveness- using the rules as a measuring stick for who is better or more righteous. It was my impression that something similar had happened with the law of Moses- what started out as good guidelines for maintaining a peaceful and happy community became more and more complex, leaving almost no room for personal interpretation or individual circumstance. Christ came and set it straight and then, the cycle began again, it seems…until we count earrings or monitor tattoos…reduce HT and VT to numbers (check, it’s done, we’re good).
Or, can it be a form of spiritual laziness- where there is no agonizing involved over what is right or wrong or best in certain circumstances- just connect the dots and follow directions. I have to admit, it is easier, a lot of times, to just suck it up and stick to the script. It certainly makes everybody more comfortable and staves off any deep re-examination of the rules and why they exist or even if they’ve become ridiculous. (Face it, times do change- if I went into the temple of yesteryear in the outfit I wear now, I would have been stoned on the steps for my lack of modesty.) Yes. It is definitely more comfortable to maintain the status quo.
I have to say, though, that preserving my own comfort never taught me very much.
Comment by Kimberly — July 31, 2010 @ 8:46 pm
Re weddings. Our experience with non-members, families as well as the majority of the guests since most of our friends are non-members, is that many are very interested in entering an LDS chapel for the first time, and it is an eye-opener for them that it isn’t particularly strange. They might be interested in a tour of the building and they like seeing where their child will be attending church.
My beef with hotel receptions is not just the price per se, but that one generally has to use their catering, which is often so mediocre and impersonal. For our weddings, we had the caterer include some of the bride and groom’s favorite foods, which meant toasting with chocolate milk on one occasion.
But then, I live in a small town without a lot of choices for venue.
Comment by Naismith — August 1, 2010 @ 6:42 am
I have a close set of friends. There are eight of us and we have met once a month for about 30 years to support each other: All active LDS and 32 kids between us. We helped each other with all the weddings so far. We have learned that the most important thing is make the bride and groom happy, attend to the comfort of all who attend, the facilitate the chance for families to bond. We actually started as a creative craft special interest group, and the talent among the Sisters is mind boggling - including an award winning interior decorator. Non of us had gobs of money, hence the reliance on each other. We always felt it was all about the Bride and Groom, accommodating the would be in-laws and staying in the budget. We have used every venue imaginable, and we put a couple together in a matter of weeks. The only problem I have is, every time we do one that is not in the cultural hall, I have a desire to find a basketball hoop and display it on one of the walls. Those basketball hoops have blessed a lot of marriages. Just sayin’.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 1, 2010 @ 9:52 am
Did I mention that it is all about the bride and groom? Sorry about the redundancy. I meant to edit some out. Oh, well.
Comment by IdahoG-ma — August 1, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
To comment on the OP. I have to say I’ve given this a lot of thought as my former husband was a very rigid Mormon and my current husband is a new convert. I believe the difference (for me) isn’t so much spirit of the law vs letter of the law, but ture Christianity vs Organized Religion or even Christs teachings vs Christs example. We should live our religion or spirituality in a way that makes it sacred to us. Are we being Christian by holding others to the same standards we set for ourselves? No. *re we being Christian by looking beyong a persons human frailties (that we all have, believe it ot not) & embracing that person BECAUSE of their human frailties? Christ loved everyone & I don’t believe He ever forgot how truly human we were each created OR in ehose image either. What helps (I hope) to keep my heart in this perspective to ask myself if I would seek & deserve forgiveness for ___ offense. If the answer is yes (and it almost always is) then try to forgive and begin each day anew and on purpose. I’m allowed mistakes. That’s is part of what the Savoir taught during his ministry. My mistakes do not define me & therefore CANNOT define you either. Mormons (I live in a highly populated area) are SO judgemental of each other SO easily. I see True Christianity as I know it to be lost by so many LDS in my community & then they/we wonder why ppl hate us!
Comment by lilSWOLE — August 2, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
Frankly, I tend to think of church as another work day. I never have any sort of rest on Sunday. Dressing in my Sunday best and tackling a difficult calling = work. And it’s unpaid work to boot.
When my husband and I come home we play video games and watch TV in order to relax. Some would htink that’s breaking the Sabbath, but we’re spending time with each other.
Comment by Cricket — August 22, 2010 @ 5:32 pm