Greek philosopher Aristotle is widely credited with being the first to define the five senses by which humanity perceives the world. The concept that the acquisition of knowledge is limited to sight, sound, odor, flavor, and touch is taught even today. This concept appears at first to be logical as each of these senses seem to correspond well to an obvious sensory organ: eyes provide vision, ears provides hearing, noses reveal odors, tongues detect flavors, and skin detects the many varieties of touch.
Unfortunately, this list is far from complete. Consider the sense of balance that most people possess. Tiny canals in the inner ear help us determine whether we are upright or upside down. These same canals also help provide humans with the ability to detect acceleration.
Additionally, pain is not only limited to things that touch our skin. Certainly anyone who has experienced a headache, stomachache, or other internal ache realizes that their body is capable of slowing them down dramatically when it detects some problem.
Consider the ability of humans to know when their bodies require more food or water through hunger or thirst. Anyone who has indulged at a buffet may also recognize the sensation of being full, particularly when they may have over-indulged. We also are able to detect when our bodies are reaching their use limits through the sense of fatigue. Additionally, expecting mothers are perhaps most familiar with food cravings that can help them obtain vitamins, minerals, and chemicals that they need.
Though no specific organ is associated with it, humans have the ability to determine the passage of time. Though it may seem longer when waiting for water to boil or during an uninteresting meeting, even closed away from the light of the sun, people can have a general sense of time passing.
Current scientific understanding will likely discover additional ways that human bodies are able to perceive information about their surroundings and circumstances. One sense that may not be detected so easily is the ability of humans to detect spiritual truth.
The sense that something is spiritually true is dismissed by some because there are diverse views on what is spiritually true. Also, falsehoods have in some cases been peddled as truth using appeals to this sense. That having been said, its use is well documented.
Consider the following conversation between Christ and his Apostles:
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:15-18)
Certainly Peter had seen miracles and evidences that contributed to his belief that Jesus was the Son of God, but Christ did not point to the use of his sight and observation as the source of his acquired knowledge. He clearly stated that "flesh and blood" had not been the cause of his revelation, but his Father in heaven. He further declared that the ability to obtain truth from our Father in heaven, or sense spiritual truth was the rock upon which his church would be built.
Consider the following from the disciples of Christ on the road to Emmaus:
" ¶And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:13-32)
The method by which these disciples recognized the identity of the man with whom they walked as the risen Lord was not sight, even though they saw him. They had sensed spiritual truth as he spoke, and noted this with one another as they described how their "heart[s] burn[ed] within" them.
The Apostle John declared at the beginning of his gospel how Christ was "the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9)
Additionally, Christ himself taught "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14) Of course, the only way that he could be "known" by others is if they had some mechanism for recognizing who he was, just as Peter did.
Just as any other sense, there are limitations on our ability to discern spiritual truth. Optical illusions trick our sense of sight into seeing something that may not be. Spiritual illusions can fool people into trusting incorrect sources, or withholding trust from accurate sources. The children of Israel famously decided it was in their best interest to create a golden calf while Moses communed with God on Sinai. (Exodus 32) True prophets such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, and John the Baptist were killed by people who should have had spiritual sense to recognize them for who they truly were.
It is also important to note that like other senses, spiritual perception can be dulled. A person that first encounters the odor of rotting flesh will be repulsed immediately, but if they spend long enough around it, the odor becomes far easier to tolerate to the point that it may not be noticeable. The same thing is true of moral questions. King David went from seeing a woman bathing to arranging the death of her husband to cover his sins over a period of time. Additionally, senses that are not properly used, or are abused, will not be as missed when they are gone. People who as youth listened to loud music too often may not be able to distinguish sounds when they are older. People who intentionally ignore their spiritual senses are most likely to conclude later that they never had any to begin with.
There are those who might say that because spiritual sensitivity can lead people to different conclusions, it cannot be trusted. Of course, if that is true, then the same should be true of all other senses, which also tend to lead people to different conclusions. What inspires one observer of modern art to call a piece "moving" and "skillful" while another observer calls it "a heap of crap" and "something my kid could do blindfolded"? What is it that inspires one listener to enjoy the rhythm of a song, and another to complain of its "repetitive noise"? What causes one person to relish the flavor of a sushi roll, and another to spit it out in disgust? What causes the masochist to enjoy pain while others perceive it so negatively?
Ultimately, everyone embraces an incorrect view or perspective from time to time. The point of life is not to shut off your perception... A person is wiser when using all their senses to perceive the world around them. It is also wise to question the motivation of individuals that would have others disregard or avoid perceptions of any particular sense or group of senses.
If you are new to exercising spiritual senses, or if you have not used them in some time, do not let discouragement prevent you from persisting. Prayer and scripture study have aided people in developing their spiritual senses for thousands of years. Humility, diligence, faith, and penitence are as vital to recognizing spiritual truths as opening the eyelids or unstopping the ears are to improving vision and hearing.
In the end, whatever conflicts or discrepancies may arise with various perceptions will be overcome, and we will all understand the truth. "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:12) Ultimately, we will all know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that his gospel offers solutions to every problem humanity faces. The sooner we use our perceptions to see him, the sooner his power will help to save us all.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
"...on my mission..." - why women should avoid using the mating call of 21 year old Mormon men...
Every young man in the LDS church knows there is an expectation... a commandment even... to prepare and serve a two-year mission. Church leaders frequently explain how important it is to share the gospel with everyone, and how substantial the opportunities are for learning and gaining experience through missionary service.
In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service. Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.
Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary. Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.
For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries. When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.
In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity. In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.
At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.
While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option. For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless. Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.
When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders. Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.
Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife. Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills. Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes.
Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments. They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing). Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing. If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.
For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings. Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority. Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.
Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women. I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..." Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement. That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.
In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..." Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.
Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet. The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared... The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them. Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.
Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."? Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission? And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?
Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19).
A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission. In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.
In some areas, the importance of this service translated into grand and glorious farewells and homecomings to honor those that had given such service. Such displays certainly contribute to generating interest in missionary service, but not always in positive ways.
Additionally, leaders of LDS young women frequently encourage the attitude that they ought to seek out a spouse that is a returned missionary. Nearly every time a young woman in LDS meetings or activities described the qualities and accomplishments of their "ideal" husband, returned missionary was among them.
For all the difficulties that men may have when it comes to listening, this fact is known by all men that serve as missionaries. When these young men return home, particularly those with limited dating abilities will fall back to this memory, and any conversation in which they participate will recall a story or experience from their mission that will allow them to spread the word that they are a returned missionary.
In some cases, these efforts can help make girls that would otherwise been unavailable open enough to present a dating opportunity. In cases where the area is already saturated with returned missionaries, the value of completing such service, while still something, is substantially less valuable to women.
At some point after missionary service, whether successful or not in using the "on my mission" mating call, men tend to realize that the glorious return where people lined up to shake their hand is fleeting, and it is important to build new experiences and accomplishments in employment, education, and religious service, just like everyone else.
While young men are told in the form of a commandment that they should prepare and serve a mission, young women are offered this service opportunity as an option. For some of these sisters, missionary service becomes appealing only when there are no imminent marriage prospects, while for others, it is appealing regardless. Sisters from both of these categories can achieve success in missionary efforts.
When service concludes for sister missionaries, many of them seem to fall into the same pattern as returned Elders. Every conversation and every comment they offer in church includes the male mating call "...on my mission..." along with some anecdote or experience.
Of course, almost no men have "returned missionary" on their list of required achievements and accomplishments when seeking a wife. Additionally, since numerous men in the LDS church have served missions, they know that missionary service does not guarantee that a person is kind, honest, intelligent, or even that they have good communication skills. Returned missionaries know that they themselves, regardless of their intentions, made numerous mistakes.
Additionally, most men do not look for a woman that has a good resume or an impressive list of accomplishments. They want someone that is attractive and will agree with them about things they will not compromise (such as religious truths, political views, whether it's ok to eat steak, and the belief that investing some time in the Legend of Zelda is a good thing). Missionary experience does not make a woman more appealing. If women intend it as a mating call of their own, it is a poor choice.
For some people, the phrase "...on my mission..." causes negative feelings. Although missionary service is an option for women, those that persist in relating everything to an experience they had on their mission can cause women who made choices beside full-time missionary service to feel regret, guilt, or inferiority. Particularly for women who were married and started families, there are already enough voices in society telling them that motherhood is not as valuable as careers or other accomplishments... Members of the church ought to avoid guilt tripping women for making correct choices.
Some might respond to this assertion by asking why it would be acceptable for men to talk about their missions and not women. I suggest that men also need to temper the degree with which they use "...on my mission..." Of course since there are so many LDS single women who are determined to marry a returned missionary, a single man may feel the need to communicate that they meet this requirement. That having been said, people ought to see it for what it is: a mating call... and all mating calls are meant to be declarations of superiority.
In other words, a person that says "...on my mission, I [accomplished feat]..." is really saying "consider me to be a superior choice for romantic commitment because I [served a mission]..." Even if the return missionary is female, anyone that frequently refers to their mission comes off as though they are claiming superiority to those who have not served a mission, regardless of whether or not they intend to.
Please do not misunderstand to think that the point of this article is to treat missionary service as a skeleton in the closet. The experiences of missionary service can be remembered, enjoyed, and shared... The point is that these experiences do not make a person superior to another who does not have them. Many times, relating a story about an experience during missionary service can convey the desired point without pontificating about the fact that it may have occurred during missionary service.
Instead of "on my mission, I talked to a person who..." why not say "I once talked to a person who..."? Is it necessary to announce to everyone (especially in an Elders Quorum or Relief Society meeting) that you served a mission? And if you are married, who exactly are you trying to impress by touting your accomplishments?
Ultimately, almost every full time missionary comes to the conclusion that the decisions they made as a 19-21 year old may not always have been the right ones... and that while a full-time mission can offer tremendous opportunity to learn and improve... ultimately, we are all beggars before God (Mosiah 4:19).
A mission should probably not be used as a trumpet announcing good deeds (Matthew 6:2)... and a person's good deeds should not be limited to a time when they served a full time mission. In the end, no amount of accomplishment will hold a candle to the triumph of our Lord Jesus Christ over sin and death... and that is the accomplishment of which all Christians should be most anxious to share.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
A land choice above all others...
Is the United States of America a Christian nation?
Many of the arguments regarding this question attempt to
examine documents or quotations from the late 1700s… but I would like to draw
from a much older source.
After the flood in the Old Testament, in a land called
Shinar, people aspired to build a great tower that they hoped would let them
ascend to heaven without having to live the laws of God. The Lord confounded the languages of many of these
people rendering them unable to communicate, but before the process was
completed, a man named Jared and his brother pled that God not confound the
language of their family. Their faith
pleased the Lord and he not only allowed them to keep their tongue, but offered
to guide their people to a land of promise.
The journey ultimately brought them to the shores of the ancient
sea. There the God of the Old Testament
revealed his identity as Jesus Christ, who would be born in the future and
perform a great sacrifice to save all men.
He also spoke of the land to which they were being led.
“…but he would that they should come forth
even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which
the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people. And he had sworn in his
wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of
promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and
only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come
upon them.” (Ether 2:7-8)
The land across the sea was the American continent. Tragically, these Jaredites eventually
abandoned the guidance of Christ and his prophets, and destroyed themselves in
a civil war that had but one survivor… Just as had been promised, they had been
swept off the land, and God guided another group of people seeking refuge from
the wickedness of Zedekiah in Jerusalem to his land of promise. Among these travelers was a prophet named
Nephi. He foresaw that in spite of his
efforts to preach of the Messiah, his own people would eventually reject Jesus
and be swept off the land, but he had hope that his efforts might be valued by
those to whom Christ would lead to his promised land afterward: Christopher
Columbus and other European colonists:
“And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was
separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the
Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth
upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the
promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that
it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the
many waters.” (1 Nephi 13:12-13)
This ancient Christian prophet foretold the hand of God in
aiding the American Revolution and establishing an independent nation:
“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles
who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and
the power of the Lord was with them. And I beheld that their mother Gentiles
were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle
against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also
that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against
them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out
of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other
nations.” (1 Nephi 13:16-19)
The founding fathers were not just imagining divine
providence, they were brought here and preserved by God himself. The witness and warning of ancient Christians
regarding this place echoes across time:
“…and that after the waters had receded from off the face of
this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the
Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell
upon the face thereof;” (Ether 13:2)
Perhaps it is not important to ask “is the United States of
America a Christian nation?” Christ is
responsible for the existence of our nation, and as he has done with the land’s
previous inhabitants, he has prospered us when we have put our trust in
him. As this is his promised land, a more prudent question might be “what can we do
to make the United States of America a more Christian nation?” Our knowledge and understanding has not
advanced us so far as to make faith and penitence, charity and forgiveness,
humility and diligence, or any of the teachings of Christ obsolete. Adhering to these principles is the ultimate
in patriotism.
For more information about the role of Jesus Christ on the
American continent, visit http://mormon.org/beliefs/book-of-mormon
Music credit: Destiny of the chosen – Immediate
Monday, July 1, 2013
Tolerating Unethical Behavior
John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks. He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down. He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular. There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown. Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad. Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.
Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber. In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.
Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue. Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level. The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States. In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars. In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.
Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this. For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States. For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.
Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity. There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski. Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.
The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners. While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.
There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision. Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics. Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical.
I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits. I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be. I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured. The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.
Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical. The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:
John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child." After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted. He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity. In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them. The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported. Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.
In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime.
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.
Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point. The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior. The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."
In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].
Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.
Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.
The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.
Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness. They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.
This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good. Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes. The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"
For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify. Homosexual behavior is unethical. Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it. Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior.
The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)
Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior. That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Is the Bible authoritative?
Is the
Bible authoritative?
The
answer to this question depends on the branch of Christianity.
The
original church that Christ established existed before the Bible, which meant
that the word of God was not a single closed book. This is not to say they did not value
scripture. Matthew’s gospel points out that
many Old Testament passages are fulfilled by Christ, and Paul discusses the
value of the law in his numerous epistles.
Scripture
was not the ultimate authoritative source of guidance for Christ’s original
church; the Apostles were. They had
authority to be witnesses of Christ and his gospel to all the world, and
through guidance they received in the form of visions and revelations, they
established new doctrines that directly contradicted established scriptural
practices such as the dietary law of Moses, circumcision, Sabbath day
observance, and so forth, while maintaining the spirit of the laws contained in
the scriptures.
The
leadership of the Apostles worked well until they were all caught and/or
killed. The remaining bishops in the
church tried to maintain Christianity, but over time they began to
disagree. Eventually, the Roman emperor
Constantine converted to Christianity and prohibited persecution of Christians
in 313. Later Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the Roman
Empire on 27 February 380. The Bishop of
Rome became known as the Pope, and from that time, the Papacy has claimed an
unbroken line of authority that goes back to the Apostle Peter to whom Christ
said “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew
16:18)
The
majority of Christians seemed satisfied with the authority of the Pope, but
eventually, concerns were expressed when their actions seemed inconsistent with
Biblical teachings. Specifically, Martin
Luther nailed 95 theses to the door of the Castle church in Wittenburg
protesting the sale of indulgences, which basically amounted to certificates of
forgiveness for sins. Eventually, the
dispute between Luther and Pope Leo X resulted in Luther being excommunicated
from the Catholic Church. Luther openly rejected
the authority of the Pope, and instead demanded that his actions be proven
wrong based on scripture.
For the
Protestant movement to have authority after breaking away from the formerly
accepted unbroken line of leadership in Catholicism, it was necessary that
something besides the Pope be the authoritative guide for Christianity. To this day, the Bible is that authoritative
source for defining faith for Protestants.
So, on
the one hand, Catholic authority derives from Papal claims, and the Bible does not need to be authoritative. On the other, Protestants must use it as the authoritative source
of Christianity. There is a third group
that differs from these two. They can be
called restorationists and they
believe in a literal restoration of Apostolic authority.
The
largest of these groups is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The story of their restoration begins with
Joseph Smith. Like Stephen in the New
Testament, he saw God the Father and his son Jesus Christ. Because the authority to lead the church had
been lost with the Apostles, it needed to be restored at the hands of
Apostles. In 1829, Joseph Smith received
this authority from Peter, James, and John.
The
line of authority continues today with Apostles that stand as in the days of
Jesus, guiding Christians with revealed truths.
Though restorationists teach that the Bible is the word of God, they follow the precedent in the Bible by proclaiming
that God’s word is not a fixed or completed work, but that he guides us as he
always has: through Apostles and Prophets.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Divorce: Portly English monarchs may be bad role models
Jesus was never afraid to say something bold or abrasive if it was important. No doubt, this contributed to the astonishment people experienced when he taught the sermon on the mount. (Matthew 7:28-29)
Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept. Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached. These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.
Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal. Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30). When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best. He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)
Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture. The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings. This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
Even today, many of the concepts he presented can seem difficult to accept. Complete honesty (Matthew 5:33-37), morality in every thought (Matthew 5:28), abstinence from anger (Matthew 5:22), and total forgiveness (Matthew 5:38-45) are among the doctrines that Christ preached. These ideals can take a lifetime of effort to achieve, and for some might even seem impossible.
Of course, not everything in these councils is completely literal. Jesus is not actually suggesting removing one's hand or eye if it is offensive (Matthew 5:29-30). When he declared "judge not that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), he was not suggesting that we make no decisions, or that we not participate in political elections to help elect the leadership we judge to be best. He was not advocating that everyone would be better if they quit their employment and waited for God to feed, clothe, and house us as he does the lilies of the field or the fowls of the air. (Matthew 6:25-34)
Understanding which teachings are literal, rhetorical, or symbolic is a challenge in almost every book of scripture. The changing societal views on issues influence interpretations and emphasis points in Christ's teachings. This is particularly evident with Christ's teachings about divorce.
In the sermon on the mount, Jesus taught:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)
Certainly, I have never met anyone that would argue that divorce is a positive experience, except perhaps attorneys that profit from them. The sentiment of Jesus's teachings though are not just that divorce is bad, but that it is invalid. Christ clearly blames the man that puts away his wife as forcing her into an adulterous situation. He also accuses a man that marries a divorced woman of committing adultery.
This is not a singular teaching either. Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)
These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred. The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce. The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him. Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.
While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication." This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.
It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder. I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.
In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry? I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."
A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside. This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.
Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times. Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway. In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.
A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.
Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved. Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)
From the teachings of modern prophets:
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)
Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention. These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however. As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely. Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children. Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.
Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial. The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices. Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach. While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.
This is not a singular teaching either. Christ taught again:
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matthew 19:3-9)
These teachings are undoubtedly tied to the premise held by many Christians that marriage is sacred. The concept that divorce might be acceptable under Christianity may have been derived from Henry VIII of England's "need" to get a divorce. The "Defender of the Faith" was quick to cast his faith aside when it suited him. Since this time, the practice has become more and more widespread, even to the point that many believe marriage is just a legal status rather than an institution of sanctity... a more formal form of "boyfriend and girlfriend" that can be terminated by either party at any time on a whim.
While the condemnation of divorce is clear, it is important to highlight that Christ did include an exception in his statement about divorce: "saving for the cause of fornication." This obviously implies that there are instances where divorce may be not only be acceptable, but perhaps the right course of action.
It should not be surprising that infidelity is condemned... particularly when Jesus taught that marriage represents something that "God hath joined together", a violation of the marriage commitment definitely constitutes man putting it asunder. I would suggest that situations where abuse of spouse or offspring have occurred are also breaches in the marriage covenant, and for the safety of the victims, divorce may be necessary.
In such cases when an individual has betrayed their marriage vows, and divorce has been the result... do Christ's teachings indicate that such individuals should not re-marry? I do not believe that this is the intent of the phrase "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." I believe that such teachings are directed at those who legally remove themselves from their marriage commitments over trivial circumstances or "irreconcilable differences."
A disagreement, lack of excitement, different life goals, or similar excuses are not likely to be acceptable to God as reasons to cast marriage aside. This is particularly true of Christians who have committed to be humble, merciful, forgiving, and selfless as a part of their commitment to Christ himself.
Certainly any one of us are guilty of being foolish at times. Every one of us have likely at some point acted petty, cruel, selfish, jealous, spiteful, or in some way done something to deserve being put away... but Christ personally suffered unspeakable torture and pain for each of us anyway. In fact, regardless of our problems or mistakes (the very cause of his torture), he continually and selflessly offers forgiveness to us.
A person that cannot bend to offer love and respect to the person they swore they would in the covenant of marriage cannot expect love and respect from God... and a person that sets at naught their most sacred relationships for trivialities should not expect God to invest in forming relationships with them.
Frequently and tragically, the effects of divorce extend beyond the separating couple... particularly when there are children involved. Remember the teaching of Jesus regarding children:
"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:3-6)
From the teachings of modern prophets:
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity... We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." (http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng)
Of course there are circumstances such as death or disability that may require special attention. These circumstances ought to be the exception and not the rule however. As much as possible, we have a responsibility to ensure that children receive care under a father and mother who honor their vows completely. Casting aside a spouse for anything but the most serious offenses constitutes a violation of the rights of children. Even in the best circumstances divorce can cause harm to come to the little ones... in other words, children are hurt by the very parents on whom they should be able to depend for protection.
Ultimately, marriage was never intended to be trivial. The sanctity of this institution is not lessened by the indulgence of society's "tolerance" for selfish practices. Particularly among Christians who believe in the sanctity of marriage, it is vital that we practice what we preach. While we have a responsibility to be kind and loving to all of God's children, there is no relationship more important in which to prove our Christianity than that between husband and wife.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
My mom is awesome!
I remember when I was attending elementary school that one of the least enjoyable parts was the use of the school bus. While there were some bus drivers that were friendly and did their best to make the experience safe and enjoyable, there was one in particular (who was assigned to the route that I used) who seemed irritated with the inconvenience of ferrying children to and from school. I never once saw them smile, and when they spoke, it was laced with condescension.
I was in the unfortunate position of being one of a small number that got off at a certain stop. Of that number, I was the only one that crossed the street. Of course, normally this required the driver to exit the bus and hold a stop sign up to assist the student in crossing, but my six-year-old heart was not brave enough to confront the disagreeable driver and request this service. Instead, I developed what seemed at the time to be a brilliant solution that would allow me to get home without having to face the scary bus driver. I would get off the bus and feign as though I was following the other children who went down the opposite way, without crossing. Then, when the bus was gone, I would cross the street myself.
This method worked for a couple months, and it seemed to be a great solution... however, one day, the angry driver shouted to me as we approached my stop. She told me that she had seen me crossing the street, and that she could get in trouble for that. She told me I should ride to the next stop and cross the street there, where she was already getting off the bus. Of course I was horrified that my technique had been discovered. (Only later I realized that this bus driver was not as observant as I had initially believed, since she had neglected using her mirrors for two months.) At any rate, I did as I was told.
When I arrived at home, my mom immediately noticed that I was upset. I did not divulge the details of the event, but gave a general complaint about the bus driver.
After some time, I decided it would be a great idea to return to my previous method, as it would allow me to return home much quicker than going all the way to the next stop and backtracking. Except, in a hurry to get home, I went behind the bus and ran across the road. The bus driver noticed me and shouted something in an angry tone. Though I do not know what she had yelled, I felt ashamed and guilty, and ran home. My mom calmed me down enough to learn that her six-year-old son had been expected to go to another stop to cross for the convenience of the driver. I saw a fire in her eyes that I have never forgotten. She stormed out the door and ran down the street, where the bus was stopped to allow other children to cross. I have no idea what my mom said to her, but every day for the remainder of the year, the bus driver got out of her seat, grabbed her stop sign, and walked me across the street without speaking another word to me.
There was never any doubt that my mom loved me. She repeatedly went to bat for my siblings and I whenever we needed. She volunteered in our classes, she encouraged us in pursuing musical talent, she supported us in athletic competitions. She exemplified a woman determined not to outsource the nurture of her children to anyone else, regardless of the opportunity costs for pursuing her own entertainment or enjoyment.
She was not the type of mother that sought personal recognition by earning scout awards for her boys... in fact, she remained loving and supportive even when her boys discovered how much they disliked such programs. If she was disappointed in how I neglected developing skills on the piano or the trumpet, she did not express it in any way that made me feel less valued.
In hindsight, it was as though my mom had confidence in us and our potential beyond what we were. It was as though she knew that we would turn out alright in spite of our flaws. As I grew older, and struggled with self-doubt and discouragement, the confidence of my mother proved to be extremely valuable. That is not to say that I have become a billionaire whose philanthropic efforts have saved millions of lives... but I have a beautiful wife and wonderful children, and the traditions and values that my mom worked tirelessly to pass on to me have been invaluable to our family... and though I have probably not always done the things she might have preferred, her kindness has been constant.
Though my mom has not always been a resource for evaluating calculus problems, balancing chemical equations, or analyzing the logic of computer code, no amount of help in these areas can replace what she has been to me. Thinking of her reminds me of the sentiment of the Apostle Paul... "...whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" but charity never faileth. (1 Corinthians 13)
I am certain I am not alone among those expressing appreciation for their mothers, particularly on Mother's Day... but it is my hope that we might be more appreciative of the women that work tirelessly to forge each building block in society... surely these heroes should not remain "unsung".
I was in the unfortunate position of being one of a small number that got off at a certain stop. Of that number, I was the only one that crossed the street. Of course, normally this required the driver to exit the bus and hold a stop sign up to assist the student in crossing, but my six-year-old heart was not brave enough to confront the disagreeable driver and request this service. Instead, I developed what seemed at the time to be a brilliant solution that would allow me to get home without having to face the scary bus driver. I would get off the bus and feign as though I was following the other children who went down the opposite way, without crossing. Then, when the bus was gone, I would cross the street myself.
This method worked for a couple months, and it seemed to be a great solution... however, one day, the angry driver shouted to me as we approached my stop. She told me that she had seen me crossing the street, and that she could get in trouble for that. She told me I should ride to the next stop and cross the street there, where she was already getting off the bus. Of course I was horrified that my technique had been discovered. (Only later I realized that this bus driver was not as observant as I had initially believed, since she had neglected using her mirrors for two months.) At any rate, I did as I was told.
When I arrived at home, my mom immediately noticed that I was upset. I did not divulge the details of the event, but gave a general complaint about the bus driver.
After some time, I decided it would be a great idea to return to my previous method, as it would allow me to return home much quicker than going all the way to the next stop and backtracking. Except, in a hurry to get home, I went behind the bus and ran across the road. The bus driver noticed me and shouted something in an angry tone. Though I do not know what she had yelled, I felt ashamed and guilty, and ran home. My mom calmed me down enough to learn that her six-year-old son had been expected to go to another stop to cross for the convenience of the driver. I saw a fire in her eyes that I have never forgotten. She stormed out the door and ran down the street, where the bus was stopped to allow other children to cross. I have no idea what my mom said to her, but every day for the remainder of the year, the bus driver got out of her seat, grabbed her stop sign, and walked me across the street without speaking another word to me.
There was never any doubt that my mom loved me. She repeatedly went to bat for my siblings and I whenever we needed. She volunteered in our classes, she encouraged us in pursuing musical talent, she supported us in athletic competitions. She exemplified a woman determined not to outsource the nurture of her children to anyone else, regardless of the opportunity costs for pursuing her own entertainment or enjoyment.
She was not the type of mother that sought personal recognition by earning scout awards for her boys... in fact, she remained loving and supportive even when her boys discovered how much they disliked such programs. If she was disappointed in how I neglected developing skills on the piano or the trumpet, she did not express it in any way that made me feel less valued.
In hindsight, it was as though my mom had confidence in us and our potential beyond what we were. It was as though she knew that we would turn out alright in spite of our flaws. As I grew older, and struggled with self-doubt and discouragement, the confidence of my mother proved to be extremely valuable. That is not to say that I have become a billionaire whose philanthropic efforts have saved millions of lives... but I have a beautiful wife and wonderful children, and the traditions and values that my mom worked tirelessly to pass on to me have been invaluable to our family... and though I have probably not always done the things she might have preferred, her kindness has been constant.
Though my mom has not always been a resource for evaluating calculus problems, balancing chemical equations, or analyzing the logic of computer code, no amount of help in these areas can replace what she has been to me. Thinking of her reminds me of the sentiment of the Apostle Paul... "...whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away" but charity never faileth. (1 Corinthians 13)
I am certain I am not alone among those expressing appreciation for their mothers, particularly on Mother's Day... but it is my hope that we might be more appreciative of the women that work tirelessly to forge each building block in society... surely these heroes should not remain "unsung".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)