It's OK to Feel Ashamed

 One of the things I have always found fascinating is when different people see the exact same thing and come away with very different conclusions.

Imagine two people looking at a modern art piece in a museum.  One of them might say "I wish I could tell the artist that he is a master, and that this raw expression is moving and beautiful."  Another might say "I wish I could tell the artist gesundheit because it looks like he sneezed on his canvas.  I wish I could get people to pay thousands for my used tissues..."

Picture a mother and a toddler together when for the 4271st consecutive time, the tablet that the toddler is holding begins to play "...baby shark doo doo doo doo doo..."  Even though it's the exact same thing, the toddler's face is filled with glee as they listen to the catchy tune.  The mother thinks "I've heard more pleasing sounds coming out of the bathroom stall at the Taco Bell."

One more example: when I see a package of ramen noodles, I think to myself "There's a tasty and inexpensive meal option appropriate for breakfast, lunch, or dinner."  My wife, seeing the very same package, thinks "That's the reason my husband is going to die of malnutrition."

It's even possible for the same person to look at the same thing at different times, and come to different conclusions, or have different insights.  This makes studying the scriptures advantageous, or attending the temple, or receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

One case in which this is true for me is in a parable in Matthew 22:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:2-14)

 As a youth, I understood some of the details of this parable.  The King represents the Lord.  The servants are his prophets.  Those who were initially "bidden" were the house of Israel.

The confusion came in the final example.  A man, who was called to come, was not wearing a wedding garment.  The loving and forgiving Jesus Christ with which I was familiar, to my surprise, advocated not only making this man FEEL ASHAMED for (something as seemingly insignificants as) his apparel, but had him bound hand and foot, and cast into outer darkness.  I did not expect this, nor did I understand what it meant.

After additional study, I began to see the same parable in a new way.

First, the King remains the same throughout the parable - he is opposed, but not deposed.  It's really not about the King.

Second, the message of the servants is basically the same throughout the parable - prepare and come to the wedding.  Though there were differences in audience, or some of the details given with the invitation (looks like meat's back on the menu boys) these differences were insignificant.  The parable is not really about the servants so much.

The main differences in these examples is how the message of the servants was received.  These people essentially all received the same message, but they perceived it very differently.  THIS IS THE POINT OF THE PARABLE.

Why was it received differently?  These people were under different influences.  I would like to compare the influencers in this parable to the three great heretics of the Book of Mormon.

The first heretic is Sherem, who lived in the days of Jacob, the brother of Nephi.  This type of influencer is what Jesus referred to as a false prophet that "[comes] to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

This type of influencer is very quick to advertise their sheep's clothing.

Sherem said "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you... ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way..." (Jacob 7:6-7)

Notice the Brother and the concern for the right way of God and the appeal to the scriptures...

In modern times, these false prophets are also quick to tout their sheep's clothing and convince others that they are "good members of the church."  They will enumerate callings they have had in councils and presidencies.  They will tell you that they were a DL, a ZL, or an AP on their mission.  They will tell you that they attend the temple, and hold a current recommend.  They do these to convince those they influence that THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE, or that THEY ARE ONE OF YOU... a "brother."

Once they have brandished their sheep's clothing, they always have the same goal - making light of the words and invitations of the servants of the King.

This can be in the form of "I'm a good person and I still ___(fill in the blank with something the prophets have explicitly condemned)____" or "We don't need to be ashamed if we have to prioritize one going to his farm, or another to his merchandise."  They make light of the invitation - which directly corresponds to the first group in the parable.

The thing is, it's actually OK to feel ashamed and embarrassed if you have not properly prioritized the message of the prophets.  In fact, the sooner, the better.

Recall how the prophet Jonah felt ashamed that he had not followed the invitation of the Lord... but only after being caught in a storm in the Mediterranean Sea, jeopardizing the lives of those who were with him.  And then, Jonah had nothing but shame and remorse when he was in the belly of the whale.  Fortunately, his shame helped him become humble enough to accept the invitation of the Lord.  And the people of Nineveh were spared because they quickly felt shame for offending the Lord.  They sat in sack cloth and ashes, and received mercy for properly prioritizing the message of the servant.

The next heretic is not chronologically second, but he fits the parable in this place better.  It's Korihor, who contended against Alma the Younger.

Korihor absolutely misrepresented himself, but not with the use of sheep's clothing.  He did not try to convince members of the church that he was "one of them."  He instead tried to convince them that being a sheep was altogether bad.

Korihor's goal was to pit the people against the servants by misrepresenting them.  He fashioned himself as someone who cared about the "abuses" of the servants of the King:

"And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be." (Alma 30:27-28)

People intuitively understand that it is acceptable to fight in defense - to defeat the bad guys.  This is true of Captain America smashing Thanos, Batman punching the Joker, or a person defending their home against an intruding robber.  The idea that Korihor pushes is that the servants of the King bear a harmful message.  He misrepresents them as the bad guys, and convinces others to entreat these servants spitefully... just as the remnant in the parable.

Of course, his own motivations were to break the law of chastity. (Alma 30:18)  It is just as Jesus taught... a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.

There are individuals today who raise similar concerns about the messages of the servants of the King - apostates who persuade people that they are in a "cult" if they accept a God that makes them feel ashamed at all.

The truth is, it's OK to feel ashamed if you have fallen under the influence of these apostates.  It's OK to be embarrassed, and to make a change.

Consider the example of Parley P. Pratt, one of the great missionaries in this dispensation.  He became upset with the prophet Joseph Smith over some of the financial difficulties in Kirtland.  He wrote a letter condemning the prophet, thinking that he was in the right.  Eventually, instead of focusing on the faults of the servants, he broke free of this influence by looking inward:

"Parley thought it over. When he had written his letter to Joseph, he had told himself that the letter was for the prophet’s own good. But Parley knew he was fooling himself. He had not called Joseph to repentance in a spirit of meekness. Rather, he had lashed out at him, seeking retribution.

Parley also realized that his feeling of betrayal had blinded him to Joseph’s own hardships. Speaking out against the prophet and accusing him of selfishness and greed had been wrong.

Ashamed, Parley decided to return to Kirtland with Thomas and the other apostles. Once they arrived, he went to the prophet’s house. Joseph was still recovering from his illness, but he was getting stronger. Parley wept when he saw him and apologized for everything he had said and done to hurt him. Joseph forgave him, prayed for him, and blessed him." (Saints V1, Ch 24, p 284)

Feeling ashamed of his own faults was a transformative moment for Parley.  He went on to become one of the greatest apostles of this dispensation.

The final heretic corresponds to the last man in the parable of Jesus, who came to the marriage without a wedding garment.  This man was named Nehor.  He believed in a truly insidious falsehood - insidious because it is based on a large amount of truth.

The truths in Nehor's doctrine include the following:

• God loves you, and wants you to be with him
• God made you, and you are his child
• God is merciful

Of course, these truths resonate with people - particularly people who have felt the sweet peace that comes from forgiveness of sins.

The problem is the conclusion that is drawn from these truths - THERE IS NO SIN - GOD WANTS YOU TO COME AS YOU ARE.

The problem with this idea is that it denies the three great pillars of our faith:

1. The Creation
1. If we were enough as we were, already living in the presence of God, there would have been absolutely no reason for a creation, or any kind of investment from God in a mortal experience.  The creation only has meaning if we needed to become more than we were.
2. The Fall
1. Tendencies of people to be cruel, carnal, sensual, and devilish at times are present in every society that does or ever has existed.  But if God "made us that way" then he would have never had cause to have the children of men live outside of the presence of God.
3. The Atonement
1. If sin is not really a problem, then God could just look the other way, or give teaching.  He would certainly not have sent His Son to suffer an unimaginable price in order to redeem humanity.

Of course the man in the parable of Jesus was called but he was not chosen.  The Doctrine and Covenants gives further clarification on why this is:

"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." (D&C 121:34-36, emphasis added)

The man at the parable remained speechless because he did not think he should have to feel ashamed.  Like Nehor, who boldly defended himself after attacking and murdering aged Gideon, he thought he had done no wrong because he had been called.

The truth is that it is absolutely appropriate to feel ashamed and embarrassed when we do not receive the words of the servants of the Lord, or when we do not heed their messages.  In fact, Jesus expects, and even asks us to feel shame... it was he who taught the Nephites to sacrifice "a broken heart and a contrite spirit." (3 Nephi 9:20)

The offering of a little shame can help us achieve humility, which can be transformative.  How can we expect to change into who we are meant to be, if we do not realize that we have need to improve?  How can we fulfill our potential without feeling some degree of the things in our lives that need to be changed?

A little shame transformed Saul of Tarsus into the apostle Paul, and the rebellious Alma and the sons of King Mosiah into some of the greatest missionaries in the Book of Mormon.

Jesus gave his parable out of love.  He is warning you to examine yourself for influences that might interfere with how you perceive him and the calling that comes from his servants.

Jesus never said "come as you are..."

Jesus said "COME FOLLOW ME."

Don't get your shorts in a knot... Understanding and modesty

Recently, I have seen a lot of heated discussion regarding a blog post called FYI (if you're a teenage girl).

On one hand, there are many individuals that are grateful for encouraging girls to cover themselves, and express understanding for the mother who wrote the post, who desires to help her sons avoid lustful thoughts and urges.

On the other hand, I have read comments from people who are upset with calls for modesty because it blames girls for the impure thoughts of boys, and teaches boys that they just can't help themselves.

The term modesty has become a item of debate as well.  Among religious people of many faiths, modesty has represented a method for dressing, particularly for women, such that they minimize any provocative aspects of their appearance.  There have been many individuals that have pointed out that this understanding of modesty is a stretch from the root of the word, which implies restraint and humility.  The concept in this case is that modesty represents how an individual views himself or herself rather than how others view them.

One side of this debate emphasizes the effect of provocative styles on men.  There can be little doubt that seeing women in skimpy outfits affects men... otherwise there would not be a pornography "industry".  Lingerie makers, fragrance producers, and other clothing designers also seem to depend on women noticing the effects their products have on men, and implying that the results are tied to ownership of these goods.  Anyone who has attended high school knows that men are willing to part with money, invest time, and provide service for girls that catch their attention.

The opposing side points out that women are being held guilty for an effect they may not intend or of which they may not even be aware.  It is also plain that men who are guilty of sexual predation cannot be held guiltless if their victims were wearing revealing or otherwise provocative clothing.  Men must control their own impulses.  Additionally, the concept of being provocative is relative.  One person may be aroused by seeing bare shoulders while another remains completely unaffected.  If the line is to be drawn such that no one is remotely aroused ever, then should all people be required to wear large burlap cloaks or dress as Benedictine monks?

Of course, on the other hand, sexual harassment lines are already defined by the perception of the victim as opposed to the intent of the perpetrator.  An innocent pat on the back or a shoulder rub can be forms of sexual harassment if they are unwelcome.  The same can be said of lewd discussions, displaying racy images in the workplace, or the wearing of tight, revealing, and/or otherwise provocative clothing.  Individuals that create a hostile and/or uncomfortable work environment for coworkers are directed to alter their appearance, behavior, and/or speech to accommodate the well-being of others, and people generally understand that such laws and policies are appropriate.

The question then becomes this: at what point do these standards become inappropriate?  If a behavior is unwelcome or a lack of consent exists, does that make it wrong?

If consent is not important to defining what is acceptable, then by what standard are crimes such as rape condemned?

Certainly, the issue of modesty is difficult, if not impossible, to define explicitly.  At the ends of the spectrum, most people agree that exotic dancers may be dressing to be seductive, and nuns are dressing to cover themselves, but middle ground seems shifting.  What one believes is modest, another finds provocative.  One person can be distracted by something they find revealing while most others find it tasteful and appropriate.

To add to the confusion, individuals on both sides of the argument seem quick to use argumentative language.  In response to modesty, one side will use the term shaming.  This term calls into question the motives of those that are asking for sensitivity, which ironically, is a form of shaming.  On the other side, calling someone a slut for the way they dress is attempting to shame or guilt trip them for failing to conform to standards they may not understand or share.  Name calling and questioning the motives assumes the worst about others, and generates most of the unnecessary heat in these debates.

It should not be hard to understand that a person who did not intend to do anything wrong does not want to be made to feel as though they did.  It is absolutely hypocritical to be insensitive while trying to get someone else to be more sensitive.  It is also hypocritical to try to get someone to feel guilty for requesting sensitivity by accusing them of trying to make others feel guilty.

Ultimately, men, women, and children are better protected from complicated, expensive, and dangerous situations when sexual relations are kept between husband and wife.  All people have responsibilities with respect to this.  For women, it means being aware of how their appearance affects others.  For men, it means getting out of situations that might impair judgment or integrity.  For parents, it means protecting their children as possible from influences that might steer them toward irresponsibility. (See The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

Ideally, no one would become defensive or take these discussions personally, and the benefit of the doubt would be given.

If someone tells you that your cleavage is showing, is it possible that they are not intending to make you feel bad, but they are genuinely worried about the effect it has on others, or how it might affect you?  What is the right way to tell someone that their appearance is making you feel uncomfortable?

On the other hand, is it possible that a person wearing a tight outfit is unaware of how much of their body shape is visible?  Is it possible that a person is not wearing something to try and seduce all the men in the room?

In other words, be sensitive in how you dress and how you treat others.