Atheists, Humility, and Missionary Work

This is another unpublished piece, probably about a year and a half old. I don't even remember what the remark was about. It was a conversation I had with my Czech friend Tom, and I suppose it's worth publishing (can you tell I'm looking at all the drafts right now? hahaha).

***

I made an offhand remark to my atheist friend that was mocking something which I thought was a ridiculous, ludicrous, unbelievably illogical belief system. I expected it to make him laugh.

He didn't, and after a moment, I felt extremely ashamed. What had I just done? Just because this belief system looks and sounds totally absurd to me doesn't mean it's not the genuine, heartfelt faith of someone else. 

This same friend has listened to me talk about my faith, read the Book of Mormon, and even attended our church. He listened to us pray. He's never laughed at any of it, though he doesn't believe it. 

We spent a long time last year talking about his faith. I guess he's a special atheist because he admits that the lack of belief is its own kind of faith. His perception of himself and his approach to faith is striving for humility, which is something I admire.  

So, last week in church the entire theme was about missionary work. This is a pretty common occurrence; my church is very "into" that. But there was a bit of a different take. My brain is a little bit fuzzy right now about the details, but what I seem to vaguely remember was the theme was about, "getting along with people of other faiths." We talked about this in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and Relief Society. 

I've only read the first three books of C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. My friend Meghan made a comment about the last book, about this character who spent their whole life serving Tash, but actually was serving Aslan without knowing it. She went into more details. But basically, Aslan is quite an overt symbol of Jesus Christ through the whole series, and this particular character was supposed to be about people who try to do what they believe is right, but for some reason are misguided in their beliefs. Lewis's point was that people who try to choose the right, whether they are serving God or not, are doing good, and their efforts will matter; that people aren't consigned to an everlasting hell for their lack of knowledge and understanding of who Christ is. This is a very comforting thought, and it's kind of funny that it's made by a non-Mormon, though he is admittedly extremely beloved by our community, and quoted in almost every session of General Conference.

I feel so uncomfortable thinking, let alone saying, "your deeply held religious/pseudo-religious convictions are misguided." I don't like being a missionary like Samuel the Lamanite.

I would much rather be like Ammon. 

If you think about it, Ammon was a prince. He didn't believe in God. He persecuted the people in the church. Then an angel came and told his friend Alma to stop it. He became converted and went on a mission to the Lamanites, which was extremely successful. So successful that it had extremely long lasting affects on many, many generations of people!

But how did he serve?

He was a friend. And he was his genuine self. 

He used his skills and talents that he had developed, things that were really personal to him. As a prince, he would have had all kinds of special military training. It's not everybody who can use their strength and warrior skills - specifically, the ability to cut off arms! - in order to share the gospel.

So how was this guy a great missionary? It was by serving them. He paid such great attention to detail that after he delivered the arms of the enemies, he went to water the king's horses, which totally shocked the king. 

Why would he do that? To somehow trick the King into listening to him? Maybe a little bit. But mostly I think it was because he genuinely loved the King. He genuinely cared about these people he was serving. It wasn't by laughing at their misguided traditions and beliefs.

I personally feel like most belief systems in this world do contain some elements of truth, and that actually includes "atheism" (though I'd hardly call that a "system" because it's not organized). Maybe one very deep truth that my friend taught me through his example is a deep appreciation of humility. 

If God called me to stand a wall and tell everybody to repent, I would do it. That isn't my calling right now. My calling is to be a good friend, to be kind and respectful, to be a good wife and mother, and for some crazy reason, I also feel very strongly that it is important for me to learn Czech. Maybe there is a way that my learning of Czech can help with missionary work in the world. I believe success will come in being my genuine self, not being a crazy overzealous weirdo. This includes sharing my thoughts, feelings, and experiences about religion, since they are a huge part of my life. It also includes not mocking (even in thought) the faith of others.

Before we were born, after we die, and does God shave?

Several deep metaphysical questions keep coming up in my conversations with a few important people in my life, so it's time to write a little bit more about them. But first, a preface.

The World of Ideas

I like love this world! It is where I really like to be. I live in my head. It's the way things have always been for me. It drives both of my parents completely nuts because neither of them "get" that. I constantly (literally, constantly) make connections between various, surface level unrelated things. Symbolism everywhere. I love my dreams, and even better, interpreting them. For me, it's about feelings, symbols, abstract thinking, all of these kinds of things and more are the most fun, most interesting things in my life.

The physical world is the pits. Sure, it has its moments, but the best bits are when both these worlds combine in such a way that they seem totally in harmony. This is not the default state of being for me, nor for anyone, I imagine.

I think most people tend to live more in the real world than in the world of ideas. I think that seeing symbols everywhere gets on most normal people's nerves. I think that the reason I enjoy languages, writing, talking, and researching the lives of dead people is totally connected to this love of the world of ideas. I think it's the reason why mothering young children, and its super strong rooting in the physical world of laundry, school routines, laundry, diapering, screaming children, did I say laundry - why I struggle with it.

For me, heaven is a place where the world of ideas can be explored with others without words getting in the way. How? Perhaps telepathy? Instantaneous communication of billions of ideas faster than the speed of light? The closest thing to that in our current world is physical touch, I suppose - and that's obviously got a physical component! But even then... it's not quite the same.

I spend a lot of time in the world of ideas. Because of my extroverted nature (or whatever other dumb psychobabble label you want to paste on my soul) it is really important to not be alone there. I really like talking and sharing with people. I really, really like getting inside the heads of interesting people; the more difficult this is to do, the bigger the payoff (it's way more interesting! Don't know exactly why). I basically expect that the people I care about would want to do the same to me, to crack me. To figure out what I actually think. It's super painful to imagine that maybe they don't care or notice. Maybe they aren't interested. Logic never wins in this argument, either. I can't say to myself, "This person doesn't even know that I feel like they're being an insensitive jerk; they are just expecting you to keep talking without being prodded." That might help, but it doesn't fix the worry that perhaps they just don't care at all. I don't understand why this is the case. It is frustrating to me. I also wonder if maybe there are patterns in when I feel extra sensitive to disinterest - something I ate? A lack of sleep? Too many days in a row without a deep conversation? I don't know. I guess I seem like an open book to my friends, but some things I will never share, even with Danny because they're such unspeakably awful thoughts that never need to see the light of day. Some things only God knows about me. And some things I don't get a chance to talk about because people simply don't ask; I also don't want to be preachy. 

I've not had much difficulty feeling too preachy on this blog, though, so here are some of my deeper thoughts and ideas that have been simmering on my mental stove for the past months. 

Warning: it's rambly. 

Before we were born

I think there's something about me that is eternal. I don't really know what that is, at least entirely. I believe that my gender is part of "it". Like, I've always been female. Always will be. For some reason, that's really important. I don't know why. It feels right.

I do believe that I can grow and change, in other words, learn. Obviously we are all in a constant state of learning while mortal, so in the premortal existence why wouldn't it have been the same? Why won't it be the same later, too? 

It makes sense to me that there wasn't one set kind of premortal experience. I think it's possible that some, but highly unlikely that most, people had any kind of say in the circumstances of their birth on earth. I strongly believe that God arranged the universe in a way that each of us would be born with the greatest possible chance to return to him; perhaps for some, they had multiple "best possible" tests. I don't know. I'm glad I wasn't born to be a 19th century latter-day saint pioneer. That would have sucked.

In the paradigm of "life is a test", the goal is to return to him. It's a test we wanted. We voted for it in some kind of premortal council. To experience real agency and choose good over evil basically sums up the purpose of the test. I really don't think our agency is unbounded or without limits, but I think it is real, though. It's just that God has infinite foresight, so he would know exactly what we would choose. He designed the test in a way that the majority of his children, having experienced agency, would still someday be able to return to his presence.

This is really puzzling in light of the fact that most humans have never had the chance to encounter anything having to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Why would the apparent best test for most people be one in which they didn't even have the possibility of becoming a member of God's church on the earth and receiving "saving ordinances" like baptism? 

Even more puzzling, why was my life arranged in such a way that I was born into a family of members of the true church? 

Surely, that's evidence either that: 1. it's all just false (but that really doesn't feel right), 2. I have something really important to contribute in the church/to the world through being a member of the church, 3. I was really righteous before I was born so it was a reward?, or 4. I would have been totally, completely, utterly lost without having been born into the church.

I tend to vacillate between #2 and 4, and sometimes #3. Mostly, apparently this was not knowledge that was important for us to have. Maybe having it would have screwed up our test taking abilities.

Maybe some people got to preview their lives before coming, before crossing through the veil of forgetfulness between our world and the spirit world. I sometimes imagine this. I'm not sure if I actually believe it, but I do think about it fairly often. "Why the heck would I have chosen to live a life with anxiety?" "What was it about that horrible experience with that person that I needed to learn?" Mostly, I wonder about the test itself. I think I mostly believe that it's a complicated mix of specific circumstances and the tiny fleeting moments. For example, we could probably categorize our lives as scenes. In some specific scenes, it's obvious that there's a crossroads in front of us. Will I cheat on this test? Will I be kind to this person? Will I tell the truth even though it will be painful? These seem like obvious tests of our will, character, ability to choose good over evil, etc. But there are also small moments - like the microseconds between when you say something and you receive a response - where the test is all in your mind. Oh! I think this horrible thought. Now what? Will I dwell on it? Will I develop it further? What will become of it? These kinds of mind-choices take mere milliseconds.

If it's all a test, and God knows everything, including our thoughts, we - or rather, I - am in desperate need of a mediator! That is why it is easy for me to believe that Jesus Christ, and his atonement, is real. The "life as a test" metaphor would not work without it, or rather, we'd all be doomed to fail, which means God hates us.

But God loves us, and therefore, he sent his son. In fact, John says that exact thing. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 

I really believe this.

After we die

I love the temple. I do a lot of research for the real people to whom I owe my life so that I can take their names to the temple and do proxy ordinance work for them. I stand in place of them to be baptized, etc. This means that they will have the same, equal chance to accept the gospel, repent, and join his church. I don't really get "why baptism" is necessary - it's kind of weird. But hey, why not. It's a nice symbol of death and rebirth. It is something firmly rooted in the physical world. Apparently the World of Ideas was not enough - we needed this corporeal experience. It is the test.

When I die, I firmly believe that I will meet the people for whom I have spent many thousands of hours researching their lives and performing their temple work. I will see them again, and beyond the veil I will remember them. I will have known them from before I was born. I don't know how that's possible, since I don't really think we were organized in families (except that we were basically all brothers and sisters, children of our heavenly parents) in the premortal existence, and we certainly will have families in the postmortal one. Except, eternal families are more like a running chain than individual clusters, in my opinion. We'll all just be connected to everyone, like a giant family tree. And infinite potential to continue to have children, obviously minus the crappy experiences that come with being physically pregnant.

I sometimes imagine it will be a very long gauntlet of people. I will get to high-five the people whose temple work I did, and they will thank me for it, cheering for me. I think this is a bit simplistic, though. It's almost like...

It's like what I imagined what living in a host family in France would be like. I imagined that there would be this super loving French family who was really interested in listening to me and teaching me about the world. That they would want to hear me crappily bang out my tunes on the piano. That they would ask me all kinds of questions about myself, my thoughts, my feelings, my culture, etc. That...

hahaha!!

Well... that, was not the case. At all.

I think that maybe my gauntlet-like expectations of the postmortal reunion with my deceased ancestors will be similar, except from the other end. I think it will be far, far superior to anything I can really imagine.

And I can imagine really amazing things.

But some of what I imagine is quite personal, so that isn't something to write about now.

Does God shave?

"I just don't believe God is this man with a beard in the sky. Think about the Hubble telescope. It takes photos of space, and in one square inch there are hundreds - thousands - millions of stars! There's just no way that earth is all there is. There has to be more."

I don't believe God is a man with a beard in the sky, either. And I find photos of space to be mind-boggling, too. Awesome in a literal sense of the word. I also don't think that we're all that there is.

I've never found it very interesting to study astronomy or space in depth and that came as a direct result of taking astronomy 101 in college. I took it because I wanted to memorize the constellations. That was a tiny part of the class - the only part that was fun because it involved staring at the actual sky on a blanket with a bunch of friends at night. The rest of the class was about the dullest topics on earth, such as spectroscopy. Studying the way the light fragments so that you can discover what elements exist on far distant planets which you'll never see with your own eyes. Using complicated mathematical equations to describe very, very distant places and events - impossibly distant. I've never found it interesting to study geology or early man, either. I just don't get that lit up about rocks, and I can't relate to family tree arguments about neanderthals when we can't get past 1835 on one of my ancestral lines. Heck, I've never even found it that interesting to talk about the Slavs. Or the Celts. And these guys were my ancestors. But how do they connect to me? Maybe I'm selfish, or self absorbed. If I can't connect to it, meh.

It's easy for me to accept that we're not all that there is. It's easy for me to believe that there are other planets with life. It's easy to think that maybe aliens don't look like humans. I have no idea how it works. It's pretty weird that we haven't made contact with extraterrestrial life yet, but it's also easy to believe that God would want it to be that way. Maybe we humans on earth are not ready for it. There's hundreds of possible reasons why that might be the case - I don't ascribe any of them to "truth." I just kinda muse about them. Mostly, it's just one of those things that I don't know about, and can't wait to find out about - and I'm pretty sure I'll only find out about it when I'm dead. I firmly believe that after I die, at least some of that knowledge will be made known. Or perhaps it will be remembered. Maybe I knew it before. Someday, somehow, I'll get the chance to know everything. I think that's another "definition" of what heaven is - the capacity and opportunity to understand and know everything.

I believe in God. I believe that it's way more complicated than "a man with a beard in the sky." First off, I believe that it really depends on what you mean by "God." Are we talking about God the Father? Are we talking about our Heavenly Mother - who we never, ever talk about (and there are about a hundred thousand reasons I can imagine why we don't talk about her - not the time and place to go into that here I guess)? Are we talking about Jesus Christ? Are we talking about the Holy Ghost? Are we talking about ourselves in our perfected post-mortal resurrected bodies? 

Is the idea of "God" like the borg? Maybe? After we die, do we get sucked into this collective, united being? I think it's possible, but improbable. I think our identity is eternal, and I think its core doesn't change very much at any point in the process. There are some parts of me that always have been, and always will be. Maybe I fit into a giant puzzle? Maybe I am a strand of an intricately woven tapestry? Maybe - but I'm still individual, and I believe I always will be, even later. I don't really believe it's God-soup.

The stereotype of "God" is a man in a white robe with a beard. Some Christians (not latter-day saints) believe his winged. I think that this image is way too limiting. An all-powerful God could surely appear like whatever he wanted at any given moment. But that's a non-answer because appearances can be shifted by many, many intermediary means. Maybe when Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the first vision, what he saw was influenced by what he expected to see. Maybe they appeared to him in that way for a reason. Maybe they can appear completely differently - as something completely, wildly different-looking. I feel kind of irreverent postulating on that, so I won't. 

Instead, I'll answer the question, "Does Heavenly Father shave?" That question is meant to poke fun at the stereotype of God the Father. The kind that you see in comic strips, that nobody takes seriously. It's meant to make the idea of a real God sound ridiculous. Of course God could shave if he wanted to. Now we're getting into the philosophy of religion, and stupid questions like, "Can an all powerful God create a rock that's so heavy he can't lift it?" Eugh. 

A more fair question would be something more like, "Does Heavenly Father have a corporeal body?" The answer to that question is yes! But unlike so many of my peers, I refuse to accept that we definitely know what that means. Maybe his body can shift in ways that we can't comprehend. Maybe earth itself is a cell of his body. Maybe he exists in dark matter. I don't know! Apparently it wasn't important for us to know much about his physical body. It probably does not have blood, based on some deep doctrine rumors I've heard (but don't really know where that comes from). We are created "in his likeness and image" but that isn't a very satisfying answer - it could be stretched to encompass many, many possibilities. 

I believe God is real. When I see him again - when I see both of my heavenly parents again - I will know them. I will be able to hug them again someday. I am not worried about not being able to understand more than that because apparently, it's not important right now. It doesn't worry me, and that's weird because lots of things worry me!

Isaiah (my favorite prophet of all) put it really beautifully. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." I was thinking about this idea in terms of the Hubble space telescope that had been mentioned in that earlier conversation. I imagined that what we can see and understand about the world and the universe, might be compared to our current scientific understanding and wisdom. We can peer into space with this super powerful telescope and start to imagine the scope of what the universe is, but we are nowhere close to understanding - really knowing - anything. We can see just about as far as our scientific instruments, all of which are securely tied to us, here on the ground of earth. God, on the other hand - his knowledge and understanding of everything - isn't bounded by the earth. His capacity to see and understand everything reaches out way, wayyyyy beyond those galaxies photographed by the Hubble space telescope. I think that's what Isaiah is saying by "higher than the earth." 

It is easy for me to accept the idea that a being/entity could have that kind of incomprehensible capacity and power because it feels true. I believe that God is real because it makes sense to my mind that I came from real parents. It makes sense to my heart that I am loved. It feels right that there's more than just this tiresome physical world occasionally colliding with the World of Ideas to create pockets of temporary happiness and joy. I believe that there's meaning in my existence, and potential for infinite, lasting joy. 

I'm never going to convince anybody else with these words, and as such, it feels like such a waste of time. These feel like simple truths that are easy to believe! They feel self-evident. I feel like a jerk explaining them to non-believing friends because it feels like I am trying to push an agenda or values on them - because, honestly, I suppose on some level, I am. I really feel a lot of joy in my belief in God, and I want others to share it. I also really abhor conflict, especially over deeply held personal values and beliefs. That is (one reason) why I did not serve a mission. It's why I tend to lean towards temple and family history work rather than missionary proselyting. 

But I am glad to be a passive "missionary" in conversation and writing from time to time, and with my example, always. And when I fail, I can repent. That's the promise, and it's really beautiful.

My Calling, Part Two

I know that we don't "own" our callings. I've seen real scenarios when people feel this way, and it isn't good.

I know that callings aren't actually based on career paths or personal identity, either.

I also understand that know-how is not what qualifies a person to receive a calling, not even a music calling. Actually, I learned that from Sister Newman specifically. But that's a tangent.

I know that sometimes bishoprics and branch presidencies can make mistakes. They are unlikely to do so when issuing a calling, since every calling is prayed about specifically. But even if they did, God does not make mistakes. That means he would have arranged for the bishopric's mistake long in advance. Callings are all ultimately from God.

I would not refuse a calling. If the logistics of my situation were a barrier to performing my calling adequately, I would explain those logistics and follow my leaders' counsel. I trust my leaders.

I have experienced firsthand that my priesthood leaders are flawed mortal men AND simultaneously chosen and qualified by God. I sustain and honor them, and always have. One important way in which I honor my leaders is by not saying bad things about them. I have not and never will do that.

I needed to gain a testimony in the leadership pattern for temple and family history work before I was given this calling. I can see now that some of the painful and difficult experiences I've had in the past several years were to teach me that the leadership pattern itself is inspired. When Sister Newman was first called to be the Stake Family History Center Director I met with her frequently. I taught her a lot of the know-how things. I set up an online sign-up system. I fixed some of the broken or poorly configured computer settings. When she had to be with her father, I conducted the large bi-stake family history activity. I knew how I would've done things, had I been in her shoes, or if I were to ever have become in her shoes. I thought about it explicitly. That way was "Kate's Way", not God's way.

Though I had a LOT of knowledge of facts and tools, I lacked her understanding of and faith in the priesthood leadership pattern as it relates to family history and temple work. I didn't even know that was something I lacked, either. It took a very long time and a lot of internal pain to learn that.

I have experienced being a ward temple and family history consultant for a long time, so I know intimately what some of the barriers and frustrations are in that calling. I am about to enter graduate school, studying Corpus Linguistics; I care a *lot* about words, and the words and titles in the church are changing on purpose, for inspired reasons, and especially in this part of the church. I'm also overwhelmed by things that are very different from what overwhelms "normal" people; juggling multiple big projects doesn't scare or intimidate me and I generally do well with it - ex.: I taught Middle School Arabic, have five kids, am learning Czech, etc. I have a deep understanding and interest in the details about how many family history tools and resources work, as well as 12 years of experience using them as they've evolved and changed. I have a firm testimony in the importance of temple and family history work. I believe it to be the work of salvation for the human family, so it's the most important work on the earth. It is the same work as bringing children into this world to create families and sharing the gospel with the world through missionary work. All of these are just the same work from different angles. I have a firm testimony now that the pattern we have is inspired. It is not the pattern I would naturally choose myself, either! I constantly have to look towards that pattern and align my will to match it, but my mind and heart have changed so that I can!

So now I have the unique position of having the know-how, the motivation, the experience, the contacts, the energy, the testimony, and the calling. I've been given the power to both run this center and teach the leaders in my stake their specific role in this work. I do not think that's a coincidence. I really want to have the chance to fulfil both these roles of sys admin AND leader-teacher. They seem at variance with one another, and perhaps in the future they will be, but I think it isn't a coincidence to give both jobs to a single person while people are learning to follow this new bottom-up approach. We need to get the center itself in line with the new philosophy of how to do temple and family history work. It's easier to do with one person in charge.

I feel like God has directly shown me that he wants me in this position now, and that I can fulfil this calling if I rely closely on the leadership pattern he established. I'm not the logical choice for this calling from an outside   perspective (ha!), but my inner self has been uniquely prepared and qualified, which is what matters. I have faith that God will help me arrange the logistical side of things.

My Calling

This weekend I had one of the most joyful spiritual experiences of my life, so I want to write about it.

Here's a timeline of events leading up to this weekend:

In 2012 I was called to serve as a ward family history consultant in the Nottingham Country Ward in Katy, Texas. We moved to Iowa in July of 2013, and I was called to serve again as a ward family history consultant in the Ankeny Ward.

During this entire time I served as a ward family history consultant. Bishop Russell called me to serve as the "family history consultant - lead." This meant that I was supposed to lead the other consultants, make sure they were trained, and coordinate our efforts to help the members in the ward in their goals. The goals were never explicitly stated at this time, but they were certainly along the lines of: take names to the temple, help build a deep love for their ancestors, and build familysearch family tree's giant tree for the whole human family. When Bishop Russell set me apart, he gave me a priesthood blessing that I will never forget. Picture a sharp, witty, confident, athletic man in his 40's or so, placing his hands on my head with one of his counselors, and while saying the words to his prayer, he just becomes completely overcome with emotion, taking long pauses and crying. I don't remember everything he said in that prayer, but he specifically blessed me that I would find names in my family that were difficult to pronounce for people who have been waiting for a long time, and that they would accept the temple work being performed for them.

For the next three years, without exception, every single time I took names to the temple, they were mispronounced. These were my Czech family members. It became some kind of delicious inside joke, this repeated consternation and frustration on the part of the temple workers. They often apologized for butchering the names. Krčmarský, Pavliskovec, Chodura, Michna...these are the kinds of names that nobody could pronounce.

There is nothing that can compare to the feeling of peace and assurance that I have in the temple while performing the ordinance work for these people to whom I owe my life.

There were a lot of realignments of ward and stake boundaries between 2013-2016. The ward was split in half vertically, then the wards were unbalanced so they changed the dividing line to be vertical, then the stake was realigned due to the large growth of members in the area (which is probably mostly a factor of how much this place is growing in general). It is hard for me to keep track of all the changes. We had four different bishops in four years. The result of all these changes was that I knew almost all the members in both the Ankeny wards.

In 2016, the title of the calling changed to be "ward temple and family history consultant." This news was given at RootsTech 2016, which I attended.

In 2017 (I think?), the little corner of North Ankeny in which I live was assigned to the newly created Rock Creek Ward. All of us who were "switching" wards suddenly lost our callings en masse. I approached Bishop Morales, the husband of my good friend Melanie, and jokingly asked him when he was going to call me to serve as a temple and family history consultant.

I was called as the First Counselor in the Young Women's Presidency, which meant that I was in charge of helping the 12 and 13 year old girls. They did not give me a temple and family history calling.

I continued to pester the bishop about it. He was annoyed. I was way more annoyed. I felt like the blessing which Bishop Russell had given me was not totally fulfilled; that my calling wasn't "over", that I hadn't finished - that I'd been robbed of an opportunity to serve; after all, I'd only lost it because the wards had been changed. Bishop Morales gave me an excuse that I could not stomach at the time: I was pregnant so they didn't want to overwhelm me with responsibility, and they wanted me to focus on serving the YW. It was like they were wrenching a piece of my identity from me, and I was doubly pissed because this was the one semi-professional thing that I had to show on a resume for the past decade of my life as a stay at home mom. Far more than that, I was incredulous about anybody else being as qualified as I was, which, while a super prideful attitude, was probably objectively true at the time. I had yet to learn that know-how does not really equate to ability to teach or mobilize others; not by a long shot.

At some point, I remember sitting in the car with Danny outside of a bookstore. I had been bitterly complaining, sharing my thoughts about this situation. Most of these thoughts centered on me not believing that my calling could be inspired from God. That thought was deeply disturbing to me. I still felt like my church leaders were inspired, but it felt like for the "lesser" callings, they were just getting warm bodies. Also, the reasons given for why I was not given the calling I wanted was unacceptable to me.

Our Stake President moved and Bishop Morales became the Stake President, and Bishop Pack was called as my bishop. I was called to serve in a second and very obscure position in the ward: "Sunday School Teacher - Teacher Council Facilitator." Every time I tried to do something, it didn't work. None of my plans to help create better, more effective teaching in my ward worked. I definitely had a lot of know-how, but I couldn't do anything. It was a sucky feeling.

And suddenly, there were some massive, massive changes to everything at church because President Monson died and President Nelson became the prophet. There was so much change. A new way of approaching church was rolled out. We were supposed to have a "home-centered, church-supported" church experience. The church provided us with these really great teaching tools for implementing a much more relaxed kind of religious education experience in our homes. The entire idea is to focus on the individual person. The teacher council remains a thing, but basically - church time was cut by 30%, church programs like YW were made to be bi-weekly instead of every week, and the plan for me to somehow help teach the ward teachers to be better was subsumed in this bigger, much, much better plan to help the entire church be better. To me, this felt deeply personal. Like, it was as if God was trying to tell me individually, "Your plan is on the right track. You understand the goal. But I have a much better way of getting there. Let me show you."

At some point, I was released from the Young Women's Presidency, and later as this Sunday school teacher. And at some other point (sorry that I am bad with remembering the details) I was given the calling of Ward Temple and Family History Consultant - Lead. I was elated. This time, I would do even better. I would show "them" all that I should have had this calling all along. I was going to do great things...

...but none of my efforts worked, just like with my other "failed" calling of Teacher Council Facilitator. Literally everything I tried failed. People didn't listen to me. I wondered if people were just tired of hearing me beat the same drum, or play the same few notes on the piano. The church had made massive organizational changes so that now, there was no space to meet with people one on one at the church with a computer to do family history with them during second hour. Temple and Family History had been organized under the direction of the High Priest Group Leader, but suddenly, there was no more High Priest's Group (a big change made by President Nelson). For about six months, Temple and Family History Consultants were "rogue." We didn't have a leadership pattern to follow. We didn't report to anyone, and we just did our best to keep following the basically uninformed goals of the members, or our own ideas about what we should be doing. I felt kind of sick about it. I didn't like it. To me, it felt like I was supposed to both make a plan and implement it, single-handedly, but whilst being burdened with the implicit limitations of being a really big nerd, a really overenthusiastic person, and not having any kind of authority to make decisions about holding meetings, making changes, or doing stuff like that. It was crappy.

I remember that at some point, I just felt like giving up. I would help people who came to me with help (I'd get a phone call about two or three times a month from someone about family history), but I just stopped going out of my way to help others. I tried to attend these bi-weekly meetups that my ward was trying to do, but the attendance there was pitifully low, sometimes just me and the hosts. Or if I was the host, sometimes just me. It was beyond discouraging.

Then, something horrible happened.

I attended RootsTech 2019 and a new Temple and Family History Leadership Instruction was "unrolled." There were numerous things about this meeting that I disliked, but I will not dwell on all of them. Basically: we were given some new instructions.

Wards and branches were to create a Ward Temple and Family History Plan in their ward/branch councils (a member of each auxiliary attends this, plus the bishopric, plus some other people; it's pretty small).

A Ward Temple and Family History Coordination Meeting should be held "regularly." Sometimes, this could mean a giant group text, rather than an in-person meeting. This meeting is for Ward Temple and Family History Consultants, plus a couple other specific people (which I'll talk about in a little bit). The point of the meeting is to coordinate efforts to implement the Ward Temple and Family History Plan.

Finally, the bishop was to pick one of four patterns of leadership for the ward, the first one being strongly suggested. I've listed them in order of who reports to whom.

1.
Ward Temple and Family History Consultants
Ward Temple and Family History Leader
Counselor in the Elder's Quorum Presidency
Elder's Quorum President
Bishop/Branch President

2.
Ward Temple and Family History Consultants
Counselor in the Elder's Quorum Presidency
Elder's Quorum President
Bishop/Branch President

3.
Ward Temple and Family History Consultants
Elder's Quorum President
Bishop/Branch President

4.
Ward Temple and Family History Consultants
Bishop/Branch President

The advice was for the bishop or branch president to pick one and NOT KEEP IT A SECRET. You laugh, but, that has been a big problem, actually!

What bothered me deeply was that this new calling named "Ward Temple and Family History Leader" was a priesthood calling. The fact that it was a priesthood calling was not what bothered me, at least, not most.

During the meeting at RootsTech I was sitting with my friend Kami, who I hadn't seen in ages, and another ward temple and family history consultant from my ward, Gigi. I was trying to figure out if that was or was not a priesthood calling. I couldn't. At the end of the session, I marched up to the front of the auditorium (a giant ballroom with at least 500 people in it) and literally pushed my way to the front to talk to the speaker, who was some member of some seventy. I do not remember his name. He almost didn't answer my question, but I basically shouted at him that I needed him to answer me. My question was, "Is the 'Ward Temple and Family History Leader' a priesthood calling?" He said yes. He could not tell me why, except that it was what the First Presidency had prayed about and felt inspired to do. Then he left before he was swarmed by a huge number of other people with questions. It seemed like very few other people were as visibly concerned about this issue as I was.

I was really, really upset. Did this mean that I was being automatically released again? Did the fact that I am a woman disqualify me from serving? If so, why? If I wouldn't know why - still, what was expected of me next? Why didn't they acknowledge that likely over 80% of the people in the church with the calling of "Ward Temple and Family History Consultant - Lead" had been women? Why weren't we ever even given some kind of tacit acknowledgement for our service?

This basically ruined my trip.

I tried to talk about it with my in laws, but that didn't work. Do you know how many words it takes to explain something like this to someone else? They did not understand or relate to my feelings, and their reaction was unhelpful. I felt like nobody understood or cared about my feelings, logic, previous service, or just basically, me at all. Danny tried, but he couldn't give me any kind of guidance about what to do next.

I made an appointment to meet with my bishop. I knew that his time is limited, and so I wanted to go into our meeting with organized thoughts. I didn't want my emotions to rule the conversation, and then get nothing resolved. I sat down and created a giant flowchart of my thoughts and feelings. It was...very large. It helped me a lot. In the end, it boiled down to this question, "What is expected of me now? What is my role?"

My bishop was not very understanding at first. He looked at my spreadsheet but, for the second time, I felt like I was being scolded for asking questions. This is deeply against my personal values. I am not in this church because of coercion or being a lemming. I very deeply value asking questions and having my answers taken seriously, even if I don't always get straightforward answers from leaders. I know for sure, without any doubt, that the only one who can give perfect answers to my questions is God.

By the way, I spent a lot of time fasting and praying about this, too. I was also reading my scriptures in depth.

So yeah, my bishop was not very happy with my attitude. He was frustrated. He did listen to me, though. Bishop Pack and I have the same kind of outgoing, trying to please others personality. To see him so visibly upset about my attitude, to see him worry about my faith - which, to me, was not really the issue at hand - this probably was an important part to what happened next.

While reading my scriptures, I stumbled across the Old Testament story of Naaman. To sum up this story, basically there was this powerful leader named Naaman who got sick with leprosy. He believed the prophet Elisha could heal him by the power of God. He tried to ask Elisha what to do, but Elisha sends a letter telling him to go bathe in the river Jordan seven times. Naaman is super pissed off at the way Elisha tells him - how dare he not even come outside to meet him, how dare he send a letter, isn't this disrespectful! Naaman almost refuses to follow this counsel, but one of Naaman's servants convinces him to just try it anyway. So he does and is healed.

The point of the story for me was that the way the revelation is disseminated may have been really distasteful (mostly, I feel like it is a reflection on a broad level sexism that exists in my culture that is not specific to just my church), but that does not invalidate the revelation itself. That was the exact message I needed to hear at the time.

My bishop had scheduled to talk with me again, and when we did, I explained to him what I had learned. I still didn't really understand some things about this change. I was mostly concerned about the real, practical implications for me. I wanted to know what was expected of me. In this second meeting, we talked a bit more about what I was to do. Basically, "wait for the ward council to develop the plan." We were to follow pattern #2, the one without a designated "Ward Temple and Family History Leader." I was also given the explicit assignment to be the "leader" of the Ward Temple and Family History Consultants. Bishop had talked about it with President Morales, and they were both united on that.

So, yeah. I was the "leader" but still, without a voice on the ward council, what could I do? I was to implement a non-existent plan.

Danny had been worried sick about me, my faith, and my feelings. He tried very hard to be supportive, but it was not easy for him to understand all the emotions going around in my mind and heart. A lot of them were deeply bitter and cynical, but I think not exactly in the way that Danny thought. I still held a lot of doubt about whether or not my calling could be from God, even though I had already had a powerful lesson about callings with my other super weird teacher-teacher calling. Finally, one day I just explained to him the feelings of my heart. I explained through tears that I felt that I had done as much as I felt I could do, and I felt like the lesson that I had learned was that God is in charge of my calling, even though I didn't really get it. I felt like my lesson had been to admit that all my plans to be the best consultant ever, to just light a fire under my ward and have us all become super enthusiastic and effective at family history, that my desire to do things my way - all those things were not really the right way to approach this problem. I told Danny that I felt like I'd learned it, and now that I'd learned it, I was waiting to be released, since apparently I was good for nothing, useless, and ineffective in this calling.

The next day, I was asked to meet for an interview with a member of the Stake Presidency, and oh, yeah, you can bring your husband with you.

Those are code words for you are going to get a stake level calling.

Well, sort of. I was actually worried about it. I had given my spreadsheet to Bishop Pack. Maybe the Stake Presidency wanted to talk about it with me, too. But I was over those feelings. I didn't really want to rehash them again.

I figured that it was most likely a calling, though. I thought about it. Stake level callings for women are about a 60% possibility of being in some kind of presidency, a 30% possibility of being in something obscure like a Self Reliance Group Facilitator, and then there's always the 10% chance of something else unexpected. The interview was going to be a week later. I had to wait.

It was a really, really long week.

Danny and I went to the interview. President Helton asked if I was serving in any callings. I said I was a Ward Temple and Family History Consultant. He looked so visibly relieved after I said that. He told me that they would like to extend the call to me to serve as a Stake Temple and Family History Consultant "chair." I thought, "Hmm...I think that's...not a thing." I looked at him, puzzled. He said, "The Family History Center Director. Brother and Sister Newman are moving to Mississippi, and we want you to replace her."

Well, of course I said yes. It would be another two weeks until I'd be officially called (the calling announced in church) and set apart (given a priesthood blessing by the laying on of hands with specific direction and guidance for the calling. This is done for every calling in the church, from Prophet to nursery worker).

The line of authority goes like this:

Stake Temple and Family History Consultant
High Counselor over Temple and Family History
Stake Presidency

This means that suddenly, I will have the power to do stuff.

That day, I tried really hard to find out what the heck a Stake Temple and Family History Consultant "Chair" does. I quickly found out that the real name is simply: "Stake Temple and Family History Consultant" but that I also have an additional "title" in the church's online system (which is a headache) and that is "Stake Temple and Family History Consultant - Family History Center."

To me, this is a little bit of an inside joke. I feel like the words and phrases used in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hahaha) keep getting increasingly multi-syllabic. I never expected to have a longer calling title than Sunday School Teacher - Teacher Council Facilitator. Well. I was wrong. Makes me wonder what my next calling will have to be to beat it...hahaha.

President Helton told me they still hadn't called the new High Counselor, and they were all going to be reassigned duties, so he didn't know yet who would be over Temple and Family History. He told me to just wait until I was set apart and then I'd find out soon thereafter.

I called Sister Newman, who is a dear friend of mine. My first round of being a family history consultant, I would go to the center every week. I met some really great people there, including a patron who was not a member (about half of them are not) who was looking for his Czech ancestors. I helped him find his village of origin, and later he was able to visit it. We are still friends, and he and his wife are great people. Anyway. Sister Newman is also a great person. I really love her, and will miss her. I talked with her at length about my role as a Stake Temple and Family History Consultant. We arranged to meet yesterday evening after I was set apart.

I discovered from Sister Newman that the Des Moines - Mt. Pisgah Stake does not have its own Family History Center. They use ours. So I invited their Stake Temple and Family History Consultant to come to our meeting. The center is about a 25 minute drive from my house.

I was set apart. My bishop was thrilled to see me. Honestly, I think I was a little bit awkward. I am often awkward. I try but sometimes I don't know another way to be that is also genuine, and genuineness always wins out for me, I guess. Brother Cox and Bishop Pack laid their hands on my head and set me apart. Brother Cox gave the blessing, and it was really good. I wrote it down later. I asked bishop if he knew how my name came up. He said he didn't really. Neither had President Helton. The blessing promised me I would learn that information.

On my way to the meeting, I got a call from Brother Billings. He is the high counselor over Temple and Family History. I invited him to come to our meeting, and he did.

The meeting was the best meeting I have ever had with anyone in the church.

Ever.

We were all exactly on the same page. Sister Rich, Sister Newman, and Brother Billings are highly competent people. We discussed our plan moving forward. Brother Billings had some advice from the Area Authority over Temple and Family History, which is one level up from the Stake. They told him that, essentially, his job is to motivate the Ward Temple and Family History Leaders, counselors in the EQ Presidency, counselors in the RS Presidency (who also attend the Ward Temple and Family History Coordination Meetings), EQ and RS Presidents, and bishops/branch presidents, while my role is to be the toolbox. Give them the tools they need.

The fact is, the church is moving away from a top-down approach to a lot of things, including Temple and Family History. It is supposed to be a ward level approach, with the importance and emphasis on the individual rather than on numbers and programs. Here's the updated guidelines to what Handbook 2 has to say about my role:

If the stake has a family history center, these leaders assign consultants to serve as staff members there as requested by the stake temple and family history consultant.

The stake presidency may assign one or more high councilors to train the ward temple and family history leader (if called; see 5.4.1) and members of the elders quorum and Relief Society presidencies who lead temple and family history work. As needed, these high councilors also coordinate the stake’s efforts in FamilySearch indexing and at family history centers. They may be assisted by a stake temple and family history consultant.


Family History Centers

Some stakes have family history centers, which exist primarily to help Church members identify their ancestral family members and provide temple ordinances for them. Community patrons are also welcome to use the resources at family history centers.

These centers provide access to the Church’s microfilmed family history records, to family history computer and Internet resources such as FamilySearch, and to training on how to do family history work.

Basically, there's really just one job that I have: "help assist the high councilor/stake presidency." That is a big, big change from how things were in the past, when there weren't even ward-level consultants.

The promise is that as we implement these changes, the Lord will hasten his work on both sides of the veil and we will be blessed in the process. I know that's true.

I asked Brother Billings if he knew how they had decided to call me to this calling. He said that yes, my bishop had recommended me. As he had been thinking and praying about it, my name was strongly and obviously the right one. He knew it must be inspired because the feelings he had were strong, and we have never met before. He didn't even know what I look like. I am not the obvious choice for this calling because I live far away and have 5 children ages 1-10 - actually, those things make me a very bad choice for this calling. Sister Rich suggested that maybe they should call two people to take on the role of running the center, since that is a really big role and the other role of helping train the consultants is deeply necessary and takes all her time. I learned in the meeting that she is actually not in charge of the center, though she has been helping to step up because Sister Newman was unable to do some things since her father had been dying and she had been taking care of him.

But no, the key belongs to me. Literally. I have the key, all the passwords, and I am now the sys admin of a very small computer lab in Des Moines that is dedicated to the most important work that exists on the earth today. 

They also decided to not release me as a Ward Temple and Family History Consultant. Between the time when I was issued my Stake Temple and Family History Consultant calling and was actually set apart, my ward had another one of these Family History "meetups" at the Clawson's house. Sister Clawson is the Relief Society Counselor over Temple and Family History, and Brother Clawson is the Elder's Quorum Counselor over Temple and Family History, so that simplifies things.

There were about 20 people there, and it was extremely successful. Everybody was engaged. Everybody had someone to help someone else. Multiple people had life-changing experiences. People found their ancestors. I talked at length with Brother Clawson about the Ward Temple and Family History Plan. He is a computer programmer, and we get along really well. He knows how to get things done and work with people. He's also been a bishop before, so he understands how some of these stupid bureaucratic things work. He is attending the Ward Council and getting them to create the plan (really, more like, approve the plan that he and I created and that he pared down to be 2 or 3 lines). He and his wife are a real joy to work with in the ward. 

The clear message to me in all this is that I can be successful at my calling. God wants me to be. I need to continue to rely on him, because his hand is right there, in the very small details of my life. The timing of all these things is too good to be a coincidence. I suppose a cynic would disagree, but I think that'd mostly be because you haven't walked in my shoes or experienced it firsthand. Brother Billings, who is a practical, businesslike, efficient Middle School Principal, telling me, "Yeah, I just got this really strong feeling like I needed to call you right now, but I was saying to myself, 'no, no, she was only just called today...' But I'm so glad I did, so that I could attend this meeting!"

If things hadn't lined up the way they had, I would not have had as strong/firm an understanding of God's hand in the importance of the changes in this work. I guess I needed to live the contrast a little bit in order to understand the new changes. I was looking at it the wrong way: the Ward Temple and Family History Leader does not replace the Ward Temple and Family History Consultant - Lead, but the High Priest Group Leader. Organizing the ward in the new way means that the consultants, who are usually kind of quirky, reserved, or otherwise weird - not the best people people - will get to focus on implementing the plan, and not creating/cheer-leading it, too. Giving the ward council the responsibility to create the plan and giving the priesthood leaders clear roles in implementing it really is inspired. It will work better. God knows better than me how to lead this church, and my job is to do my absolute best to try to follow.

I am VERY happy about this new calling, about the people I work with, and about the future of Temple and Family History in both my ward and the church as a whole. This is likely to be one of the most influential callings over the most people that I will ever have in my entire life.

It feels like God is telling me that I did a good job learning what I was supposed to learn, and that he trusts me to help with his work. There is not much else that can compare to that feeling, except the additional sweet feeling that he cares about the small details that are just sometimes too hard to explain to others. The things that are too long to write about or discuss, or for which I struggle to assign words. It matters a lot to me that my God knows me, and cares enough about me to make that known. I feel doubtful that this message will have any kind of the deep and personal meaning to anybody reading this that it does to me, and that makes me feel a little bit frustrated. I wish I could explain my heart better. I know there will be typos, too...earugh...

I was able to bear my testimony to these three people in this meeting. It was one of the most genuine testimonies I have every born in my life. I'll echo it a little bit here: I know that Jesus Christ leads the church, that my calling is inspired from God, and that God knows me and loves me. This is the best feeling there is.

A Letter of Forgiveness to My Culture

Why I am writing this:

Holding on to these nasty negative feelings about my culture is not good for me. Nobody wins a prize for being a martyr. I will feel better if I let go of my anger and turn it over to the Lord. This is the point of my religion.

I'm not going to let go of my desire to fix the world and make it a better place for my children, but I do not think the vitriol, hatred, disgust, or loathing are helpful. I don't need to be a bitter man-hating woman to improve the world.

I will have to revisit this later when my feelings have deepened and matured. Right now I don't have a lot of nice things to say, so it has to be short.

****

Dear Culture of Mine,

You know we've had a rocky relationship. Even now I find it intensely difficult not to write snide and insulting things about you. When I think more deeply about it, I realize that most of the things that are difficult for me to understand and appreciate about you are not your fault, they are caused from the fact that this is a fallen world outside the presence of God. Aren't all your other brother and sister cultures equally flawed, then? Why should I especially hate you more?

I shouldn't.

There are some things about you that I prefer to any other culture around. But this isn't a list of your pros and cons, it's an offering of forgiveness, and a clumsy one at that. It would not go over so well to a human.

Here goes.

I forgive you for objectifying me and the women (and also the men!) around me. I will never agree with it, but I know that I simply don't need to hold onto this feeling anymore. I can take my anger and observations and place them on an altar of sacrifice for somebody much more qualified to deal with.

I forgive you for the pain and suffering you've specifically caused in my family and also generally caused all around me.

I don't understand you perfectly, but I know God does. I have faith that God is powerful enough to fix massively broken things and make them perfectly right. I also have faith that God cares about all the things I care about, and I care deeply and intensely about making you right. I care about fixing you, but I definitely cannot do that alone, nor can I be as effective as I might if I were not burdened down with these intense feelings of malice towards you.

I am not actually sure if this letter will "count" as forgiveness. Or count "enough." I am not sure if going through the motions of saying you forgive someone or something for a deep wound or wrongdoing they have inflicted upon you is enough. I haven't had a lot of experience with dealing with the forgiveness side of the repentance coin; I know repentance works, and that the motions matter. But to forgive feels hard because I am very hesitant to "give up" my intense emotions about a cause and conviction which I know are right.

The thing is, I don't have to give up my willingness and desire to cling to my ideals and strive to improve you moving forward. This forgiveness is also not going to suddenly give you free reign to do whatever you want to me; I'll continue to maintain a healthy distance from you, but I will also no longer have to carry the hatred in my heart.

From time to time, I will have to come back and reread these words, reconvincing myself that they are true.

I know that Heavenly Father has the power to forgive, and also the power to help me forgive. I'm pleading for him to give me some of this power. I think it is my right to claim it as his daughter. It is a promise he gives to all his children everywhere, through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Not only can we be forgiven every time that we repent, but we can also have the capacity to forgive others even when they don't. The wrongs will be made right somehow. I don't know how, but I have faith that it works. I cling to that faith.

Culture, it seems you'll never repent, and I'll have to live with that fact for a long, looong time yet.

I forgive you anyway.

Sincerely,
Kate

Thoughts about Religion 2019

A couple of thoughts about religion that I've realized this year:

People very often don't understand what they actually profess to believe. It's common for people to claim to believe the Bible but not have a clue about things like John the Beloved still being somewhere on the earth today, the idea of the laying on of hands, the concept of the holy ghost, the fact that their marriage vow literally says "till death do we part," the importance of keeping the spirit of the law of chastity (don't even lust after a non-spouse in your heart), keep the sabbath day holy, Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament, etc.

I like how Catholicism is reverent about Jesus Christ. If we really consider Jesus to be the God of the universe, the almighty savior of this and other worlds, then it seems incongruous to plaster his name on a parade float in place of an animal in a crude vernacular slogan, or to place his name in a stupid joke. Devout Catholics understand this idea. They are reverent about Jesus Christ's name. Some kinds of evangelical Christians consider the biblical injunction to take upon yourself the name of Christ to mean say it as often as possible, and to put it on as much stuff as possible. I don't understand how it's possible for this to not conflict with the third of the ten commandments: don't take the Lord's name in vain. See first point.

People can like the stories in the Bible and use them in their art without believing they are true, or all true. See point about not understanding what they profess to believe. If you think the stories of Jesus are a series of nice, happy, inspiring tales but they aren't true, then... How is it nice, happy, or inspiring that he was a liar and a con artist? It doesn't make any kind of sense. If you revere the apostles in your art but you don't know who they are or what they did, is your art even about them or about your desire to conform to a set of ideals or values that are external to your own? Aren't you a sell out?

I always used to approach my religious education from a perspective of, "My ancestors used to know more about the scriptures than I do." While in general, society might used to have known more about it in the past, I think it's likely I know my scriptures better than a large percentage of my ancestors. The Bible as I know it hasn't existed in English for that long. My ancestors haven't always owned it. If they owned it, they didn't always read it. If they read it, they didn't always study it or think about it in as great depth as I have. If they studied it, they still might not have understood it. It is a huge blessing to have modern tools to help us read and understand the scriptures. I know my scriptures. I love them. Sincerely.

I believe in limited agency. I believe that God has an intimate hand in guiding our lives. I believe we have less control over the circumstances and situations we find ourselves in than we tend to think. I believe the test is, "what is the honest desire of your heart in this situation?" and not, "what will you do in this situation?" What you do is a reflection of what you desire, but they aren't always connected. I believe that God is capable of an incomprehensible level of interference in our lives. He doesn't force our agency, but that agency is a function of the sincere, innermost desires of our hearts, not the results of our choices.

And that's all for today's edition of Thoughts in the Middle of the Night. See us again next week...

What is the spirituality of a ruthless, cynical man?

I think this is an interesting question tied firmly to, "what is spirituality?" It seems to also encapsulate the idea of, "Do temporally-minded people have spirituality, and if so, where is it?" 

To answer this question, we have to ask a different one. 

"What is a spirit?"

I believe that a human soul, a human entity, a basic unit of humanness, is comprised of both a body connected to a spirit. Our body is important, but it is not really everything that we "are." There's another dimension of "self" beyond just the (seemingly) random body parts, skin, flesh, bones, etc. 

I say "beyond" but I do not really mean that it is not measurable, knowable, empirical - it just isn't yet. I firmly believe that our spirits have some kind of physical substance, some kind of matter that really does exist somewhere. It is not observable with my physical eyes right now, but that is not evidence of its lack of existence. I think there is abundant evidence of my spirit's existence: my thoughts, feelings, beliefs, mind, intelligence, gender (I just offended a bunch of people), choices, potential - everything that exists in some kind of unseen, but real, plane. My identity.  

I believe we are spirit sons and daughters of God. We were born of heavenly parents a very long time ago. We made choices before we came to earth. One of those choices was to come to earth and get a "tabernacle of clay." A body - a perishable, changeable, often frustrating place for our spirit to live. For some reason, while in this body, we pass beyond a "veil." We are not able to see/understand/speak with our spirit directly. Something about that fact makes it a. a lot easier to change and b. necessary to walk by faith. 

A ruthless, cynical, selfish man who cares only for himself and his immediate, temporary physical well-being might lack faith, or connection/understanding/willingness to learn/etc. about his spirituality. But he does not lack spirituality because he does not lack a spirit. He has one. If he were truly honest with himself, he would be able to recognize and admit that he has had spiritual experiences. A spiritual experience would be something that relates to the non-physical parts of one's self, beyond the material, tangible world. It might be difficult to admit or recognize these experiences for what they are, especially if you've never been taught to recognize your spirit. But that doesn't mean it's not real. 

The religious phrase I would use to describe a spirit is my "divine nature." It is the piece of ourselves which we inherited from God. We have two sets of parents: our earthly parents, who gave us our bodies, but also our heavenly parents, who gave us our spirit. We inherit our spirit from them. It is the divinity within; it drives a desire to be better than animals and more like God.

Without a set of religious vocabulary to describe these ideas, using only secular words, I would describe my spirit as "my heart and my mind." It isn't just my heart, though for me personally, my spirituality is most often tied to feelings. But it is also impressions and thoughts, and choices in what I believe. 

Someday, we will probably be allowed to see "where" exactly - like on what plane - the spirit resides. We probably get closer to that reality as science progresses and we study the brain, DNA, psychology, synapses, etc. I do not think that they are wholly unconnected entities. I know our bodies must have been extraordinarily important for our spiritual progression, because otherwise why would we agree to subject ourselves to the pain and misery of living in one? There must have been some powerful reasons for choosing this life. 

After we die, our spirit will depart from our body for a time. Someday, all of us, regardless of what kind of life we led, will be reunited with a perfect version of our body. Personally, I do not believe that when we are resurrected, the individual particles of our bodies all somehow magically morph together to recreate ourselves out of the exact same molecules and atoms. I don't really see how that is possible, though the basic fact is that just one single human cell contains all the blueprints to our entire body - its DNA.

If we knew the details about the physical nature of our spirits, this earth experience would not be a test. It would not be about whether or not we choose to be and do good with our lives, regardless of our circumstances. Instead of measuring our willingness to follow God, it would measure our intelligence and critical thinking skills. Apparently that was not the test that we needed in order to determine our divine destiny. 

Because part of me is a spirit, God can talk to my spirit. Otherwise, he would have to talk to my body, or not at all. If he talked to my body, if I saw God with my physical eyes, it would no longer be a test. Rather, I would most likely lose some (or most) of my agency. 

Some people, for some reason, see/converse with heavenly beings/God with their physical body. I do not expect that will ever happen to me. I have had experiences where a strong impression in specific words came to me from outside of myself, though. I imagine most people have, but I could be wrong about this.

Somewhere within or beneath the layers of cynicism and animalistic depravity of this hypothetical man is his unique divine worth, his potential to become something better, his innate agency aka his ability to choose. Perhaps he is willfully choosing to close his "spiritual eye." But he still has the potential to open it and allow God to touch and change him. Nobody is so far gone that he is cut off from access to the ability to change and become better.

That is the entire purpose of Jesus Christ's atonement: to allow for all of us ruthless and cynical men and women to change and become someone better.  

Why I believe

My sister called me a skeptic.

My first reaction was to try to define what "skeptic" means - it's one of those seemingly innumerable groups of Greek men sitting around in togas philosophizing all day. There's hypocrites, hedonists, sophists, gnostics (?) - and a whole host of other ists and ics. I obviously know what "skeptical" means in the vernacular, but I am pretty sure there's a nuance to its etymology that I forgot somewhere along the line between eighth grade history class and bearing my fifth child last year.

Who are we kidding. I'm a woman so I wouldn't belong to any of those ists and ics. I'd be an oppressed, childbearing, food-cooking, floor-scrubbing, brainless object of sexual desire, at least according to some sources.

"I don't think I'm a skeptic!" [hahahahaha]

"You're a skeptic except when it comes to things that have to do with the church. Then you just accept what they say."

"Huh?"

Mmmkay. Sounds like you're saying I'm an oppressed, childbearing, food-cooking, floor-scrubbing, brainless object of sexual desire who is also a lemming.

"If you want to know about what I believe, I write about it all the time on my blog, you know."

"I don't read blogs."

"Well...too bad, then."

"I guess...I guess you've always been a little bit more interested in scientific, rational explanations for things."

The conversation shifted and suddenly we were talking about other things.

It is true that I really like to analyze things - or rather, more precisely, I have to analyze them. There's not really an alternative way for me to be. If I am awake, I'm thinking. If I'm actively thinking, I'm analyzing.

Maybe I should just listen to music all the time to give my brain a break from thinking?

Deep down inside, my most core value is knowledge. I really want to know everything that is both knowable and worth knowing. My reserves of curiosity run deep, and basically extend to every single piece of my brain and body. It's important that what I spend time and energy learning is worth knowing, though. It is important to me that the knowledge I seek is not a waste of my time. I want to be a good person. I want to do good things. I want to know everything knowable that could be used to both become and do better. In my opinion, there's so much good in the world that I need to discover and learn, it doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense for me to spend a second on discovering and learning evil.

I think that it's likely that most "good" things in the world that are knowable are not (at least on a superficial level - though definitely not on a deeper level) spiritual in nature. It seems like there are a lot more books out there in the libraries of the world that are just longing to be read that are not explicitly about religion, is what I am saying. Actually, I think that it would be decidedly bad for me to spend all my discretionary time immersed in just one single category of learning. "The world is so full of a number of things, I'm sure we should all be as busy as kings," to misquote Robert Louis Stevenson. Also, I somewhat ascribe to the philosophy of, "all extremes are bad - except this one." This means that I see the world as a massive, expansive Sahara-desert sandbox that's all for me to just play in! I love it!

Maybe on some level I am actually more of a hedonist than a skeptic. I really love having fun. It's just that to me, there's nothing more fun than learning about the world and the people in it. I guess it's lucky (or providential?) that my definition of fun is intrinsically linked to such a good, virtuous activity, otherwise I'd probably not be as happy. I just don't think the well-trodden roads in Funville lead anywhere, or at least anywhere worth going. I haven't spent a lot of time trying out typical Funville activities like sleeping around, drinking, doing drugs, etc. so I guess my personal epistemology necessarily includes a deep, implicit trust in words and ideas of other people who have already warned me against such acts. Those "fun" things are dead end roads, and acknowledged as such in plentiful trustworthy sources both religious and secular. It's a total waste of my time to even try to see if I'm the exception that makes the rule. I value my time.

When, not if, my church leaders tell me something that doesn't immediately feel right to me my first reaction is to question it. My second reaction is to question my questions. "What do I really want?" "Why do I feel this way?" "What are reasons why x might be this way?" "Why is it important to me to know x?" "What if I don't get an answer? What then?" "Why do I think x means y?" "Is it possible that I am wrong?" "Is my problem with x or is it with how we are talking about x?" "If people make mistakes, how should I react?" "How am I supposed to deal with x?"

I strongly believe that I should doubt my doubts before I doubt my faith. I also feel like I am in a constant state of doubt. Having faith does not at all mean that I have all (or even most) answers, it just means that I believe I have the best answers available to me now.

Religious belief is like any other opinion in that, by definition, you believe it to be true. I think it is very human to want others to try to believe similarly to you because it is a way of affirming that you are right. Everybody wants to be right. It feels good!

Am I loved for who I am or for who I can become? I have a deep desire to become a good person, with become being a key word. I know from experience that I am in a constant state of change. I am never fixed in one place on some fictional "goodness" scale. If I do nothing, I immediately plummet into laziness and hedonism, which I think is bad. If I work with all my might to always try to be better, I can attain a kind of state where I am almost, but never quite, satisfied with who I am. I can still see so many of my flaws, even if you can't (though you probably can, and you may even see ones I don't).

One of my most deeply held core beliefs is that redemption is real. I don't know exactly where this belief comes from. It was certainly taught to me as a young person at church, but I think it might also just be something inherent about myself that I can trust that redemption exists. Redemption means healing of the soul.

Here is a story from the Book of Mormon that seems relevant here. (See Alma 15).

5 And it came to pass that they went immediately, obeying the message which he had sent unto them; and they went in unto the house unto Zeezrom; and they found him upon his bed, sick, being very low with a burning fever; and his mind also was exceedingly sore because of his iniquities; and when he saw them he stretched forth his hand, and besought them that they would heal him.

6 And it came to pass that Alma said unto him, taking him by the hand: Believest thou in the power of Christ unto salvation?

7 And he answered and said: Yea, I believe all the words that thou hast taught.

8 And Alma said: If thou believest in the redemption of Christ thou canst be healed.

9 And he said: Yea, I believe according to thy words.

10 And then Alma cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord our God, have mercy on this man, and heal him according to his faith which is in Christ.

If I were Zeezrom, would I be a skeptic in this situation? Would I doubt my ability to have enough faith to be healed?

I don't know.

Would I trust that Jesus, who I'd never seen with my own eyes, is real?

Yes.

I really don't know exactly where my faith in Jesus Christ comes from. I simply trust that he is real because it feels right and it makes sense to me that humankind would need a means by which redemption would be possible. Anything other than the sacrifice of an all-knowing, all-powerful God would not be good enough. I am not good enough, but I am worth saving. This feels right and it makes sense. What would be the point of any of this otherwise?

I guess what I'm trying to say to my sister is that I am a person who really longs for true answers to my questions, so in that way I could be a skeptic. I try to seek answers in a huge range of quality secular and spiritual sources, and I almost never feel satisfied that I have a perfect understanding, so in that way I am also like a skeptic. It's a long, protracted struggle, this journey of trying to decide which questions to ask, where to seek truth, and what to do with it when I find it.

Walking by faith is not the act of seeking and finding answers, though. That's just the nature of humanity in general - everybody in this human experience is struggling to make sense of it in the way they best know how. Walking by faith is the act of moving forward in action in spite of doubts. It means putting aside the restless craving for answers and instead turning outward to try to be a positive influence on the world. It means paying attention to deep personal feelings that you previously had in your most sincere moments of spiritual searching, and holding on to them even when they are distant. You walk by faith when you keep your covenants, when you are honest with yourself, when you choose the right even when you don't know why. You walk by faith by believing and trusting that redemption is real.

Both my doubts and my faith in redemption come from my humanity, as does my potential and desire to become better. Walk with me on this road! I would love that.

Why was it important for Nephi to talk to the Spirit "as a man speaketh" in 1 Nephi 11:11? Is it possible for me to speak to him this way, and if so, how?

Why was it important for Nephi to talk to the Spirit "as a man speaketh" in 1 Nephi 11:11? Is it possible for me to speak to him this way, and if so, how?

It was important for Nephi to learn something about the nature of God. I think it might have been a surprise for him to learn that the godhead his made of three separate personages.

It's definitely possible for me to "cry unto God with my heart." (see Hosea 7:14) This is called prayer.

It's definitely possible for God to speak to me. I don't feel very confident that he will speak to me in this exact way, "as a man speaketh." I think that would be incredible, but it's very probably not going to happen.

I take a lot of comfort in the words of Alma, where he talks about people (like me) whose witness of God comes from the scriptures rather than from miraculous visitations and visions. He says they are blessed for humbling themselves because of the word. He says they are blessed for believing in the word of God by faith and not by knowledge. I like that scripture a lot. It makes sense to me.

How do you prevent yourself from heeding the pride of the world referred to in 1 Nephi 8:34?

How do you prevent yourself from heeding the pride of the world referred to in 1 Nephi 8:34?

Nephi is seeing the vision of the tree of life. In it there is a big group of people in a great and spacious building who are mocking the people who are holding onto the rod that leads to the tree of life.

The fruit of the tree of life is the love of God.

The iron rod leading to the tree is the word of God.

The great and spacious building and the people in it represent the pride of the world.

"As many as heeded [the multitude in the great and spacious building] had fallen away."

So the question is, how to prevent yourself from doing that. The first non-corpus linguistics questions so far, by the way. A personal question.

I asked my husband and kids at breakfast what they thought. They had these ideas:
- focus on holding onto the rod, i.e. reading your scriptures and saying your prayers
- don't worry about what other people think of you

How do you just not worry?

It is kind of like when Danny went on his mission. I remember I was sobbing huge crocodile tears of sadness. I called Danny's dad and talked to him on the phone. "What am I going to do?" His dad said, somewhat coldly, "well...suck it up!"

I wrote that on an index card. Because I'm a dork. It became a bookmark in my scriptures.

Actually, that advice, as cold as it sounds, was great. Suck it up.

Something that significantly helps me to care less about what other people think is to consistently read the scriptures. The scriptures are totally full of the message that every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus is the Christ. They testify that God loves his children. They testify that we are important to him. They testify of justice and mercy. They testify of the ability for us to repent when we screw up. They are a very strong source of positive motivation to keep living righteously and to keep the covenants I've made. I really value them, very deeply. There's no coincidence that the iron rod is a representation of the word of God. It is steadfast, sure, unwavering. 

What does it mean by the virgin was "extremely fair and white" in 1 Nephi 11:13?

What does it mean by the virgin was "extremely fair and white" in 1 Nephi 11:13?

In Czech, the word they use is "bělostná" which apparently means snow-white, lily-white, pure white, alabaster.

Going from the Czech meaning, I think it's pretty obvious to say that Mary, the mother of God, was white more of a symbolic way than a literal way. I guess she could have been albino. Huh.

As Semites, neither Mary nor Jesus were probably very white-skinned, despite what millennia of western art might have you think. But then again, they didn't wear Renaissance-era clothing, either. I guess artists typically personalize their versions of Jesus. And I guess that makes sense, even though it's really annoying.

This is the kind of question which I have less than zero interest researching online. It is like, pure fodder for anti literature. I really like Hugh Nibley (and by the way, according to my brother, Nibley's interpretation of the word "white" in the Book of Mormon is that it has little to nothing to do with race or skin), but I'm not an apologist. I hate conflict. It is kind of...hard enough to write any of this at all.

I think in order to study this in any amount of satisfaction, I would want to search the scriptures - mostly the Book of Mormon - for instances of the use of the word "white." I would want to see how often they definitely refer to skin color or race, how often they refer to "the mark", how often they refer to something else.

But that does not sound like a particularly instructive, useful way to spend my time, and a really great way to invite critics of the Book of Mormon to do their thing.

I have no personal problem with believing or accepting that the Nephites might have been racist. I think racism is terrible. I don't want to be racist.

Answer:
Mary was definitely a really righteous woman who was foreordained to be the mother of Jesus Christ. It seems she may have had remarkably pale skin, but maybe that is just a reference to her personal purity. Basically, I don't know and I don't think it's super important.

Was Nephi actually physically present or was it a vision just in his mind in 1 Nephi 11:11?

Was Nephi actually physically present or was it a vision just in his mind in 1 Nephi 11:11?

He was "caught away in the Spirit of the Lord."

It seems to imply that he was literally in an exceedingly high mountain. But maybe that was just part of the vision.

He was not in his father's tent, as we learn in 1 Nephi 15:1.

Answer: I do not know. Maybe he was literally carried away. Maybe it was just in his mind. It could be either. I don't know from personal experience how visions work. They could work in a variety of ways. I guess it's not that important. 

Who are the covenant people of the Lamb referred to in 1 Nephi 14:14?

Who are the covenant people of the Lamb referred to in 1 Nephi 14:14?

"I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth;" 

Who are the covenant people of the Lamb?

Are they the saints of the church of the Lamb? 

The covenant people of the Lord (is the Lord here God the Father?) are definitely descendants of the House of Israel, including descendants of Lehi in the Americas as 2 Nephi 29:2 points out. I am pretty sure this is repeated over and over and over and over and over throughout the other books of scripture. It would be interesting to know how often the scriptures refer to the covenant people. 

The covenant is with "God" (see Mosiah 5:8 which to me seems to be a reference to God the Father). 

Answer: 

Yes and no. 

The covenant people are both those people who actively make covenants (i.e. saints of the church of the Lamb, like for example, yours truly!) and their descendants.

You know, I have often thought about what it means for there to be just one family that is called the "covenant people." It seems to me that if this is taken literally, at some point, this will include every single human being on the face of planet earth. At least, this is how I felt when I saw that my DNA test had "2% Eastern European Jewish" ancestry (before the recent big update which removed all trace of Jewish heritage for me). 

But I guess that is a deep hypothesis for another day.  

The scriptures seem to be pretty clear, though, that people who are members of the Lord's church are also "covenant people." When we make covenants with God, what else could we be?!

The question I think I was trying to ask, but didn't, is to what extent is it possible for people who are not members of the Lord's restored church to make covenants with him and follow him? I am not sure about that. I don't think we have a monopoly on striving to follow God. I do think my church is literally the only church on the earth today to have the correct authority from God to administer specific ordinances like baptism. Ordinances are covenants. So...

...so temple work is really important.

If Jesus Christ is the "Lord God" then was he raising himself up in 1 Nephi 10:4? Or does this imply that the "Lord God" is Heavenly Father?

If Jesus Christ is the "Lord God" then was he raising himself up in 1 Nephi 10:4? Or does this imply that the "Lord God" is Heavenly Father?

The next related question I have is who made the covenant with Lehi in 1 Nephi 13:30 that, "the land which is choice above all other lands...his seed should have for the land of their inheritance"? This is another reference to the "Lord God."

In the temple today, I learned that without any shadow of a doubt, the word "Lord" can refer to God the Father. So, yes, it is plausible that here "Lord God" could refer to God the Father.

1 Nephi 14:8 asks, "Rememberest thou the covenants of the Father unto the house of Israel?" This seems to imply that God the Father made the covenants with the house of Israel, therefore it's reasonable that God the Father could mean the "Lord God." 

1 Nephi 20:16 says, "Come ye near unto me; I have not spoken in secret; from the beginning, from the time that it was declared have I spoken; and the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Here Nephi is quoting Isaiah who is speaking Messianically, i.e. as if Jesus Christ is speaking. It seems pretty clear that Jesus Christ is referring to the other members of the godhead here, so the "Lord God" as Heavenly Father, and the Spirit as the Holy Ghost. 

2 Nephi 6:9 says, "Nevertheless, the Lord has shown unto me that they [those who were at Jerusalem] should return again. And he also has shown unto me that the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh; and after he should manifest himself they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel who spake it unto me." This is Jacob, Nephi's little brother, prophesying. It's very unambiguous here that the "Lord God" refers to Jesus Christ. 

Then there's these verses in 1 Nephi 21:22-23 which exactly the same as Isaiah 49:22-24, which both start, "Thus saith the Lord God:" and later it is clarified that it is talking about the LORD, so Jehovah. Jehovah is always, always Jesus Christ. At least as far as I understand. 

So these are just a handful of examples of how the words "Lord God" could mean either Jesus Christ or Heavenly Father or perhaps both. Agh!

I think the only way to get any kind of satisfactory answer about this is by gathering some data from searching the scriptures with a computer. I'm really glad I have this wordcruncher tool. I wish that I also had all of the standard works in one big, fat corpus so I could use other tools. But at least it allows me to do case-sensitive searches in word cruncher.

Search for 'Lord God'

Search for 'LORD'

Search for 'Lord' - not 'lord'

Perhaps cases of '. Lord' will really refer to lord and not Lord. Hmm.

There are probably other terms like Lord Omnipotent, Lord Almighty - I have not thought of all of them; maybe they are covered in 'Lord'.

There's also 'Lord ... God' - usually my/his/their/our etc.

It is going to take some work to try to figure out how to solve this problem. It is also going to require creating (i.e. getting my husband to create) a tool that exports the data into a spreadsheet. It is going to take some time.

So, to answer the question I was originally asking:

Probably in this particular verse "Lord God" refers to God the Father. Certainly the words "Lord God" elsewhere in the scriptures do refer to multiple members of the godhead. There are really only seven possibilities:

- God the Father
- Jesus Christ
- the Holy Ghost
- God the Father and Jesus Christ
- God the Father and the Holy Ghost
- Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost
- All of them at the same time

The eighth possibility is unsatisfactory, and that is that the reference is ambiguous. It's unsatisfactory because:
- Ambiguity = unknowable. God is not unknowable. He is also not ambiguous. He is real.
- My understanding of God should not be ambiguous!
- Is it the understanding of the writer that makes it ambiguous?
- Is it the language of whatever translation that makes it ambiguous?

The final question is this: does it matter? Does it matter which specific member of the godhead is acting, being referenced or described since they are all perfectly united in harmony of purpose - since they are all "one" in this way?

Whether or not it matters to you, it deeply matters to me. I think it matters a lot. I really, really, really, really want to know the actual nature of God.

I know this is not the only way to discover it. I know it is not a perfect way to discover it. I know it is not a complete way to discover it.

But it is a way.