Star Wars and Church Membership: Balance and Opposition

There is an interesting element of the Star Wars theology, if you will, that parallels one of my favorite verses in the Book of Mormon - and constitutes a non-doctrinal reason I am as active as I am (completely, including being a temple worker and coordinator). Interestingly, both the Star Wars element and the Book of Mormon verse tend to be simplified by most fans / members with whom I have spoken.

In Star Wars, there is a dark side and a light side - and there are subtle points when it is clear that the duality within each person is central to "balancing the force". In a real way, without the dark side there would be no true light side - and the light side eventually would become the dark side.

There is a Book of Mormon verse that says there has to be opposition in all things, but few people consider that enough to realize the implications of that all-encompassing wording. "All" things includes each person - and it also includes the LDS Church (and every other religion) itself. There MUST NEEDS be opposition in the LDS Church.

I stay, in one way, to provide balance to the LDS force - to provide opposition in all things - to keep my people diverse. However, I try to do so in a way that truly constitutes a balance - moderation - unity despite difference - charity - etc. I am NOT trying to be the one true voice that corrects and contradicts and, in the ideal end, converts and, in practical terms, silences opposing views; I am not convinced I understand everything well enough to be confident I am right and others are wrong in many cases, and I don't want my view to become the new, exclusive orthodoxy.

I just know balance and opposition in all things are harmed when I (and every other individual) is absent and/or silent - so I stay partly to help others feel comfortable expressing their own views, as well, even when I disagree with them.

Idealistic Realism / Realistic Idealism: Striving for a Healthy Balance

Today is my birthday, and, as I contemplated what I wanted to share, I decided to write very briefly about the perspective I try to cultivate to direct how I interact with other people.  

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and trust them until they show me they are not trustworthy – and I’m not sure whether that primarily is because of my religion or simply my personality, inherited particularly from my mother (who is schizophrenic and, along with medication, needs peace and a lack of stress in her life to function properly). She was trusting and non-judgmental out of physiological necessity, and that probably rubbed off on me to some degree.

I have come to believe that a generally trusting nature is more healthy than a suspicious, cynical nature – even with the dangers of being too trusting. It’s finding the proper balance of idealistic realism or realistic idealism that is my focus – and that is not an easy journey. It takes conscious effort to avoid being too much of many things, since it’s so easy to gravitate to an extreme.

We Call Good Evil Far Too Often

Article of Faith 12 (excerpt): 

"If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things."

I think we nearly always define this too narrowly. If I make a mistake, I want to err on the side that says, "If there is no over-riding negative, it is a positive."

Moroni 7 (excerpts): 

"That which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil. And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."

I understand that the verses I did not quote in Moroni 7 add an elemental focus on Christ which can be problematic for some, but the basic point appears to me to be that we need to fight the natural tendency to label good as bad - thereby missing an expansiveness that can add richness to life and unite rather than divide. The admonitions about calling evil good are important, but, in this chapter, they appear to be a necessary subordinate to the overall objective of avoiding getting narrow-minded and exclusionary.

1 John 4:18 (excerpt): 

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear."

Again, I think we err far too often on the side of rejection (usually out of fear of the result) and end up calling evil that which is good.

As a minor, fairly non-controversial example (with many more possible examples that are more controversial): 

I served my mission in Japan. The issue of ancestral shrines came up regularly. One of the bishops where I served said the following, to the best of my memory:

"'Ancestor worship' is a terrible translation of what our shrines mean to us. We do not 'worship' our ancestors in the way that foreigners usually assume. We honor them for their influence on our lives - for their dedication and love and service - for the connectedness we feel long after death. Our shrines are like our personal temples, places that show our desire to turn our hearts to them and recognize that their hearts are turned to us. How much more Mormon can you get than that?"

"The Middle Way" vs. "My Way"

I believe strongly in the concept of "a way" - and it is encapsulated beautifully for me in Jesus' statement that He was the way, the truth and the light.  Thus, I have no problem with people talking about "the way" when it comes to religion.  However, I also believe strongly, based on decades of personal experience talking with thousands of people and on my own faith journey over the course of my life, that all of us see many things in slightly or even radically different way - that there are numerous "faith orientations", if you will.  Since I believe in the principle that allows every person alive to worship God according to the dictates of her own conscience, I believe that there are many unique "ways" to worship God legitimately - ways that are acceptable to Him, because they are sincere and the best each person can do.

There is a movement of sorts among some members that has been happening online for quite some time to self-identify as "middle way Mormons".  Having said what I did in the paragraph above, I don't believe in "the middle way" as it is used by this group of people. I believe in individual ways - each person finding what works for himself or herself. I actually dislike the term "the middle way" used in this context - simply because it implies there is one way ("THE middle way") that works or ought to work for those for whom a more traditional, orthodox way doesn't work.

I've known enough members over the course of my life to believe strongly that there is no collective, all-encompassing way that works or ought to work for every member of the Church. For example, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to believe and follow everything that has been taught (or is taught currently) within Mormonism and the LDS Church. It's impossible, and anyone who disagrees hasn't studied what church leaders have said over the years in detail. Even the apostles and prophets and Presidents haven't agreed on many things over the years - so even they have had to construct their own understanding, their own "way", in a very real sense.

On the other hand, I really love the Confucian use of "the middle way", even if, in the context of our own time and within the context of our own church, "the middle way" has come to mean something very different than Confucius' meaning. Confucius focused on an individual path, as I described above - what I choose to term "finding my way"; "the middle way" as used collectively now is becoming more and more a group path that is radically different than what Confucius taught.

To make my point a little differently:

Most members I know, even most members who would be classified as traditionally orthodox, actually do strive for balance in their lives. Of course, there are members who are extremists (on each side of any question), but they are nowhere near the majority, in my experience. Even within the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, that is true. For example, President Packer is a lightning rod due to his stance on moral issues, especially homosexuality, but he also has made many statements over the years that sound like they are straight from Confucius' middle way philosophy. I mean that seriously. I think most members who struggle with his stances on moral issues would be shocked at how dominant his "balance" statements are numerically. The message of balance is taught repeatedly - but the messages that jar the most for some people shock their systems so much that they dominate their memories and distort the other messages that aren't extremist.

"There must needs be opposition in all things." 

Therefore, by definition, every way is "a" middle way - a way between opposites.

When we talk in extreme terms, migrating to an extreme (any extreme), we lose sight, recognition and understanding of the other extreme which must needs be. We become incomplete due simply to being pulled to an extreme. We move from a balanced "way in the middle" from which we can see, evaluate and internalize things from all directions and incorporate anything that rings true for us to a more restricted, unbalanced way from which many things vanish from sight.

Ironically, things look clearer as we become unbalanced, but it's because we are able to see and contemplate LESS than we could in the middle.

I talk of "the muddle in the middle" for two reasons:

1) There is more through which to sift, making the glass through which we see mistier / darker / less clear;

2) Slowing down in order to muddle through everything keeps us from jumping to conclusions about the meaning of what we see - which, ironically, in the end, makes our ultimate decisions more fully ours. True growth and progress, in my opinion and experience, occur from the need to sort through much and make informed decisions - not from seeing only one option and pursuing it unwaveringly.

That, by the way, is a decent, alternate definition of faith.

Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

Balancing Zealousness with Concern for Others

On this day of unabashed patriotism, I want to share the following that has application to that topic, as well: 

There is a fine line between zealousness and fanaticism. I think charity is the delineator of the two - and, unfortunately, people do many things "out of love" that aren't at all charitable.

I look at the Golden Rule, and I can't help but wonder how (the collective) we would feel if our non-Mormon acquaintances acted toward us the way we sometimes act towards them - or if we learned that they talk about us the way we sometimes talk about them. I look at how some people interact with their "wayward" children and wonder how they would react if their parents weren't members and interacted that same way with them (their own "wayward children").

I believe in zealousness when it is manifested in a righteous manner, but I also have to be able to look at my own actions (and the actions of others as examples) and see the difference between righteous zealousness and something else. For example, I am concerned whenever I hear or read anything like the following - which I read in a comment a couple of years ago:

(In order to be zealous,) we have to stop worrying about “the other guy” and worry about how God views us.

Frankly, I think we have to be concerned about the other guy AND about how God sees us, specifically because if there is one lesson in all of our scriptures I believe it is that "concern for the other" is absolutely central to the Gospel and mission of Jesus Christ. I agree completely that concern for how others see us can't get in the way of doing the right thing, but I also believe that "doing the right thing" without regard for "the other guy" often (and I mean very often) leads to doing the wrong thing in the name of righteousness. I don't need to use extreme examples of that principle; regular, daily examples are all around us.

I believe that being righteously zealous is not a simple thing that can be measured by a universal checklist. I need to be concerned with my own zealousness and whether my own zealousness is acceptable to God - and, for me, that absolutely must include a deep, central, strong element of how my actions in the name of God impact "the other guy" - since charity is the heart of my own measure of my own righteous zealousness.

One example to illustrate my point:

I love and admire Captain Moroni, but he was wrong - 100% dead wrong - in his chastisement of Pahoran during the war he was fighting. He didn't write that letter out of righteous zealousness; he wrote it out of frustration over seeing his soldiers die unnecessarily. (Those are his own words, not my assumption.)  He wrote it in anger - and the condemnation in it of Pahoran was unfounded. Captain Moroni was described by Mormon in the abridgment as a "perfect man", but he erred in that instance when he wrote that letter (which does not contradict Mormon's assessment of him). The letter was not charitable; it was not accurate; it was not in line with the standard articulated in D&C 121; it was not sensitive to the plight of a friend, supporter and fully righteous man; it was not a righteous judgment; it was not an example of "being moved upon by the Holy Ghost"; it was not an example of righteous zealousness.

Again, I admire Captain Moroni deeply, but I admire Pahoran even more deeply in that example - since he easily could have reacted very differently. It was Pahoran, not Captain Moroni, in that situation who "saved the day" - and he did it explicitly by remembering, in a time of great stress and distress, to "think of the other guy" and not return threat for threat. He did it by remembering the pure heart behind the mistaken accusations and not holding Moroni's mistake against him. He did it by loving the man even though the man's words must have cut him deeply. He did it by not being zealous in the traditional, stereotypical manner but by being zealous in love and meekness.

I believe in zealousness, but I also believe it is manifested differently in different situations and that, for me, at the very core, it absolutely involves "worrying about the other guy" in a very real and important way. I believe charity is the balancing agent between righteous zealousness and unrighteous fanaticism - and, if I have to choose between one extreme or the other, I try to choose to be overly charitable rather than overly fanatical.

We Shouldn't Pound a Principle So Hard We End Up Burying and Distorting It

I was talking with a friend a while ago about the concept of teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves, and she shared a very instructive, poignant story with me.  I want to pass it on here and add my own commentary at the end.

My friend explained to me that when her daughter attended Young Women meetings and activities, it seemed like the central lesson always was related somehow to marriage (dating [with specific reference to preparing for marriage], chastity [with specific reference to being clean for marriage], virtue [with specific and exclusive reference to remaining pure for marriage], modesty [with specific reference to attracting a worthy mate], traditional homemaking skills [with specific reference to life after marriage], etc.)  My friend told me two things that really resonated with me about how this affected her daughter:

1) It made each of the things listed above appear to be about marriage, exclusively.  Each of them has a much more broad, important, even critical role than just in relation to marriage, but all of the other aspects of each of them were hidden (literally "buried") under the avalanche of marriage-related rhetoric.  That distorted everything taught in the lessons in a real and practical way for her daughter.

2) Her daughter understood how important marriage is, but, because of the unrelenting application of everything exclusively to marriage that daughter finally stopped attending Young Women classes and activities completely.  Why?  She was 15-years-old and had no desire to "stress about marriage all the time".  She wanted to focus on other things, get a good education, learn a marketable skill, etc. - all the things that would be important whether or not she got married.  She wanted to be taught like an important, full individual in and of herself - not just as a potential wife of someone else.

My commentary: 

There is a HUGE difference between "teaching and emphasizing" (even something that needs to be taught and emphasized) and "driving a tent stake so far into the ground that it's impossible to see the stake being driven and being left only with an image of a sledgehammer hitting the ground".  For example, how do you think it feels to a single mother (divorced, widowed from a non-member spouse, never married, etc.) or a single adult in the Church to hear every single week - even in our "worship meeting" - that the ideal is a married couple, sealed in the temple?  In that light, and please picture this image as you read, when you keep driving a tent stake into the ground further than it needs to be driven in order to secure the stake, it actually ends up restricting the tent and "shrinking" and "distorting" the tent in a real, practical way. Stakes have to be driven into the ground to secure the tent, but they don't have to be driven two feet or five miles under the ground.

We do a lot of driving already buried stakes so far into the ground that the stake itself gets buried and lost - and ignoring other tent stakes that ought to be driven in the ground, as well, to make the tent more secure. That can result in a lop-sided, distorted tent - one in which many faithful members can't find comfort and rest.

In My Heart and In My Mind: The Analogy of the Kite

This post was inspired by two other posts by people I admire greatly.  If you want to read them before reading this post, please do so:

"Reining in the Analyst" - jmb275 (Wheat & Tares) - [I linked to this post last year as one of my weekly highlighted posts.]

"Unrelated (but still really great) Thoughts" - Clean Cut [Clean Cut (with a Coke)]

I first realized I thought differently than most other members of the Church when I was about 7 years old - the first time I read the Book of Mormon and thought:

"Wait.  That doesn't say what people at church think it says."  

(As a simple yet important example, I probably was about 10-12 years old when I first realized that the Lamanites must have joined a large, indigenous, darker-skinned population, much like the Nephites did with the Mulekites - since that was the only thing that made sense to me when I read that the Lamanites still outnumbered the Nephites greatly, even after their combining with the Mulekites - and since it explains the Nephite statements about skin color so well.)

In that way, I have had the "luxury / blessing" of starting very early and naturally to learn that it's OK to be different - and I now have had over 40 years of practice at letting my mind (my analyst) roam free for most of the time I live and reining in my mind (my analyst) at times at church.  I live very comfortably in both worlds at this point - the settlement and the wilderness, so to speak. 

The best description I've ever heard is that of a kite:

My mind flies all over the place, flitting around looking at lots of things and thrilling in the ride - but my heart is grounded firmly by the string that connects me to my community, my family, my church, my "foundation".  Without the kite of my mind, my heart might break - but without the string of my heart, my mind might fly off into the sun and burn. 

In other words, I have "studied" things out in my heart AND my mind - and "reining in the analyst" helps keep the kite of my mind from causing too much tension and breaking free of the string of my heart.

Avoiding Becoming Weary (or Burned Out) in the LDS Church

In his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", Elder Wirthlin mentioned that some people stop coming to church and become "lost" because they are weary.  I was struck by that when he said it, and I have thought a lot about it since then - as anyone knows who has read this blog for some time, since I reference that talk quite often.

I want to share how I avoid becoming weary in the way that Elder Wirthlin describes, and I want to use my situation while living in Missouri specifically because it highlights how I easily could have become weary - or "burned out", as one friend described his experience to me years ago.

1) I keep from getting burned out by limiting what I do to what I can do without getting burned out. I know that sounds a bit silly and obvious (and very difficult for many, given the assumptions held my some members), but it works for me. It "helped" in Missouri that our finances and distance from the church created automatic barriers to doing too much, but I held to the principle even when we used to live 1.5 miles from the church and I made plenty of money. Bottom line: It's a hard-core commitment I've made - to do as much as I can but not get burned out by trying to do too much - to not try to do everything.

Some people don't like that I do that, and some people don't get it, but most people (the large majority) really do understand.

2) Having said that, I am MUCH more open to making an exception for unique service opportunities than for "regular, run-of-the-mill" stuff. I couldn't drive 40 minutes there and 40 minutes back - and pay for the gas to do so - just to be involved in an activity where there are plenty of other people there to handle it. Financially, I just couldn't. However, I could do that - occasionally - to help someone who needed my individual help. I could do that largely because I wasn't doing all the other stuff that would have sapped my time and money and energy - and that's really, really important to understand.

It's a balancing act, and it's MUCH harder in many ways than trying to do everything - but I believe it's important to be the one doing the acting and not just be acted upon.

Different People Need Different Messages Delivered in Different Ways

If there is one part of our Mormon "culture" I would smash to pieces in a heartbeat if I could, it is the idea that we have to be "perfect" (meaning mistake free) or constantly focused on our mistakes.  I believe in repentance deeply, but, as I've said elsewhere, there are two aspects of repentance: the redeeming one that covers our sins and the enabling one that covers our weaknesses and unconscious transgressions and so much that causes so many such grief. 

The idea that we really are good enough but simply need to try to do a little better as we go through life was one of Pres. Hinckley's central messages. Unfortunately, for those who naturally have a perfection complex (which is a fairly good-sized percent of all groups) - and for those who had a distorted version of perfection pounded into them (which includes many members of the Church) . . . it can be hard to believe the magnitude of what Christ has done for us already.

It really is a balance, however - and it's really easy for many people to overlook that. People collectively tend to gravitate to the extremes ("The Church is a soulless cult" vs. "All is well in Zion" - or "I am fine just the way I am, thank you, so quit telling me I need to try to be better" vs. "I'm a horrible person and never will be good enough" - etc.) - so teaching a message that works to motivate people at both extremes and everywhere in between them is really hard.

Frankly, I think that's one reason why different apostles and Prophets have different personalities and perspectives - so everyone can hear someone "speak to them personally". For example, in General Conference this weekend, there were multiple talks about obedience and keeping the commandments - but each person addressed that principle in different ways.  I really loved one of them, was somewhat ambivalent about another one and just didn't "feel" a third one much at all.  I know that bothers some people, but I appreciate it - even when I hear something that just doesn't move me in any real way or even grates to some degree.  There also were multiple statements in General Conference that stressed the importance of accepting others who are different than we are, and it was applied to people both inside and outside the LDS Church.  What moves us through "the spoken word" is part of that. 

It makes it hard for people to listen to someone preaching to "the others" - but, at least, the others do get to hear their message, as well. It's when someone is in the group that hears "the other message" more often than "my message" that it gets most difficult.

Recognizing that both messages are being taught, conflicting though they might be, helps.

"Zion" Is Unity Forged Despite Differences

I walk a road much less traveled... a road I've never traveled, and it feels a little scary.

A friend of mine said that last year, and the following is my response to him:

"I hope you understand that many, many members understand that feeling. I've been walking my own road for a LONG time, especially since my individual road is neither that of the standard conservative or liberal groups in the Church. It's my own road, and it just happens to be one without walls or guardrails and one that straddles many intersecting roads - which means it's easier for me to fall, but it's also easier for me to communicate with those on other roads. That's a choice I made long ago, and I wouldn't change it for anything. I am gloriously happy and at peace in the LDS Church, but I am uniquely me, as well. 

My only caution in my response to you is to try to avoid thinking "the Church" is unique in its faults - and that you are alone in your views. I wish with all my heart it was the Zion of which we dream, but it's not - and it simply can't be unless all the membership intermingles with those who are different and learns to accept all. It simply can't be when those who see things differently than the majority leave. Zion isn't where all agree with each other on everything naturally. That, essentially, is Lucifer's plan - and it absolutely isn't what "the Church" teaches. Zion is unity forged despite differences.

There are FAR more members who don't walk in lock step with some perceived norm than most people realize - and the best wards, in my opinion, are those where differences are obvious and accepted. All of us like to think we are unique, but few of us really are. I believe a big part of "pure Mormonism" is to try to help those who might feel isolated and alone realize that there are plenty of others who feel that way - and I'm willing to bet my life's savings (granted, almost nothing) that most people who leave because "nobody agrees with or understands me" would be shocked to their core if they knew how many people in their own wards actually do agree with and understand them. Of course, that's not true of all congregations, but it's true of EVERY ward in which I've lived in my entire life - including more than one in Utah Valley.

I'm not saying everyone must stay actively involved in the LDS Church. That's up to each person - plain and simple. All I'm saying is that I believe strongly that there is a place in the Church for people like you - IF you want to engage on your own terms that are respectful and loving. (Elder Wirthlin is a wonderful example of that, if you need a role model.  His talk, "Concern for the One", is a masterpiece and should be internalized by every member of the Church.)"

Balance in Organizational Administration

My ideal Bishopric or Stake Presidency (or any presidency) would be a Democrat, a Republican and an Independent - a BIC, a convert and someone who had been inactive for a stretch - someone with grown kids, someone with young kids and someone with no kids - etc. I believe the best decisions are the ones that include multiple perspectives - and multiple perspectives can't exist in a monolithic organization where all the "minority members" are either silent or gone.

Those who view things differently than the majority are needed desperately in the Church, and those in the majority need to value the differing views - not just tolerate them.

A Rare Sunday Post: Finding My Own "I am" Amid the Struggles of Life

I wrote something yesterday to a friend who is struggling with some things - especially the paradox between wanting to be fed at church and the desire to help feed others when he isn't feeling fed himself.

I normally don't write Sunday posts, but the thought came to me that I should post what I wrote to my friend - and that I should do so today. I hope that was a legitimate prompting - that it helps someone, somehow who might not have read it if I had posted it on a different day.

Here it is, edited slightly to be appropriate for a public forum:
------------------------------------
I think you are struggling with one of the central paradoxes of the Gospel that Jesus of Nazareth preached - that to find one's self, what someone thinks of as "self" has to be lost first.

Most people never understand that paradox fully in this life, and I am one of those most people when it comes to understanding it "fully" - but I've been unable to "find my own true self" by attending Church for so long that I gave up trying a long, long time ago. Instead, I focused in church on helping others find themselves.

Yes, my personality lends itself to that, but my experiences also helped me understand a little better how wonderful it can be to lose myself within a group. 

I want to share a story here that might or might not help, but it came to me as I read your message, so I hope it is inspiration.

Long story short, I had finished most of 11th Grade math by the time I left 7th Grade, but my rural junior and senior high schools had no idea what to do with someone in that situation - so I repeated 3 1/2 years of math until my class reached in 11th Grade where I had been individually in 7th Grade. One of the reasons I came to accept and appreciate that situation is that in 8th Grade I had a math teacher who couldn't teach. He knew the math, but he just wasn't a good teacher.

I had two choices: pout or teach. 

I chose to teach - and I found my life's love of teaching. I did about four weeks' worth of homework in one night, then, when the teacher finished introducing the material to the class and went back to his office, I got up, actually taught the concept in a way that the other students could understand and walked around the class helping individuals with the problems that were stumping them. I was, in practical terms, the teacher of that class. I literally, in a very real and powerful way, came to understand the joy and wonder that can occur when we put aside what we want individually (what we deserve and what "should" happen) and focus on helping others who aren't where we are get to where we are - or to where we are going. 

I understand individual personalities and that it was easier for me "naturally" to have that outcome than it would have been for others - but . . . 

Looking back on that year, I wouldn't trade it for the world. I learned something important about myself and what I perceive to be an important principle - and what I want to focus on for the purpose of this conversation is that I learned it through an experience that absolutely sucked in every objective way imaginable (for lack of a more genteel way to say it). It shouldn't have happened; the educators in those schools should have been more aware of me and my needs and done SOMETHING to help me; they had a professional commission and duty to do so; they shouldn't have "kicked me off of" the educational track I was on when I arrived; they failed miserably in fulfilling that commission. 

I'm so glad they did. In fact, I think I'll be grateful eternally that they did. 

I'm not saying that such an experience is right for everyone, and I'm not saying it's OK for people to screw up big time in the performance of their responsibilities, and I'm not saying anyone else should (or could) have had my own experience in that situation - but I am saying there is a power in many Gospel paradoxes that is impossible to grasp until we're involved in a searing, unfair, difficult struggle that forces us to weigh competing ideals and discover there often is a balance hidden somewhere in the struggle - a balance that is personal and individual and intimate and enlightening in our own efforts to find our own "I am".

Finding Balance: Doing the Worst Job at Everything

Someone once said they have so many responsibilities as a Mormon that they feel they are doing the worst job at everything they do. I can relate to the "worse job at everything" sentiment - as long as it's kept in perspective. "Finding a balance" implies that something has to give in some or all areas to achieve that balance.

Doing a "worse job at everything" simply means to me that you would do better at each thing if you spent more time doing it. I agree with that completely. If the object of my existence was to find one thing and do it the absolute best way possible, I either would be single or unemployed - agnostic/atheist or a monk - etc. I wouldn't try to "find a balance" - but, rather, I would find my "one true calling in life".

That's not how I view the object of my existence, however. It was made very clear to me early on in my life as a husband and father that my life and the important choices in that life weren't about me anymore. They were about us - my family. That was an important epiphany. My family is my one true calling, and I am fine with that.

A Few Principles That Govern My Religious Life

I have a few core principles that govern how I approach my religious life:

1) Do everything I can to develop the characteristics of godliness outlined in the Sermon on the Mount and other scriptural passages.

2) Develop true charity - not "just" some ambiguous "pure love of Christ", but rather a true understanding of others’ inherent worth and having genuine compassion toward them - truly treating them as fellow children of God regardless of their beliefs and personal quirks or weaknesses.

3) Do whatever I can to share of my all with others, especially those who need it most. That centers on eliminating "excess" - getting rid of debt so I can share of my financial means, simplifying my commitments so I can share of my time, finding emotional balance so I can share of my spirit, maintaining some semblance of physical health so I can share of my energy, etc.

4) Serve within the Church in some capacity (and elsewhere as I can). I don't care where, just that I serve somewhere, somehow.

Fwiw, I believe the biggest fallacy to which many have succumbed might be that we can have it all - and that it's OK to pursue it all. Often our efforts to obtain ALL leaves us unable to do the BEST - and, most critically, keeps us from doing fully what only we can do.

"Church Dress" Isn't That Simple

I believe how we dress for the meetings we attend is about respect - and an understanding of the nature of the particular meeting/gathering in question. It's also about recognizing that there is no "one standard" when it comes to attire, specifically because clothing is an expression of culture. I believe we should uphold a worshipful standard for our worship services and a "minimally acceptable respect" level for all of our associations (meaning inappropriately immodest, revealing, suggestive, etc. clothing is prohibited in all instances).

In my own case, I used to wear a full suit with white shirt whenever I was attending the normal block of Sunday church meetings and other instances where I was representing my Priesthood leaders, specifically because I had been asked to do so by my direct Priesthood leader as a result of my calling at the time. I often wore dress pants and a polo shirt to the non-public leadership meetings I attended when they were in the evening and I went there straight from work - because these meetings are administrative, not for worship. (I "dress up" when I can, but I don't drive miles out of my way to do so.) I often wear jeans and a t-shirt to fellowship dinners and ward or stake functions and to teach with the missionaries - because these are gatherings of friends that are not "church-related", per se. If I was involved in missionary correlation meetings Thursday night in our ward, I would show up in jeans or slacks - whatever I was wearing at the time.

Too many times, people equate any meeting arising out of our callings or relationships at church as "church meetings" that require "church dress". Imo, "church dress" is a misnomer, since there are widely varying reasons and purposes for meetings and, therefore, widely varying models of appropriate "church dress". I reserve "Sunday dress" for direct worship and those meetings where I have been asked to dress in the same manner. Everything else is a step below that; therefore, so is the way I often dress.

Hearing Without Doing Is Dead, Being Alone

Regarding activities and time constraints: We are members of two very distinct churches - the global one led by the prophets and apostles (to which we "belong") and the local one led by the bishops and stake presidents (which we “attend” and in which we “live”). That means that there can be and too often is a discrepancy between what is taught at the global level and what is practiced at the local level. Often, we don't recognize that distinction, and we end up frustrated with SLC when the cause of our frustration is local.

Just two quick examples:

A few years ago, I was released from the Bishopric because my wife was being called as the YW President. We had 6 kids still at home, and the youngest wasn't in school yet. Our Bishop was dedicated to the counsel from SLC to not overburden families with small children, so I was released and called into the Primary.

Over the last year, especially, our Stake President has encouraged all the stake leaders to conduct as much business as possible over the phone and via e-mail - specifically to reduce the time parents and spouses are away from each other. He also has directed leaders to keep meetings as short as possible when they need to be held - for the same reason.

Often "The Church" isn't the issue; it's translating what The Church teaches and says to the local level for the church we actually attend. The over-abundance of meetings and over-burdening of families is a great example, as I live in a ward and stake that has taken very seriously the admonitions that have come from SLC regarding this matter. I have a deep appreciation for what The Church is doing in this regard, while I hear complaints often from others whose local leaders are not working as hard to reduce their members' time burden. Often, these members mistakenly blame "The Church" and don't realize that "The Church" is very aware of their difficulties and is trying actively to change and address them.

Internal Opposition in All Things

In college, I had a Comparative Religion professor who used "literalist" and "interpretist" when it came to "historical religion" - meaning "one who takes religious statements and stories literally" and "one who looks for interpretations, allegories or morals and, generally, ignores questions of historicity". I really liked that distinction, since it removes the condescension and negative connotations inherent in quasi-political terms like "liberal" and "conservative". I also like the "black and white" vs. "gray" description I've heard from lots of people. The first one tends to see everything clearly (or at least believe they see clearly) - which qualification shows my own perspective, the latter. One tends to state things as absolutes; the other tends to use words like "tends", "most", "many", "I think", "I believe", etc.

Frankly, I am a combination of the two - and it drives some people nuts on both "sides". I am a hardcore parser, since I hate defending what I don't say or believe just because someone assumes what I don't say. That tends to be associated with literalists and black-and-whiters, but it's just common courtesy to me. (Golden Rule) I live a VERY conservative lifestyle, and it leads many people to assume I have a strictly conservative, literalist view, but philosophically I am very interpretive and see gray in most things. There are certain things that I feel totally comfortable claiming to "know", while there are many things I simply believe, accept or don't worry about understanding for now.

Ironically, both extremes legitimately can be called "lazy" by the other. Those who see in black and white (literalists) can be said to be copping-out and avoiding the pain of nuances and contradiction; those who see gray (interpretists) can be said to be endlessly avoiding having to make a firm decision by eternally wandering in the middle.

Summary: I believe in moderation / balance in all things, including terms like liberal, conservative, intellectual, orthodox, literalism, interpretive, etc. I think if you can be characterized too easily as one thing or another, you probably aren't thinking enough - that if there is no "internal opposition in all things", you probably are too sure of yourself. However, I also believe there are certain areas, concepts, principles, commands, etc. that really can be grasped as universal and undeniable - that really do constitute absolutes. It's figuring out individually what those things are for me and allowing others to reach different conclusions for themselves that is the central issue, imho. That is inherently a painful process, but it's where I think the real growth occurs – the muddle in the middle.