I have been slowly reading Alma Don Sorensen and Valerie Hudson Cassler's book "Women in Eternity, Women of Zion" with my friend, Fara, this past year.  Slowly because it is dense and because with this book I am reading every scripture reference cited and every endnote and making notes in margins and crossing out and rewriting as I go.  Which means that it has taken me over a year so far.

I have one last chapter to go.  It is a well written and thoughtful book.  Some things I found enlightening and helpful. Other things seemed simply a good attempt at understanding that I felt fell short or missed the mark.  So if you decide to read this book, which I  recommend, I'd suggest that you read it not expecting it to be a be-all and end-all source of answers, but rather as a vehicle for carefully sorting through the authors' take on the subjects they tackle and adding to your understanding the ones that you find enlightening and helpful.  That gleaning process has been well worth the time for me.  Though I certainly have not agreed with every idea the authors put forward,  every chapter has left me with at least a few valuable gems of insight and most have left me with many.

In particular I would say that chapter 2 on gender equality in eternal life offers a compelling analysis of Doctrine and Covenants descriptions of celestial glory that I found well worth researching and mulling and that chapter 7 on monogamy and polygamy contains the most articulate analysis of Doctrine and Covenants section 132 that I have read to date.

On the below-mentioned comment thread Melodynew added her thoughts on teaching about priesthood as part of the youth Sunday school lessons this month.  I thought they were worth saving for future reference.  Here's my slightly enhanced version of what she wrote.

I taught these lessons last year to my 14 & 15 year-old Sunday school class consisting of both YM and YW. (Our stake was among those that piloted the program.) These are some of the points I brought into the discussion throughout the month.

1. The power of the priesthood is the power of God. The power of God is Love. The priesthood is God’s Love made manifest through human beings.

2. God and God's celestial glory can only exist as a man and woman righteously joined for eternity. So the power of God or priesthood power is by definition intrinsically connected to the celestial union of a man and woman. It comes from both, not just from men. It wouldn’t exist without God the Mother. (Jesus got his power from his parents in this model.)  Section 76:94-96 talks about that equality of power among celestial beings

3. Section 121 of D&C clearly articulates qualities that define appropriate use of priesthood or God’s power. All these qualities can easily be identified as “feminine” based on our current cultural/social model of what is masculine or feminine. (the YW loved this)

4. Men in this world are told that what it means to be a “man” is to be tough, strong, dominating, competitive. Priesthood power is none of these things. Jesus, the originator of our earthly version of priesthood power, showed us that in his life.

5. Many women possess qualities that help men learn what priesthood power should look like. (my feminist sisters might hate me for that, but this is when the girls started saying things like, “Yeah. Seriously.”)

6. We believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. We should all live worthy of bearing the priesthood of God and be prepared to do so.

A Couple of Quotes

It is not uncommon these days to run into discussions, in my small minority religion, about inequality of responsibility and callings for women.  And a very pertinent subset of that discussion revolves around the question of whether or not that perceived inequality, or "lower in the hierarchy" status is an eternal expectation.  Is the inequality that is part of the order now one that is an eternal principle or one that is temporary?

I have commented earlier about the past inequalities in priesthood responsibility among God's children and how God has inspired his leaders to change that at various times over the centuries, and so I have long held that the current allocation of callings and responsibilities is not an indication of eternal status.  And there are certainly parts of temple ordinances that also indicate that we should be prepared for change in that regard.

Steve, over at CommonConsent, shared a couple of quotes that were new to me on the subject that, if you are aware of the above mentioned discussions and, particularly  if you are a temple attending member of the church, shed further light on the discussion.  So I'm saving them here.  At least until my house is back together and my boxes of notebooks unpacked.

1.  Joseph F. Smith - "Some of you will understand when I tell you that some of these good women who have passed beyond have actually been anointed queens and priestesses unto God and unto their husbands, to continue their work and to be the mothers of spirits in the world to come. The world does not understand this--they cannot receive it--they do not know what it means, and it is sometimes hard for those who ought to be thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the gospel--even for some of us, to comprehend, but it is true."  (Gospel Doctrine, p. 461)

I should remind the reader to never assume that the earthly hierarchy that our telestial world ascribes to the relationship between kings and queens or priests and priestesses is the same as that in the celestial world where all are "joint-heirs with Christ".  It is almost always wrong to assume that earthly manifestations of an institution or organization or life are clear reproductions of the way heavenly ones are.

2. Melvin J. Ballard (Quorum of the Twelve) - "Whatever disappointments may come, still be true to Him and I promise you, in the name of the Lord, that if not in time, in eternity, you shall have like honors and glory and privilege.  If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God.  And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever."  (Conference Report, October, 1934, p. 121)

These two quotes are certainly not the be all and end all of the discussion.  But I think they are good additions to the position that what is now is not what will be.

Later...Brady added this comment and quote:

http://maxwellinstitiute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=58  Hugh W. Nibley, "The purpose of such ordinances is to bridge the space between the world in which we now live, the telestial world, and that to which we aspire, the celestial world.  Therefore, the events of the temple were thought to take place in the terrestrial sphere."    You are saying, what has this got to do with priesthood?  In the temple women participate and even officiate in sacred priesthood ordinances IE Name issue and initiatory.  One of the, in my humble opinion, the most beautiful and sacred blessings in this world.  Then maybe in spheres above this one...

When Things Don't Come Together As Planned

Our lease is ending where we've been staying and cannot be renewed.  Our damaged home, which the contractor has been saying for MONTHS will be "surely done by the end of this month", is far from ready for occupation.  I arranged for another short-term rental but now our insurance company says they are betting that it will be done in the next 4 weeks and wants us in a motel for the duration.  I wouldn't bet on it being done by then, given the track record.  But I might be wrong. But it is what it is and I've been packing boxes which will be all put in storage for however much longer the work takes and packing suitcases to live out of for the next month.  Tomorrow we hand the keys back to the landlord.

L. asked me how I avoid feeling frustrated and annoyed by the continual promises of work being done that is not yet done and will likely be delayed.  I've thought about that.  I think it's due to three things.

First it has to do with being consciously grateful.  For a job, for a place to stay, for a table to sit at, a bed to sleep in, enough food to eat, for construction workers with skills, for a book to read.  Gratitude refocuses my view to include not only the challenges but also the blessings.  That fosters peace within me.

Second, it has to do with the old scout adage "be prepared".  I realize that I tend to almost always prepare contingency plans.  I tend to think about what I will do if such and such happens, or what we should do if things don't happen as planned.  And then I lay the groundwork for that as I continue to work towards what I hope will happen.  It isn't a negative expression of distrust or pessimism.  It's just that I know life and work doesn't always come together the way we want it too, and it's good to have prepared, in your back pocket, a constructive response to that when it happens.  Because in spite of everyone's best efforts, sometimes you need that helpful contingency plan.  Sometimes you need a whole string of them.  It's just part of life.

Third, it has to do with keeping the current challenge in perspective.  That's related to gratitude, but it has more to do with priorities and brotherhood.  My hope for my house to be made habitable is real and good, but in the prioritized list of hopes I see in the lives of people around me it is not way up on the list.  I am aware of the very real other hopes that are being addressed in my community, hopes for healing from injury and illness, hopes for reuniting of hearts in families, hope for help for those dealing with abuse, hope for help cleaning and rebuilding after the recent tornadoes, hope for shelter and hope and light, hope for young people just starting out in life, hope for people dealing with the challenges that come as one approaches the end of it, the list goes on and on.  This awareness does two things.  It makes me put my own current need in perspective.  And it gets me to work on helping others and their hopes and needs while I wait for mine to be fulfilled, which in turn reduces my focus on and impatience about my own situation.

I think these three things are things I heard about doing when I was young.  It's kind of interesting to me to realize that as an old person, they've become just another part of how I approach life.  I guess teaching young people good things that they only understand in theory when they are young can bring about good change down the road.  For those teachers and relatives who taught me, I am grateful.

Responses to Life's Sunsets

There are many things in my life that I can do.  But there are also in life some things that I wish I'd been able to do, for which the time on earth is past, and that I cannot go back and do.  Some of them are simply opportunities that did not ever present themselves or that life's vicissitudes prevented.  Some of them are opportunities that I chose to ignore in order to do something else that was good.  Some of them are opportunities that I had but did not recognize or was not prepared to take. And some are opportunities that I should have taken but didn't due to my own well-meaning or mistaken or immature errors of judgment.

And when I recall those they each, of course, bring with them a sense of regret or disappointment, some greater, some smaller, but all sad.

So the sentence below from an old novel jumped out at me yesterday.  It describes the response of an older character, a woman of faith, who is watching someone younger, that she loves, choose an opportunity that she knows is past for her personally in this life.

"Then into the eyes of Julia...there came a vision as comes to one who watching the glorious setting of the sun sees not the regretful closing of the day that is past, but the golden promise of the day that is to come."

The novel itself was not that great, but that sentence will stay with me.

And I think it is a much wiser and healthier response to regrets than the often quoted stanza by John Greenleaf Whittier about "the sad words of tongue or pen".

Quote for the day

"At their root, most religious philosophies say do less harm, yes, but they also say do more good.  There is a limit to how much less harm I can do.  But my potential for good is unlimited.  All of our potentials for good are unlimited.
"The question becomes not whether we use resources but what we use them for.  Do we use them to improve lives?  Or do we waste them?  My life itself is a resource.  How shall I use it?"

~Colin Beavans, "No Impact Man", p. 205

How to Really Understand Someone Else's Point of View

From the Harvard Business Review, just for me to refer to as needed to help me listen better

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/04/how_to_really_understand_someo.html?cm_sp=blog_flyout-_-cs-_-how_to_really_understand_someo

by Mark Goulston and John Ullmen  |   9:00 AM April 22, 2013

How to Really Understand Someone Else's Point of View

The most influential people strive for genuine buy in and commitment — they don't rely on compliance techniques that only secure short-term persuasion. That was our conclusion after interviewing over 100 highly respected influences across many different industries and organizations for our recent book.

These high-impact influencers follow a pattern of four steps that all of us can put into action. In earlier pieces we covered Step 1: Go for great outcomes and Step 2: Listen past your blind spots. Later we'll cover Step 4: When you've done enough... do more. Here we cover Step 3: Engage others in "their there."

To understand why this step is so important, imagine that you're at one end of a shopping mall — say, the northeast corner, by a cafe. Next, imagine that a friend of yours is at the opposite end of the mall, next to a toy store. And imagine that you're telling that person how to get to where you are.

Now, picture yourself saying, "To get to where I am, start in the northeast corner by a cafe." That doesn't make sense, does it? Because that's where you are, not where the other person is.

Yet that's how we often try to convince others — on our terms, from our assumptions, and based on our experiences. We present our case from our point of view. There's a communication chasm between us and them, but we're acting as if they're already on our side of the gap.

Like in the shopping mall example, we make a mistake by starting with how we see things ("our here"). To help the other person move, we need to start with how they see things ("their there").

For real influence we need to go from our here to their there to engage others in three specific ways:

1. Situational Awareness: Show that You Get "It." Show that you understand the opportunities and challenges your conversational counterpart is facing. Offer ideas that work in the person's there. When you've grasped their reality in a way that rings true, you'll hear comments like "You really get it!" or "You actually understand what I'm dealing with here."
2. Personal Awareness: You Get "Them." Show that you understand his or her strengths, weaknesses, goals, hopes, priorities, needs, limitations, fears, and concerns. In addition, you demonstrate that you're willing to connect with them on a personal level. When you do this right, you'll hear people say things like "You really get me!" or "You actually understand where I'm coming from on this."
3. Solution Awareness: You Get Their Path to Progress. Show people a positive path that enables them to make progress on their own terms. Give them options and alternatives that empower them. Based on your understanding of their situation and what's at stake for them personally, offer possibilities for making things better — and help them think more clearly, feel better, and act smarter. When you succeed, you'll hear comments like, "That could really work!" or "I see how that would help me."

One of our favorite examples involves Mike Critelli, former CEO of the extraordinarily successful company, Pitney Bowes. Mike was one of the highly prestigious Good to Great CEOs featured in the seminal book by Jim Collins on how the most successful businesses achieve their results.

One of Mike's many strengths is the ability to engage his team on their terms to achieve high levels of performance and motivation. When we asked him about this, he said, "Very often what motivates people are the little gestures, and a leader needs to listen for those. It's about picking up on other things that are most meaningful to people."

For example, one employee had a passing conversation with Mike about the challenges of adopting a child, pointing out that Pitney Bowes had an inadequate adoption benefit. A few weeks after that, he and his wife received a letter from Mike congratulating them on their new child — along with a check for the amount of the new adoption benefit the company had just started offering.

When he retired, the Pitney Bowes employees put together a video in which they expressed their appreciation for his positive influence over the years. They all talk about ways that Mike "got" them — personal connections and actions that have accumulated over time into a reputation that attracted great people to the organization and motivated them to stay.

It's a moving set of testimonials, and it's telling about Critelli's ability to "get" people on their own terms — to go to their there — that they openly express their appreciation permanently captured on video for open public viewing.

Remember, they did this after he was no longer in power.

Like Mike Critelli does, when you practice all three of these ways of "getting" others — situational, personal, and solution-oriented — you understand who people are, what they're facing, and what they need in order to move forward. This is a powerful way to achieve great results while strengthening your relationships.

When you're trying to influence, don't start by trying to pull others into your here. Instead, go to their there by to asking yourself:

• Am I getting who this person is?
• Am I getting this person's situation?
• Am I offering options and alternatives that will help this person move forward?
• Does this person get that I get it?

More blog posts by Mark Goulston and John Ullmen

More on: Communication, Getting buy-in

MARK GOULSTON AND JOHN ULLMEN

Mark Goulston, M.D., F.A.P.A. is a business psychiatrist, executive consultant, keynote speaker and co-founder of Heartfelt Leadership. John Ullmen, Ph.D. oversees MotivationRules.com and teaches at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. They are co-authors of Real Influence: Persuade Without Pushing and Gain Without Giving In(Amacom, 2013).