What is the Word of Wisdom?  From Mormon.org, we read that “our bodies are precious gifts from God.  We believe He has given us guidance about how best to take care of them.  He revealed a law of health, called the Word of Wisdom, to Joseph Smith in 1833.  The Word of Wisdom prohibits the drinking of alcohol, coffee and tea, and the use of tobacco…” It is called a “law of health”, and is generally seen as a list of prohibitions.  Since it was given in 1833, the Word of Wisdom has been reinterpreted a number of times.  But this leads to a question: Is our current interpretation still true to the canonized revelation, and is it primarily “law of health” as we claim?  Or are there figurative (and literal) elephants in the room that we don’t generally talk about – namely that the current interpretation is more about obedience than actual health, and that there are parts of the Word of Wisdom that we basically ignore with alarming consequences related to obesity?  And if these elephants are real, should we do like the Church has done over the years and consider reinterpreting the Word of Wisdom to bring it more in line with its original intention?

Obedience

The Word of Wisdom is now primarily about obedience rather than health.  In the canonized version of the Word of Wisdom, we read that it was sent as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom” (D&C 89:2).  So, the original intent of the Word of Wisdom was to make some suggestions for health.  Various church leaders have given suggestions over the years, such as avoiding R-rated movies & bikinis, getting married and having children quickly, attending Seminary & Institute, wearing white shirts, etc.  Many suggestions we receive are good ideas for living a good life.  The big difference, however, is that not following those suggestions won’t keep you out of the temple or from participating in other ways.  Why is this?  Is the Word of Wisdom “more”?  Let’s examine some of the reasons:

Eternal Law

Is the Word of Wisdom inherently an eternal law?  No.  Examples supporting this are easy.  The first recorded miracle of Christ according to John 2 was to make wine, wine good enough to make the host wonder why it was held back.  Christ accepted wine enough that He incorporated it into the sacrament – the most meaningful ordinance to remember Him.  Nephites made and drank wine.  Joseph Smith drank wine with others to “refresh their spirits”.  There are many examples, but ultimately it is easy to see that the Word of Wisdom is not an eternal law, but just a temporary law.  Even Hugh Nibley taught as much when he said that “the Word of Wisdom doesn’t belong to the order of the eternal Gospel” in his commentary on D&C 89.

Health Law

So is the Word of Wisdom primarily a health law?  Not really, as least as far as its current interpretation.  Let’s look at the “Big Four”: Alcohol, coffee, tea and tobacco.

Tobacco is the easiest one.  It was described by Joseph Smith as being for the use of cattle and not for man.  And that’s proven true today as well.  There’s not really any study showing that tobacco has any real benefit, in any form.  So, with regard to tobacco, if we were primarily using the Word of Wisdom as a health law, we still wouldn’t use it.

Alcohol. We currently teach this as “not a drop”.  Some people don’t even use it in cooking.  But is alcohol bad for our health?  Yes and no.  Obviously, alcoholism in excess has a toll.  Alcoholism, drunk driving, etc. are all ills in society that have a cost on many levels.  But in moderation, a number of studies have shown that a glass of wine or two with dinner, or a beer or two each day can actually contribute to BETTER health.

Interestingly, this is how the Word of Wisdom was revealed to Joseph Smith and how he lived it himself.  According to the original Word of Wisdom, we SHOULD drink beer.  It states that barley is to be used “for mild drinks” (D&C 89:17), which was defined as beer in Joseph Smith’s time.  Wine was also allowed for the sacrament.  Given all this, the current “not a drop” interpretation of the Word of Wisdom is NOT necessarily for health reasons and is not how Joseph Smith interpreted or lived the Word of Wisdom.  It received a lot of reinterpretation around the time of Prohibition, when the apostles even stopped using wine in the temple for their weekly sacrament meeting, and never went back.  So, with regard to alcohol, if we were using the Word of Wisdom as a health law, beer and wine in moderation and/or for the sacrament would be fine.  Strong drinks (ie. distilled spirits) would still be avoided.

Coffee and tea. This is a murky area, as the Word of Wisdom defines only “hot drinks”.  But what does this really mean?  Is iced tea bad?  How about Diet Coke?  Or hot chocolate?  What about mate?  What about camilla tea?  How about a hot chicken broth?  Green tea, white tea, rooibos tea?  How about thing things made from the coffee bean and the tea plant?  What about caffeine extracted from the coffee bean and put into Diet Coke?  Is decaffeinated coffee still bad?  Coffee flavored ice cream?  Monster or Red Bull or Rockstar?  Mountain Dew?  How about chocolate and the caffeine in that?  Heber C Kimball interpreted “hot drinks” to include hot chocolate and cocoa as things we should avoid.  Was he right?

And what, if any of this, is actually based on health?  Obviously, if someone drinks caffeine (or anything else) in excess it is not good for them, but what about in moderation?  The fact is that 90% of the world’s population consumes caffeine in some form or another, and this would likely include a similarly high proportion among LDS members.  Populations that drink tea are among some of the longest living in the world.  Coffee has also been shown in a number of studies to be positively related to health when consumed in moderation.  And, in reality, a cup of tea or coffee is better for you than the calories and chemicals in the soda (diet AND sugared) we currently drink as Mormons. So, with regards to coffee and tea, if we were using the Word of Wisdom as a health code, coffee and tea in moderation would be fine.

Back to Obedience

So, since the Word of Wisdom is not an eternal part of the gospel, and since it’s only loosely related to being a law of health (as least as far as the “Big Four” are concerned), what is the point?  Again from Mormon.org, we read that “The Things we do and don’t consume are some of the most visible markers of our faith.” Others have previously argued that as polygamy was abolished and no longer served as a visible marker, the Word of Wisdom was reinterpreted to help serve as this marker.  And ultimately, it basically comes down to obedience – just to see if we’ll do it.

Back in college, I was in a fraternity.  As a pledge, there were certain things that we had to do, many of which seemed to have no logical sense whatsoever (and they still don’t).  From the outside, some of the rules seemed kind of dumb, so people would ask why I did them.  I explained that I wanted to be in the fraternity, and they were requirements.  No one was forcing me to become a member of the fraternity, but if I wanted to join, there were certain things I had to do.

I look at things like the Word of Wisdom in a similar fashion.  Do I really think that drinking a Diet Coke with all its artificial ingredients is better for me than drinking a cup of black coffee?  Absolutely not.  Do I really think that not having a glass of wine with dinner is better for me than having a glass of wine with dinner?  Absolutely not.  But I follow these rules anyway – not that I think they are for my health, but because they are part of the current requirements to “be Mormon”.  The interpretations of the Word of Wisdom have changed in the past; they’ll change in the future; but since they are what they are for now, I’ll follow the current interpretation merely out of obedience.

Obesity

And now to the even bigger elephant in the room, literally and figuratively – obesity.  We are literally eating ourselves to death, yet we completely ignore the parts of the Word of Wisdom that address this.

For example, consider D&C 89:12–13 where we read about meat: “… flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Yea, we pretty much ignore that. We don’t generally eat meat sparingly.  We don’t use it only in times of winter or cold or famine.  And yet because we want to eat meat, we argue about the placement of commas in what is a pretty clear statement.  These verses are certainly more clear than our extrapolations of other verses.

The Word of Wisdom also talks about herbs and grains.  It talks about a healthy diet.  As above, this even includes using barley for “mild drinks”, which is beer.  Yet we also ignore this fairly straightforward statement and currently interpret beer to be against the Word of Wisdom.

Is Obesity Really a Problem? (Or I just have fat genes)

We know that eating a well-balanced diet high in grains, fruits and vegetables, with minimal meat is healthy.  It is described in the Word of Wisdom.  But are we, as a people, following it?  Consider the following graphs of obesity trends in the United States over the past 20 years or so.  This is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  If you want to see the complete, moving trend, here is a link to the map.  It’s stunning.

Maps

As clearly seen in these maps, we as a people have become obese, and it is killing us. We go from light blue, where < 10% of a given state is obese to dark red, where >30% of a given state is obese.  This all occurred since I graduated from high school, so the genetics in this country haven’t really changed that much.  This really represents lifestyle changes.

There are a number of arguments about WHY these trends have occurred: access to nutritious food, sedentary lifestyle, hormones in meat, pre-processed food, overconsumption of meat, etc.  But whatever the cause, they trend is alarmingly real.  So what is obesity doing to us as a country?  Here are some facts from a recently released report by the National Institutes of Health:

• Obesity costs the United States alone $190 BILLION extra in medical costs, or 21% of all medical spending.  This raises the premiums on EVERYONE to pay for the obese.  We’ve shown that “second-hand smoke” has costs.  So does obesity.  Incidentally, this amount is also enough to solve the “uninsured” problem.  We could give EVERYONE insurance in the country for $190 billion.

• We use nearly 1 BILLION more gallons of gas each year than if we made the same number of trips and weighed what we did in the 1960’s.  So, obesity is increasing our dependence on some pretty despotic countries.

• Obesity increases type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, some cancers, gout and sleep apnea.  It leads to arthritis, knee and hip replacement, back disease and other orthopedic problems.  These have very real impacts on people’s lives in morbidity, as well as those family members who have to take care of them.

• The health care costs of obesity are higher than those of tobacco.

• 27% of the nation’s young adults aged 18-24 are ineligible to serve in the military because they weigh too much

• Obese people are, on average, less productive, have more restricted activities at work and have more work absenteeism.  This accounts for an estimated $450 BILLION in indirect costs in lost efficiencies.  So, obesity is robbing our employers and driving costs up as well.

• Etc.

There are a number of other facts in the report, but there is no denying that this is a big problem.  Granted, some people have diseases or other conditions that lead to this.  Other people talk about having “fat genes”.  In reality, however, our genetics as a country haven’t changed significantly since the 1980’s, yet the obesity trends are alarming.  It is diet and lifestyle.  I don’t say all this to offend anyone, but we need to call a spade a spade.  These are all facts.

Obesity and the Word of Wisdom

So, what does this have to do with the Word of Wisdom?  The Word of Wisdom talks at least as much about diet, meat, grains, etc. as it does about the “Big Four”, yet we basically ignore those verses.  We bill the Word of Wisdom as a “law of health”, but don’t want to talk about obesity, a very real threat to health and something specifically addressed in the Word of Wisdom. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if someone has never had a drop of alcohol – if they are 80# overweight, can they really “run and not be weary” or “walk and not faint”?  Why do we ignore plain parts of the Word of Wisdom concerning diet, yet extrapolate other parts well past what science has shown is healthy.  Again, are we really talking about health, or are we talking about obedience?

Granted, it is very hard to lose weight.  But it is also very hard to quit smoking.  We ask people to quit smoking as a part of our religion’s health law.  If we’re going to be so strict on this, shouldn’t we also ask people to lose weight?  Shouldn’t that also be a valid part of our religion’s health law.  If we keep people out of the temple for not following one part of D&C 89, shouldn’t we keep them out for not following other parts?  Does consistency matter?

So, given all this, If I Were In Charge, I Would Revisit the Word of Wisdom:

- I would truly make it focus on health. I would incorporate medical advances over the past decades and update our interpretation of D&C 89.  We don’t really follow it how early Church leaders follow it anyway, so there is precedent for reinterpreting it – even without changing the actual canonized words.  If we were honest, we’d admit that drinking a glass of red wine each day or coffee in moderation is not harmful, and is actually beneficial.  We’d still limit tobacco, as there’s no real benefit shown to that.

- I would make it consistent. Does it really make any sense that a morbidly obese 350# man who ignores the part about eating meat sparingly can go to the temple because he feels he is following our “law of health” when a healthy person who actually follows the part about drinking a “mild barley drink” (ie. beer) cannot?

- I would once again make it a suggestion. I wouldn’t keep someone out of the temple for drinking a glass of wine, for eating too much meat, for drinking a cup of coffee, for weighing too much and not being able to run or walk, or anything else.  I’d consider the Word of Wisdom a suggestion, but not a commandment.

- I would make it focus on moderation. Some food is ok, too much is bad.  A glass of wine is ok, too much is bad.  A sparing amount of meat is ok, too much is bad.  Some coffee is ok, too much is bad.

And this is what I would do if I were in charge.  These may sound like radical things, but that is only in the context of our generation.  In reality, it is not really proposing anything different than how Joseph Smith lived the Word of Wisdom, and he is the one through whom the section was given.  He drank wine and beer and coffee, but in moderation.  He wasn’t obese.  He likely ate meat sparingly.  He treated this as a suggestion for healthy living, but focused on more important things.

Perhaps Joseph Smith really knew something and WE have drifted away.  Perhaps God knew what he was saying when He revealed D&C 89, and we are not receiving all of the blessings possible because we’re not really following what He revealed in our canonized scriptures.

————–

Questions:

• Do you think the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom is more about health or is it more about obedience?

• If it is about health, should we revisit the Word of Wisdom and interpret it according to actual health guidelines?  Or are health studies meaningless to the Word of Wisdom?  Or do we only accept the results of studies that support our current practices and reject the rest as “bad science”?

• If our goal is about health, and if the Word of Wisdom specifically talks about diet (ie. meat, grains, etc), should we start including a maximum BMI in the temple recommend interview?

• Should the Word of Wisdom be a suggestion as revealed to Joseph Smith in our canonized scripture, or should it be a requirement as interpreted by other Church leaders?

• Do you think obesity is a problem?  Is diet and weight for health reasons something the Church should address?  If so, how should they do that?  If not, why not and how is that different than a cup of coffee or a glass of wine?

• Someday, we are told that we will drink wine with Christ (D&C 27:5 – where he said “for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni…”.  Wouldn’t it be strange if no Mormons would drink with Him because they “weren’t supposed to drink wine”?

————————————–

NOTE: This post is one in a larger series of posts entitled “If I Were In Charge:”  If this post interests you, or if you are interested in seeing any of the other posts in the series, here is an Overview and Topical Guide.  For other posts, click on Mike S to the right —>

10 Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.

11 And now, my son, all men that are in a state of nature, or I would say, in a carnal state, are in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; they are without God in the world, and they have gone contrary to the nature of God; therefore, they are in a state contrary to the nature of happiness.

Alma 41: 10–11.

On my personal blog, I have written several articles about the relative speed at which I feel different Christian traditions will come to change their views on committed homosexual relationships, if not on gay marriage itself. My evaluations are based on a number of factors, such as the tradition’s valuation of relationships in the first place (as opposed to the tradition’s evaluation of celibacy), and whether the tradition has institutionalized roles for its celibate members to fulfill. I feel that the Orthodox Christian community’s stringent and “radical” (heterosexual) monogamy makes it the least likely to budge on the permissibility of gay relationships. Similarly, I got from evaluating an evangelical Christian’s comments (and comparing it with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7) that marriage may not even be the ideal from that tradition.

These two positions starkly contrast with what I think is critical to know about the Mormon tradition on relationships and families, however. To summarize:

Mormonism doesn’t really have a theological telos of celibacy. When we speak of chastity, the end goal of chastity is not celibacy. It is always a faithful, chaste marriage with children. (And without going too far in the mechanics, I hope that the “children” part implies that sex is going on there.)

So, the lifelong expectancy of celibacy cannot be taken lightly in the Mormon tradition. Celibacy may be more desirable in the Mormon tradition than sexual sin, but celibacy is not ideal. A fully lived life of celibacy is not fully lived at all. It is a design flaw.

With the divine centrality of families in Mormon theology and doctrine, celibacy is never the ideal. That is why the church counsels at nearly every General Conference that young men must not defer marriage. Young couples must not defer having children. The teachings of the church expect that members marry and have children.

So, the ideal goal of chastity is appropriate, divinely sanctioned sexual relationships within marriage. Celibacy is at best a compromise, but it’s a compromise that means an individual has not performed a central task of mortality. To be sure, it’s a “compromise” for many people…a single, celibate straight individual is in the same boat here. Even a married, childless couple is in the same boat.

However, just from this alone, the church faces a problem that over time, members may increasingly see the unfairness — from a Mormon perspective — of any members being required to choose to remain companionless in life. It is that dissonance that members feel that will cause so many to pray for some sort of revelation on gay issues.

However, I think that there is another idea embedded in Mormonism that will cause the tide to turn even more. And that is the idea that wickedness never was happiness.

I was reading an article the other day entitled, “Same-sex marriage makes a lot of sense.” The author is a Christian minister who decidedly believes that same-sex marriage is not okay, so why would he say that it makes a lot of sense? In the article, he explains how popular modern-day attitudes (that he would argue are unbiblical) cannot convincingly provide objection to gay marriage. As he writes:

Both sides trade Bible verses, while often sharing an unbiblical—secularized—theological framework at a deeper level. If God exists for our happiness and self-fulfillment, validating our sovereign right to choose our identity, then opposition to same-sex marriage (or abortion) is just irrational prejudice.

Given the broader worldview that many Americans (including Christians) embrace—or at least assume, same-sex marriage is a right to which anyone is legally entitled. After all, traditional marriages in our society are largely treated as contractual rather than covenantal, means of mutual self-fulfillment more than serving a larger purpose ordained by God. The state of the traditional family is so precarious that one wonders how same-sex marriage can appreciably deprave it.

Same-sex marriage makes sense if you assume that the individual is the center of the universe, that God—if he exists—is there to make us happy, and that our choices are not grounded in a nature created by God but in arbitrary self-construction. To the extent that this sort of “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” prevails in our churches, can we expect the world to think any differently? If we treat God as a product we sell to consumers for their self-improvement programs and make personal choice the trigger of salvation itself, then it may come as a big surprise (even contradiction) to the world when we tell them that truth (the way things are) trumps feelings and personal choice (what we want to make things to be).

And here is why he believes that the worldview described above (which is adopted by many Americans) cannot object to gay marriage:

Conservatives often appeal to self-fulfillment: gays are unhappy. They don’t realize their own potential to mate with the right gender and produce pleasant families like the rest of us. To be sure, there are other arguments, like referring to the decline of civilizations that accommodated homosexuality. However, this is just to extend the pragmatic-and-therapeutic-usefulness presupposition of individual autonomy to a social scale.

On this common ground, same-sex marriage is a no-brainer. Some people are happier and more fulfilled in committed same-sex relationships. There’s no use trying to refute other people’s emotional expressions of their own subjective states of consciousness.

…How would someone who believes that sin is unhappiness and salvation is having “your best life now” make a good argument against same-sex marriage? There is simply no way of defending traditional marriage within the narrative logic that apparently most Christians—much less non-Christians—presuppose regardless of their position on this issue.

Check out that last paragraph again. How would someone who believes that sin is unhappiness and salvation is having “your best life now” make a good argument against same-sex marriage?

Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness. Indeed. The biggest part that the writer points out here is that these kinds of frameworks will become unpersuasive because you simply can’t refute other people’s emotional experiences. It simply will not work to say, “You’re not really happy…you only think you are.”

This writer speaks out against this mindset because he is thoroughly convinced that it is a perversion of true Christian thinking on the issue. If people were taught the right way to think about sin, the right way to think about marriage as a covenantal relationship, and the right way to think about our lives, then they would have a cogent argument against gay marriage.

But what about Mormons who wish to oppose gay marriage? The problem for Mormons is that much of what he says — even though he says it in a negative way — pretty much fits Mormon theology. What does God have to say about our happiness and self-fulfillment, validating our right to choose? Well, what does 2 Nephi: 2 have to say?

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

So, the questions for today are simple…let’s hope we can have a constructive discussion…

1. For those of you who oppose or reject gay marriage or gay relationships, how do you think the church will continue to oppose these things with respect to its own approach on what sin is, and on the value of relationships?
2. For those of you who support or accept gay marriage or gay relationships, do you think that there is any possibility that the church could change on these issues? If so, what do you think will be the factors that push the church? (For example, how would the revelation be framed?)

In particular, I frankly challenge faithful LDS bloggers at what I had taken on the whole to be faithful LDS blogs (Times & Seasons, By Common Consent, Wheat & Tares, for example) to distinguish themselves — if they wish, that is — from voices on their sites that seem to reject out of hand any attempt (such as mine) to limit the absorption of LDS belief into what I will call “lifestyle liberalism” or “extreme tolerance.” I have to say I had hoped for more substantive discussion from such sites; but my recent experience suggests that, although surely not all principals on these blogs are fully committed lifestyle liberals, they are not at all inclined (or equipped?) to risk the wrath of the “hard left” among their associates and readers.

Lest we get too full of ourselves, he quickly adds:

I thank the appreciative readers who have posted at Meridian and particularly the brave readers who dared share a bit of my infamy by posting comments favorable or at least respectful of my arguments at the more, shall we say intellectually ambitious sites such as Times and Seasons or By Common Consent

So, we’re neither brave nor intellectually ambitious (by exclusion).  We are stupid cowards.  (Unlike the smart cowards at BCC and Times & Seasons.)

Well, I have been giving a lot of thought to this matter actually.  Not to Prof. Hancock specifically, nor (obviously) my stupidity and cowardice*, but reading his OP today triggered my ruminations about why people leave the church.  I happen to know a lot of liberals who have left the church in the last few years, some who have stayed but felt very conflicted, and others who stay in name only.  For many of them Prop 8 was an impetus to their disenchantment with the church.  Others left for a variety of reasons, often stemming from interactions with family members or people in their wards.  Was Pres. Packer in fact correct when he said the enemies of the church were homosexuals, feminists and intellectuals (or as I like to say gay people, women, and smart people)? Does that mean that the church’s friends are bigots, sexists and dumb people?  Not a very promising prospect. I still feel quite strongly, as did Jesus, that he who is not against us is for us.  And the apostate liberals I know turned the other cheek plenty before leaving.  And frankly, they don’t feel antagonistic toward the church on the whole, just toward specific actions and attitudes they see as harmful.  Liberals care a lot about harm, and they define it more . . . well, liberally . . . than conservatives do.

I’ve been reading Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind, and in his discussion of the five moral foundations he talks about the data that shows that for those who are most liberal leaning, they score very high for only 2 of them (care/harm, fairness/equality), but not high for the remaining 3 (loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degredation).  Conservatives tend to score equally for all of them.  A sixth foundation was added:  liberty/oppression, and both groups dislike oppression but feel oppressed by very different things.  Tea Partiers for example consider government intervention oppressive (“Don’t tread on me”) while liberals sometimes consider American government’s actions to be oppressive to other nations.  For those who score very high on the care/harm front, they sometimes see people as victims who don’t see themselves as victims.  When it comes to fairness, liberals (according to Haidt who is one and has studied tens of thousands of survey results) are universalist and tend to desire equality of outcomes, while conservatives are more protective of the health of their in-group than the world at large.

Both groups care about fairness but see different people as “free riders” and “cheaters”: liberals see those with power as the most dangerous (due to their low authority & loyalty foundations and extra-high care foundation) but conservatives see those who receive more from the system than they contribute to the system as the “cheaters” (different definition of fairness and liberty).  This is the fundamental disconnect between the Occupy movement (people who characterize Wall Street and corporations as free riders and cheaters) and conservative response to the movement (people who characterize welfare recipients and those who want more government involvement to regulate and provide benefits as taking from those who have earned it and redistributing to those who contribute less).  Part of this is because conservatives have faith in free markets to correctly assess and reward individual contribution whereas liberals view the free market as too easily “gamed” by the powerful – incorrectly rewarding individual contribution.  Perhaps both criticisms have some validity.

The key is that both groups (liberals & conservatives) are acting on their strongly held convictions.  They are both acting in good faith.  But they really do espouse different values.  I grew up in a ward where many of our leaders were very strongly left-leaning.  Can you be a liberal Democrat and be a “good” Mormon?  In my experience, yes you can.

One point that is valid, though, is that because of these differences in moral foundations, liberals will sometimes be seen as subversive, disloyal, too accepting of outsiders (and apostates and other dangerous influences), and also quixotically trying to rescue victims (or educate people why they are victims even when they don’t think they are).  And attempts to squelch their voice will be considered oppressive, especially when the source is someone with more power – and obviously, that includes Ralph Hancock.  (I do wonder if Gladys Knight could have written this critique with more success – hard to imagine her doing so, though).

The problem the church faces, IMO, is that we as a church can’t be intolerant of liberals or define them out of the fold.  Conservatives are secure enough; you couldn’t have a church without those additional three moral foundations (authority, loyalty, and purity) – those are the things that make the church an enduring structure.  But we do need to (also) listen to those who are more attuned (even hyper-sensitive) to care issues and who define equality differently and more broadly.  We might find some common ground in the process.  As Stephen Hopkins said:  ”I’ve never heard of an idea so dangerous that it couldn’t be discussed.”

We should all listen better when we hear an alternate viewpoint.  Conservatives should listen when liberals talk about equality and charity – and clearly many of our leaders do.  Liberals should listen when conservatives talk about the value of traditions that bind the group (while still respecting individual expression), giving heed to authority (without turning off your own personal revelation or mind), having high standards for membership (while refraining from oppression).

Discussion points:

• Are we chasing liberals out of the church by being too insensitive to their values of caring for outsiders and desiring equality for all before God?  Or are liberals going to leave anyway because they are suspicious of authority, are critical, and want to break group taboos with no consequences?
• Do conservatives have things to learn from liberal values?  Do liberals have things to learn from conservative values?  How can this happen with the current uncivil discourse that has become the norm?
• Are conservatives just getting more vocal because their party is not currently in power?
• Is this an issue of political values or orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy?  Can the two be distinguished?  Does either lead to apostasy more than the other?
• Will liberals stay in a church when they view the other members as bigoted, sexist and oppressive if they have had spiritual confirmation of the church’s truthfulness?  Or is it just a matter of time before the social discomfort of the values disconnect becomes too great to bear?
• How can we find common ground and keep politics out of our church experience?  Is that a pipe dream since political views are so closely linked to personal moral codes?

Discuss.

*I should clarify that I find it amusing to think of us all as stupid cowards.  He does state he would like to engage in a real discussion of his ideas, despite the tone. Likewise with the BKP quote juxtaposition – I just think it’s valuable to examine the language and claims people make.  Sometimes what they are implying and not saying is as instructive as what they are saying.

The late Jerry Falwell

Liberty University, founded by Moral Majority leader and evangelical Jerry Falwell, recently invited Mitt Romney to speak at commencement exercises.  Several students boycotted the commencement address by Romney, choosing not to attend.  Christianity Today had an interesting article titled Why Jerry Falwell Sr. Isn’t Rolling In His Grave over Romney’s Liberty Invitation. The subtitle was “And what the university’s invitation to the Mormon candidate says about evangelical political engagement.”  Here are some excerpts I found interesting.

Touting itself as “the world’s largest evangelical university,” the conservative institution has a history of hospitality to speakers from outside the not-so-big evangelical tent, including Democrats such as the late Ted Kennedy and former Virginia Governor and Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine. Joining Romney among the ranks of non-evangelical commencement speakers are Jewish comedian and economist Ben Stein, Episcopalian Karl Rove, and Catholics Dinesh D’Souza and Sean Hannity.

Hosting such speakers falls squarely within the vision of the university’s late founder, Rev. Jerry Falwell, who also founded the Moral Majority. The now-defunct activist organization, long held as central to the rise of the so-called “religious right” was, in fact, a broad coalition of religious, not strictly evangelical, conservatives.

However, since Falwell’s death in 2007, the voting bloc of the “religious right” has been largely replaced by the narrower demographic of “evangelical voters” whose energies lit bright but short-lived sparks for fallen presidential contenders Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. While great momentum is gaining among evangelicals and Catholics working together, the larger interfaith vision of Falwell seems to be fading. As Lucas Wilson, 22, who will graduate from Liberty tomorrow surmised, “I am not sure why we are allowing a Mormon to speak at commencement just because he is conservative; we sure would not invite a conservative Muslim to speak.”

The late Falwell, on the other hand, influenced by Francis Schaeffer’s concept of “co-belligerents” teaming up for battle in the culture wars, pioneered a brand of political activism based on heterogeneous political bedfellows.

In 1980, for example, Falwell dissociated himself from the statement of the then-president of the Southern Baptist Convention who claimed that “God does not hear the prayer of the Jew.” In response, calling America a “pluralistic republic,” Falwell told The New York Times, “This is the time for Catholics, Protestants, Jews,Mormons,and all Americans to rise above every effort to polarize us in our efforts to return the nation to a commitment to the moral values on which America was built.” He also argued, “We may have differing theological positions, but we must never allow this to separate us as Americans who love and respect each other as a united people.” Falwell later told The Washington Post, “I’m a fundamentalist, but I believe in a pluralistic America. This country belongs to the Hebrew Americans, theMormonAmericans, black Americans, white Americans.” Falwell’s political ecumenicism reached even further than these, at least in a tongue-in-cheek way: in mobilizing religious conservatives to elect Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, Falwell said they’d support Reagan “Even if he has the devil running with him, and we’ll pray he outlives him.”

As a writer for Time described in a 2007 retrospect of Falwell’s approach in the Moral Majority,

Instead of enlisting just fundamentalists and other conservative Protestants, Falwell opened the Moral Majority up to everyone: Jews, Catholics and Mormons—in short, the very people (and faiths) that fundamentalists had been separating themselves from for generations. That was Falwell’s greatest political discovery: he understood that fundamentalists, orthodox Jews, conservative Catholics and Mormons had so much in common politically that they could overlook their theological differences.

I have to say that of late, the political bigotry of evangelicals is a real turn off to me, and I think this article certainly enhances Jerry Falwell in my eyes.  What about you?

Once upon a time that sort of feedback wasn’t terribly welcome, so it wasn’t terribly useful. I was hurt, offended, and would withdraw to nurse my wounds, dramatically ticking off on my fingers all my martyred efforts at doing right. It’s been a long road to value constructive criticism when it comes, but I now find myself almost going out of my way to stimulate it.

We live in a politically correct society, and I don’t always think that’s a bad thing. It’s a reflection of an evolved culture that values the intangible oil that makes our interactions run smoothly – mercy. I’ve frequently said that it’s a relatively small jump from political correctness to genuinely moral motivation. The unfortunate side-effect of all those public manners is an inability to face our own and others’ ugliness, to communicate clearly and without rancor that someone has messed up, to set boundaries, to call one another out.

Fascinated by the story of Job, I love the description of his friends coming to visit him. Prior to their visit the narrator intones: “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.” When his friends came to visit, they waited with appropriate deference to his suffering, “So they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great.”

Nobody had sinned yet, because nobody had opened his mouth. As soon as they did, all kinds of stuff broke loose. False philosophies were trotted out, great swelling accusations of God and man were debated, and there was a whole lot of heat and not much light. One would think that it would have been better if they’d all just stayed silent.

The statement is presented neither as revelation, nor as inspired counsel, nor even as administrative church policy. It is a view of sexual ethics from a lofty philosophical perch — before we reengage, as we’ve recognized we must, in the scrimmaging in the Western nations about whether same sex marriage shall be permitted as a sacrament of Community of Christ, and/or whether the authority to hold the priesthood shall be unaffected by engaging in a committed, recognized non-heterosexual sexual relationship in those nations. Think of it as the referee determining how the kick off will be carried out before the teams take their positions, and hoping for divine guidance to be expressed in the coin toss.

If that seems overly cautious for a religious body, keep in mind what just happened at the United Methodist General Conference during the first week in May while the national gay rights movement was instead focused on the losing political contest in North Carolina:

“By a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent, the quadrennial legislative body of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denomination rejected a proposal to change its position on homosexuality. The measure would have deleted the Book of Discipline’s contention that homosexual practice is ‘incompatible with Christian teaching’, replacing it with a call to ‘refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices until the Spirit leads us to new insight’.

“The motion to change United Methodist teachings on homosexual behavior was defeated by a bigger margin than a similar proposal at the 2008 General Conference. This year 54 percent of delegates also rejected a compromise that would have expressed Methodist disagreement on issues pertaining to homosexuality.

“…Gay rights activists then took to the convention floor singing ‘What Does the Lord Require of You?’ When the chairman of the morning session warned them they were hurting their cause by disrupting the General Conference, the gay rights demonstrators kept singing. An early lunch was called and there were threats to bar protestors from the proceedings.

“…What happened next was remarkable: proposals to ordain gay clergy and bless same-sex unions were effectively tabled. They were first pushed to the back of the agenda and then not voted on at all”

“… Avoiding further hurt feelings and unnecessary conflict was likely part of the equation. But the proposals weren’t voted on for another reason: they had no chance of passing. It now remains United Methodist policy that marriage is the union of one man and one woman; clergy cannot solemnize same-sex unions; and ordained ministers must be celibate outside of a marriage between a man and a woman or monogamous within marriage. Avowed, practicing gay clergy is prohibited.”

Even more illuminating for Community of Christ considerations is why the Methodists did what they did. As the report further notes:

“United Methodists have charted a different course than other mainline Protestants for a reason: while their church is losing members in the United States like the others, it is growing in Africa. Overwhelmingly orthodox Africans and American evangelicals are increasingly making up a working majority at General Conference. On many issues, the overseas delegates — now approaching 40 percent of the total — are more outspoken than their U.S. evangelical counterparts.”

This trend also places an important check on what CofChrist progressives, particularly in the United States, can hope to achieve in the National Conferences. Indeed, as I’ve written about previously, minimizing schismatic potential from the disagreement between American progressives and American and African conservatives on sexual cultural issues is one of the key motivations for addressing the discussion within National, rather than World Conferences (See also Stephen Marsh here).

And, for progressives within the LDS, where, unlike in the CofChrist, even the American leadership is still very conservative, the lesson is even more sobering. Expansion of LGBT rights may be on the trending side of Western history, but people are less prepared to say than they were even a few months ago (remember all the hopeful democracies peacefully arising from the Arab Spring?) that other nations are moving toward First World views on social issues.

So, what does the Statement actually say? Well, here, for American social progressives, there is actually a lot to like about the tone:

“We need to talk about sexual ethics.

“Human sexuality is a strong force experienced throughout one’s life. Depending on how we manage it, sexuality can bring blessing and wholeness or devastation and ruin. We need guidance for sexual ethics because our understandings and assumptions often are incomplete…

“The need for sexual ethics also come from the confusion, dysfunction, and suffering people experience in matters related to sexuality. Statistics related to sexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, unwanted pregnancies, sexual violence, child molestation, human sex trafficking, and the proliferation of sexually transmitted disease are sobering…

“We also must seriously consider the suffering of people who are sexually dominated, marginalized, and bullied. These often include children, women, and those whose sexuality does not include a heterosexual orientation. Therefore, in addition to individual guidance, a sexual-ethics statement should contribute to the strengthening of community that embodies God’s love and asserts the worth of all persons.

“Creating a statement about sexual ethics for a world-wide church is challenging. …Additionally, people from one culture typically have little understanding of sexual ethics in other cultures.

“…Another challenge is that the Bible offers no single ethic of sexuality, binding across time and cultures. It presents various sexual moralities in their historical contexts.”

“…However, scripture is essential to our consideration of sexual ethics. There are principles — such as love, justice, the worth of persons, covenant, and fidelity — that can be discovered through scripture and responsibly applied to sexual relationships through the Spirit’s guidance.”

Also notable is the adoption of a thoroughly modern “best understanding” of sexuality as a multi-dimensional topic. The Statement identifies seven separate aspects of sexuality:

1) Sex (chromosomal patterns, including arrangements other than female xx and male xy);

2) Gender identity (inner consciousness of sex as male or female, even if the consciousness does not match external form);

3) Gender expression (behavior, clothing);

4) Sexual orientation (primary sensual and emotional attraction);

5) Cultural expectations (how culture molds understanding and expression of sexuality);

6) Sexual behavior; and,

7) Sexual development (stages through which people pass as they sexually mature).

There is no statement affirming anything like the eternal nature of “male and female” in CofChrist theology, as there is in the LDS.  So principles of sexual ethics that are to govern church policies and practices — as well as individual behavior — can draw on insights from any of the seven aspects. Sexuality is “more complicated than many assume”, as one could already infer from Mormon Heretic’s post earlier this week.

And so the Statement’s principles become: 1) the worth and giftedness of all people; 2) protect the most vulnerable; 3) Christ-like love; 4) mutual respect; 5) responsibility; 6) justice; 7) covenant; and, 8 ) faithfulness.

The Statement then concludes with 15 paragraphs of affirmations and additions that elaborate on the principles, and partially bridge the gap between principles and the specific issues that individual cultures will have to address. I do not find any of the statements controversial, although they may strike hard at people who view sexual desire as inherently sinful. (That really is not a logical position for a Mormon theology that regards eternal replication of the heavenly family as a part of its cosmology anyway, so I don’t focus on that in this report as much as the Statement itself does.)

What do you think? The request by the First Presidency for comment is on a public official web site that does not restrict access in any way to CofChrist membership. So, after you comment in this thread, you can also review the full statement and email your own comments on the ethics statement to ethics@CofChrist.org. I can’t promise that you will influence the leadership, but they are a lot more accessible (because of the relative size of the church) than are the top leadership in the LDS.

A later tradition that emerged in Europe was a celebration of the Mother Church.  People would travel to their home town and decorate the church with flowers and jewels.  In our church, we do something similar when we clean the chapel, which gives us a chance to show our gratitude and appreciation.  We also show this appreciation by serving each other through our callings.  In the 1600s in the UK, this evolved to include a day off for those in service (e.g. maids and butlers) to go home on this day and also enjoy a family feast in the middle of Lent in which they honored their own mother with a cake.  This holiday was known as Mothering Day.  When the Puritans colonized America, they dropped this tradition as it interrupted their relentless hardship and misery with a fun party.  Also they didn’t have a two class system.  Everyone’s lives were hard and nobody got days off.  They wished they had people in service to them to generously give a day off.

After the American Civil War, Mother’s Day was instituted in the US as a day of peace and protesting war because of the sacrifices mothers had to bear whose sons had died in the war.  In 1908, mothers began to be recognized with carnations:  white for deceased mothers, pink or red for the rest.  After WWI, France (who had adopted Mother’s Day from the US) added a twist by encouraging repopulation.  Mothers were given an award based on how many children they had (a gold medal and straightjacket to those with 8 or more children). In some wards I’ve attended they’ve done something similar, recognizing women in the ward based on number of children or grandchildren.  Maybe we are trying to repopulate the church.  I’m not sure upgrading from a silver to gold medal is sufficient inducement to a harried mother of 7.

Over 70 countries celebrate Mother’s Day now.  In South Korea it’s Parents Day.  In Armenia it’s Mother’s Day and Beauty Day.  Arab countries celebrate it at the beginning of spring.  In Yugoslavia and Serbia Mothers Day is part of a 3 day celebration before Christmas. The first day is Childrens Day, and the children are tied up until they promise to behave well.  The next day is Mother’s Day, and the mother is tied up until she gives them treats.  The third day is Fathers Day, and he’s tied up until he promises a lavish Christmas.  Apparently they really like tying people up.  I can only imagine what happens when Father Christmas shows up.  “Give us the goods or the reindeer takes one to the head!”  I’m guessing these are traditions that emerge where the winters are long, cold, and mostly confined indoors.

How can we honor our own mothers on this day?

A few years ago, I was given a copy of the 5 Love Languages, a book that talks about how people recognize affection.  For example, some people (like my mother) are skeptical of presents, feeling like they are wasteful and only given out of obligation and that people expect something in return, but other people (like my mother-in-law) feel presents show that someone was spending time thinking about you.  No matter what we give, the gift should be something that comes from the heart that the receiver will value.  Given the variety of Mothers Day traditions, there are traditions that fit all five of these love languages:

• Words of Affirmation. Argentinian children surround their mother and read poetry.  In Mexico, the family serenades the mother with songs.  In Japan, they write cards to their mothers and also participate in an art contest every fourth year in which children draw pictures of their mother.
• Quality Time. Visiting home, or barring that, a phone call.  Many traditions include a family feast followed by time together playing games.  This is one of 2 days a year that Mormon missionaries are allowed to call home (also Christmas).  Calling home on Mother’s Day is our tradition.  Because I am one of six daughters, we always enjoy calling without identifying ourselves.  No matter who calls, my mother’s response is the same:  “Who is this?!” Unfortunately, thanks to caller ID she can fake it better now.
• Receiving Gifts. Traditional gifts include flowers, chocolates, jewelry, or here in Singapore, Prada handbags.  Unless your mom really loves cooking and cleaning, gifts such as vacuum cleaners or kitchenware may be grounds for justifiable homicide.
• Acts of Service. Doing chores, breakfast in bed, cooking the meal, all of these are common Mother’s Day presents.  Some countries have a tradition of giving to charity, especially to women’s charities.  Others use the day to proclaim peace or protest war.  The Mothering Day tradition of decorating the church is also an act of service.
• Physical Touch. Many women appreciate a spa certificate or massage or even a weekend retreat.  In Ethiopia, after the family feast, the women and girls put butter on their faces and chests and then the whole family dances and sings.  I suppose being tied up like they do in Yugoslavia involves physical touch.  To each his own I guess.

As someone once said:  “There is no way to be a perfect mother and a million ways to be a good one.”  We were sent to the earth as infants, dependent on imperfect adults to care for us, to teach us, and to love us despite our own imperfections.  We came from a perfected Heavenly Mother and Father who entrusted us in the care of an imperfect human mother.  Clearly, no matter how imperfect our mothers were, they were deemed good enough by Heavenly Parents for the purpose they needed to fill.

Another way to honor our mothers is to reflect on what they have taught us.  From my mother, I have learned:

• Sarcasm.  With a cocked eyebrow and a twisted smirk, my mother can lay you to waste like nobody’s business.
• Skepticism.  One story my mother tells is about when she was 3 years old, and she was acting up at a family gathering.  Her aunt said if she didn’t settle down, they’d put her in the closet with the bear (these people were some tough monkeys, I tell ya).  She put her hands on her hips and said, “I don’t believe you have a bear in that closet!”  So they put her in there (Hey, it was 1930 – people did stuff like that!) and she backed into a fur coat that was hanging in the back of the closet, immediately thought, “Oh crap!  There really is a bear in here” and started screaming to be let out.  Needless to say, this incident probably scarred her for life and caused her to vote Republican every year since.
• How to act in faith. My parents joined the church in 1955 despite both being from families that were most non-religious.  They took a leap of faith in joining the church in a time and place where it wasn’t well known and living faithfully ever since.  Their parents on both sides cautioned them not to take religion too seriously, but they felt the spirit and made the commitment to join.
• Hard work ethic.  One of the stories my mom liked to tell was when they were newly married and my dad brought home a bag of dead chickens for her to clean (pluck, disembowel, and prepare for freezing) then left to go golfing.  I can attest to the fact that this was an important teaching moment for my dad in their marriage, an incident never repeated in any way shape or form.  But she did clean all ten chickens that morning.
• The importance of getting enough sleep.  At least when I was growing up, my mom never woke up before 9am.  Getting the kids off to school was a joint effort between Captain Crunch and my dad.
• Self-discipline. When I was a child, my mother was misdiagnosed with diabetes.  She adhered to her diabetic diet faithfully for 7 years, measuring out the food and avoiding sugar the entire seven years.  She never cheated on her diet.  Then she changed doctors and found out she wasn’t diabetic.
• Being unconventional.  When my mother attended school, girls didn’t wear pants, and they didn’t even own pants.  She and her friend decided this was a stupid rule, and they decided to go to school in pants.  They raided their dads’ closets and wore their work pants to school hitched up with a scarf for a belt.  When they both got called in to the dean’s office, they defended their decision and said it was silly girls couldn’t be comfortable and warm like the boys.
• Stubbornness. When she was 7, she decided her family didn’t appreciate her and she made up a little bundle of her clothes and headed down the driveway.  Her dad found her on the way and asked where she was going.  When she told him, he said they weren’t going to let her run away, and he tied her to the swingset until she was ready to decide that she wouldn’t run away.  She was defiant and said that was fine with her.  She stayed out there for hours until night fell and she got hungry and cold.  Finally she said she would stay.
• Frugality. Despite being firmly upper middle class, in our family we always knew if hot cocoa was on the table it meant that the milk had expired and mom was trying to cover the taint with sugar and chocolate.  It was probably a byproduct of being raised during the depression, but my mom just couldn’t bring herself to throw out food.  Another time there was a vegetable dish on the table I didn’t recognize.  I asked what it was, and my mom said “greens.”  I asked what kind of greens.  She said, “Oh, just greens.”  As I looked closer I realized they looked familiar.  Then I said, “Did you pull dandelions out of our yard and cook them for dinner??”  Indeed she had.

My husband pointed out to me that I have also learned being a restless person who wants to move often, a few choice German swear words, putting the milk away before it even hits the cereal, and spontaneously bursting into song whenever anyone says a phrase that reminds me of a lyric.  We’ll see which of these goofy traits from my mother I pass on to my own children.

Like our physical dependence on imperfect mothers, we are spiritually dependent on our perfect saviour.  1 John 4:19 says of our relationship with the saviour:  “We love him, because he first loved us.”  Likewise, we love our mothers because they first loved us before we knew how to love or to care for others.  And as with the saviour, there isn’t just one day a year for showing our appreciation.  If you haven’t convinced your mother you love her on the other 364 days a year, nothing you do on Mother’s Day will convince her.

This mother’s day, I challenge all of us to show our gratitude:

• For our own mothers, in all their glorious imperfection and grace.
• For our mother church, in all its imperfection and grace.
• For our Heavenly Mother, who entrusted us to the care of our earthly mothers and our mother church so we could grow to achieve our infinite potential.
• For our savior, on whom we rely for our salvation through his sacrifice.

Discuss.

Having clear boundaries is essential to a healthy, balanced lifestyle. A boundary is a personal property line that marks those things for which we are responsible. In other words, boundaries define who we are and who we are not. Boundaries impact all areas of our lives: Physical boundaries help us determine who may touch us and under what circumstances — Mental boundaries give us the freedom to have our own thoughts and opinions — Emotional boundaries help us to deal with our own emotions and disengage from the harmful, manipulative emotions of others — Spiritual boundaries help us to distinguish God’s will from our own and give us renewed awe for our Creator — Often, Christians focus so much on being loving and unselfish that they forget their own limits and limitations. When confronted with their lack of boundaries, they ask: – Can I set limits and still be a loving person? – What are legitimate boundaries? – What if someone is upset or hurt by my boundaries? – How do I answer someone who wants my time, love, energy, or money? – Aren’t boundaries selfish? – Why do I feel guilty or afraid when I consider setting boundaries?

Think about that quote.  Now consider, how many people complain about:

• Not feeling free to have their own thoughts and opinions on things (as if they are being overwhelmed by the conservatives or the liberals in their wards)?
• Not feeling like they can say no when someone asks for time, money or energy?
• Feeling as if others are manipulating them or are trying to manipulate them?

I know, Oprah is out there telling people about boundaries.  http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Begin-to-Set-Personal-Boundaries_1

Twelve Step programs have worksheets and advice on setting boundaries.

And, of course, the LDS Church has lesson materials on setting boundaries; So does BYU Education week; So does Google:

1. Setting Boundaries in Recovery | Sober Nation – Recovery Resources

   www.sobernation.com/setting-boundaries/
   Dec 15, 2011 – Boundaries. Emotions do not define us, they are a form of internal communication that help us to understand ourselves. It is important for us to …

But what I am suggesting is more than simple steps and more than just niche resources here and there or shells for advertising.

I’m suggesting that we have at least one lesson a year on how to set boundaries and how to respect the boundaries of others.

To start with the rights you have to expect from others to do and not to do and how to protect yourself (awareness — for everyone).

To practice how to set boundaries with others, with dialog and practice forms.  And I mean simple, direct and complete dialogs.  Like Oprah suggests, only 7-8 pages of them.

e.g. (quoting from Oprah)

Use simple, direct language.

• To set a boundary with an angry person:
  “You may not yell at me. If you continue, I’ll have to leave the room.”
• To set a boundary with personal phone calls at work:
  “I’ve decided to take all personal calls in the evening in order to get my work done. I will need to call you later.”
• To say no to extra commitments:
  “Although this organization is important to me, I need to decline your request for volunteer help in order to honor my family’s needs.”
• To set a boundary with someone who is critical:
  “It’s not okay with me that you comment on my weight. I’d like to ask you to stop.”
• To buy yourself time when making tough decisions:
  “I’ll have to sleep on it, I have a policy of not making decisions right away.”
• To back out of a commitment:
  “I know I agreed to head up our fundraising efforts, but after reviewing my schedule, I now realize that I won’t be able to give it my best attention. I’d like to help find a replacement by the end of next week.
• To set a boundary with an adult child who borrows money:
  “I won’t be lending you money anymore. I love you and you need to take responsibility for yourself.”

Read more: http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Begin-to-Set-Personal-Boundaries_1/3#ixzz1uWO2Tsdi

Have a lesson that explains that setting boundaries teaches you:

• To understand yourself, what is you and what is society (where are your internal boundaries).
• How and what to say to set boundaries
• To not feel guilty about setting boundaries.

A lesson like this does three things.  First, it teaches people how to set boundaries.  Second, it educates people about where and what the appropriate boundaries are — and that setting boundaries — really setting them — is appropriate.  Third, it provides external validation that certain behaviors cross boundaries.  It gives people strength in setting boundaries if they have examples of how to set a boundary that points out that the boundary they want to set is appropriate (after all, it is in the lesson manual), the other person’s behavior is wrong (see the manual), and this is what they should be doing without feeling guilt.

What do you think?  What examples would you include in the lesson manual?

If you deconstruct a face, won't you just get geometry? And then you can systematically distort those shapes, no?

What makes a person unique? If people are unique, then why do we still find so much in common with others?

I was participating in a Facebook discussion about whether there could be non-literal wards or a “reform Mormonism” in a similar vein to reform Judaism, and the conversation transformed into a discussion over whether Mormonism is an ethnicity. Some people in the discussion argued — as is inevitable in a discussion on this topic — that Mormonism isn’t an ethnicity. Mormonism, as a religion, is about beliefs and practices. If you don’t believe certain things or practice certain things, you aren’t a Mormon.

I don’t deny that Mormonism is in a major sense a religion, but I resist calling it just a religion because I can’t make sense of my own experiences with Mormonism if it is just a religion. So, even though I can’t really fully articulate what is “ethnic” or “cultural” about it, I feel like I can give impressions.

I toyed with trying to deconstruct myself. What would I look like if I had never been Mormon? The simple answer is…there are many possible ways I’d be different and I can’t tell for sure which is how things would actually turn out. All I can say is that I would be a totally different person.

A totally different person?

I asked myself…what does it mean to be a totally different person? I think it is synonymous with saying that I would have a totally different personality, but where does personality come from? When I think of the word personality, I think of something internal. Personality is neurological, and neurology is biological and chemical. So, it’s in my genes.

Still…I don’t think that is completely accurate. I don’t think that another person with my exact genes would necessarily turn out to be me. I cannot deny the fact that experiences that I’ve had have shaped the way that I think. That’s why I believe that growing up Mormon has made me a different person than the Andrew prime who may not have grown up Mormon.

I find it interesting, though. I want to say that I’m a unique individual, but I can recognize on this level that right from the start, I share something in common with other Mormons. I share even more in common with doubting, disaffected, marginalized, or former Mormons. It’s a nearly automatic kinship as soon as I hear their story or as soon as they hear mine. All of a sudden, what I thought was unique to me becomes something that is part of a group.

Identity Politics

I know that many people decry identity politics. They say that we should treat people as individuals, not as members of a group. After all, everyone is unique…right? There is that ideal of individuality sticking out again.

Yet…I think people naturally identify as members of groups because they feel that the group membership says accurate things about them personally. It’s that kinship thing about which I was talking earlier…if I didn’t feel that the word “Mormon” accurately captured something in my experience, I wouldn’t identify with it. Yet, here I am, nonbelieving and nonpracticing, and here I identify.

I understand that the “Mormon” label isn’t perfect. I recognize that I have disagreements with Mormons on several issues. Maybe my disagreements are sign that I shouldn’t play identity politics and should instead treat people as individuals? Maybe my disagreements are where my individuality comes in?

Individuality through Difference?

As I mentioned before, I share something in common with other Mormons. I share even more in common with doubting, disaffected, marginalized, or former Mormons. So what I thought would be the source of my individuality — my doubt and disbelief — turned out instead to be a point of commonality…but with a different group. It’s not that my incompatibilities with the Mormon identity are evidence of my individuality…nope, they are just evidence of my compatibility with atheist, agnostic, secular, and doubting identities. So, instead of being a point off the grid…I’m really just an intersection on two grids.

…but I have disagreements with secular, atheist, agnostic communities! So, maybe that’s where my individuality lies?

The problem is that my disagreements there point to agreements elsewhere. For example, some of my disagreements point back to my Mormonism — my Mormonism has shaped me in a way that I have a different way of viewing things than a non-Mormon agnostic atheist. But those differences just become similarities to other Mormon agnostic atheists.

Intersectionality.

I’m not just a Mormon. I’m not just a disbeliever. I’m a man. I’m black. I’m middle class, and depending on where you draw the lines, maybe upper-middle class. With a master’s degree, I am pretty well-educated. Gay. Introverted. A millennial.

Each of these traits is an identity — an identity that fits me, but that also doesn’t fit me. But the parts where I don’t fit are accounted for by other traits. I’ve been called an “oreo” — black on the outside; white on the inside. But isn’t this more a reflection of other traits threatening to impinge upon my blackness? My Mormonism. My upper-middle class background. My education. I don’t experience Mormonism precisely the same way as others do, and just as before, it’s just a reflection of the other traits impinging upon my Mormonism. My race. My skepticism. My orientation.

But here’s the thing…”Impinging” is the wrong word. It’s like rock paper scissors…every element is perfectly matched by another element. But it’s also not like rock-paper-scissors in the sense that one doesn’t really “defeat” the other. Just because people think that my command of the English language is uncharacteristic for a black dude (or, in the words of our vice president, “a story book man”) doesn’t mean that I’ll ever become unblack. But all of these factors do come together to create me.

Individuality from Intersectionality

Could we say that what makes me me is the fact that I am at the intersection of a thousand different planes? That as I meet people that share many of my intersections, I will end up meeting people with whom I share things in common, but I preserve my uniqueness through the fact that there is no one else who will also intersect at all possible points?

I can say that taking away any of these major factors would make me a drastically different person. And that too gives me problems with several hypotheses that people have shared with me:

Oh, in the next life, you’ll be white and delightsome.

But I won’t be me.

Same-sex attraction didn’t exist in the pre-mortal existence, and it won’t exist in the afterlife.

So neither will I.

Do you ever really think about the numerous ways in which you could cease to be you?