Fighting back against the C.D.s

Once you are familiar with cognitive distortions and recognize them in your own thought patterns, there are a couple of different ways to work on helping your brain move from cognitive distortion patterns to cognitive accuracy patterns.  One of these is talking back to them.  This involves three things:
1) Training yourself to recognize them, which you're well on the way to have done just by reading about them.
2) Learn why those thoughts are distorted.  You've already done this too, probably.
3) Talk back to them.

So, let's say you suddenly realize you are late for a rendezvous with friends with whom you are making a two hour trip.  Your heart sinks and you are gripped with panic.  First, ask yourself "what thoughts are going through my head right now?  What am I saying to myself?  Why is this upsetting me?"  

You may find that you've been saying to yourself "I never do anything right", or "I'm always late", or "they'll leave without me think I and everything I stand for is irresponsible and stupid", or "I'm such a failure" or "I really should have my act together better.".  Can you tell which C.D.s those are?

(all-or-nothing, overgeneralization, fortune-telling, mind-reading, labeling, should statement)

Just as fast as these thoughts run through your mind your emotions plummet.  They, not the situation, are the reason for your misery.

So, you consciously replace them, one by one with cognitive accuracies.  I actually find it helpful to do this part out loud.

"No, actually, sometimes I do do things right.  Everyone is a mix, including me."
"No, sometimes I'm on time. It's just this time that I'm late."
"Actually, they might be kind and wait.  They might be late too.  They might choose to denigrate me or they might choose to treat this with charity.  I don't know what's in their minds or how they will respond.  But I do now that my responsibility is to apologize and be gracious and I can do that.
"One mistake does not equal total failure.  I am good at some things and not so good at others, but I am working at doing better and can continue to do so."
"'Should' will only make me beat myself up.  'I plan to do better next time' is a better way of approaching this and I do plan to watch the clock more carefully and I can tell them so and do so next time.

As you scurry out the door.

Some people who find their cognitive distortions extremely discouraging find it helpful to actually write down the cognitive distortions and their talk-back cognitive accuracies either in the moment or later in the day.  There's something about writing it down and reading and seeing it clearly that makes it harder for your brain to believe "this talk-back stuff will never work for me".   (jumping to conclusions)

Quick review

Quick review
The 10 cognitive distortions are
1. All or nothing thinking.  Everything's black or white.  One error means black.
2. Overgeneralization.  One negative means you can predict never-ending negatives.
3. Mental filter.  You pick out a single negative and dwell on it exclusively.
4. Disqualifying the positive. You reject positive experiences or comments because "they don't count".
5. Jumping to conclusions
                             a. mind reading. You assume someone is thinking negatively of you.
                             b. fortune telling.  You anticipate and expect things will go badly.
6. Magnification and Minimization.  You exaggerate the importance of goof-ups and mistakes and minimize the importance of the good things you do.
7. Emotional reasoning.  If I feel bad it must be bad.
8. Should statements. You try to motivate yourself with "shoulds", "musts" and "oughts" and the emotional consequence is guilt for yourself and frustration when you mentally use those words in connection with others.
9. Labeling and mislabeling. You attach negative labels to yourself and others.
10. Personalization.  You see yourself as the cause of an external negative event that you were actually not responsible for.

So, with that review, can you identify which cognitive distortions are in the following scenario?

You've been reading sections of "Teaching, No Greater Call" about classroom discipline and applying the principles in it to the Sunday school class you teach.  You've been doing it for several weeks and it seems to be making a difference.  Then, suddenly, things in the classroom take a turn for the worse as a couple of kids in your class start acting out and in three consecutive weeks you are back to where you started.  You feel bitter, disillusioned, hopeless and desperate due to thinking, "I'm not getting anywhere.  These methods won't help after all.  I should have things under control well by now.  That 'improvement' was a fluke.  I was fooling myself when I felt like things were going better, They really didn't.  I'll never be able to get these kids to pay attention."  Which of the following one or more cognitive distortions did you employ?

a) disqualifying the positive
b) should statement
c) all-or-nothing thinking
d) jumping to conclusions
e) emotional reasoning

scroll down




















answer:  all of them.  Did you find some of them?  Good!  You could probably add "personalization" to the list if in fact the two kids are acting out due to chaos at home beyond your control.

Can you see how our thoughts and responses to a situation can create our emotions?  And how distorted thoughts can mess up our emotions?

The goal, then, is to learn how to think thoughts based in reality, things as they really are, not in distortions of reality.  And that can be done.  The first step is to start identifying those distortions.  And you just did that.

The next step is to talk back truth to them when they pop up in your brain.

Recalling an Adage

Thinking about things...

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

Wise words

"Some things are more important than money.  And one of the things that is always more important than money is people."
~ E.  August 2012

"Magnifying" a calling

Thomas Monson's message in this month's Ensign is about serving in our church callings which he equates with loving and serving as Jesus did and taking responsibility instead of seeking to be comfortable.

That article and its sidebar, of course, use quotes that refer to "magnifying your calling".  I've sat in on classes where teacher and students have discussed what that word "magnify" means or doesn't mean in that context where they have had a bit of a struggle creating a definitive definition.

Today I found this:

Magnify:  late 14th century, "To speak or act for the glory or honor (of someone or something)," From O. French magnafier,  from Latin magnificare, "esteem greatly, extol", from magnificus, "splendid".  Meaning use of a telescope or microscope is first attested 1660s.

It is relevant to note that the King James Version of the Bible was finished in 1611.

So, perhaps, if one is called by the Lord  to do some work in his Kingdom, then to magnify one's calling mostly just has to do with acting in that calling in a way that honors the divine nature of that calling thereby speaking and acting for the glory or honor of the Lord; speaking and acting in ways that reflect his way of loving and serving and that help turn others hearts to honor him, not making that calling bigger or clearer or more visible or detailed as later definitions of the word came to mean.

That makes sense to me.

Florence Barclay

"To my thinking, offence has no possible place in a genuine friendship.  The one pained always forestalls offence by the realization of non-intention to wound on the part of the other."

~Florence Barclay, "The Broken Halo"

Galatea and Pygmalion

Étienne Maurice Falconet: Pygmalion & Galatee (1763) Hermitage Museum, photography by abakharev, April 2006 

(public domain)

I found this in a very old book yesterday:

"True happiness does not come from marrying an idol throned on a pedestal.  Before Galatea could wed Pygmalion she had to change from marble into glowing flesh and blood and step down from off her pedestal. Love should not make us blind to one another's faults.  It should only make us infinitely tender, and completely understanding...Men and women, who are human enough to marry, are human enough to be full of faults; and the best thing marriage provides is that each gets somebody who will love, forgive and understand."              
 ~Florence Barclay

Secular Liberals and Conservative Evangelicals: the root of their differences

Professor of Anthropology (Stanford) Tanya Luhrmann was interviewed about a book of hers that was recently published. You can find the resultant article here.

What struck me was her comment about her understanding of the root of the difference in political thinking between secular liberals and conservative evangelicals.  She said,

"Secular liberals want to create the social conditions that allow everyday people, behaving the way ordinary people behave, to have fewer bad outcomes. When evangelicals vote, they think more immediately about what kind of person they are trying to become—what humans could and should be, rather than who they are. From this perspective, the problem with government is that it steps in when people fall short."

One party wanting to change the effects of human beings' choices and the other wanting to change the causes that are behind the choices made.  No wonder that they have such a terrifically difficult time understanding each other's modus operandi and feel totally thwarted by each other at every turn.

It reminded me of this quote by Ian Buruma:

"Obama is neither a socialist, nor a mere political accountant. He has some modest ideals, and may yet be an excellent president. But what is needed to revive liberal idealism is a set of new ideas on how to promote justice, equality and freedom in the world."

I am old enough to remember the idealism and belief about what we Americans could become in terms of equality, justice and freedom  that rang through the rank and file of many Democratic Party members in the days of Martin Luther King Jr., George McGovern and others in spite of the political old-boy network that still controlled its upper echelons.  I recall that that idealism and belief were grounded in a vision of moral integrity and the brotherhood of man that carried its believers forward through incredible opposition, fear-mongering and  hate that also prowled the political scene. 

I think we could use more of that vision, both of moral integrity and universal brotherhood in all political parties.

Learning from the view

Since my house burned down
I now own a better view
of the rising moon.

~Mizuta Mashide, 17th century Japanese poet

paint the window white and tile the wall. nice

Other design

My Grandmother's Voice

When I was a girl, visiting at my grandmother's home, she would give me the task of using her nice teapot to water her houseplants.

"How much water?" I would ask.

"To about here," she would reply, smiling and touching a point on the side of the pot housing the plant.

This past week our house was hit by lightning and caught fire.  Today I am housesitting for a friend who has offered to let us stay here while she is away on vacation and we look for a temporary rental in which to live while our house is repaired.  So this morning I was on my friend's patio, watering her potted plants.

"How much water do these need?" I wondered.

And in my mind I heard my grandmother again.  "To about here."  And I remembered again the blessing she was in my young life.

Creativity, Divinity and Work

“There is something about the creative process – and not just for solving design-related problems, but in all creative problem solving – that feels very good to me. It is as though when I am creating something – anything – that I am in a “sweet spot.” My soul tunes to the rhythm of the project and I pour my whole being into the process. The finished product often makes me happy, but it is the work of creating that brings me deep joy.

My belief about our ultimate origin resides in the existence of God. And if it is true – if it is true that He created the heavens and the earth, and at some point created male and female humans, describing us as being in His image - then we exist in the image of a creative Divinity. When we create – be it designs or paintings, lyrics or melodies, scripts or movies, short stories or lectures, campaigns or solutions to social issues, even lesson plans or to-do lists in their own right – we participate in the nature of God. We find a “sweet spot.” Our souls rejoice in the process because we were created to create.”  ~Russell Shaw

Also true in the everyday work we do.  When I am only responding to demands, be they the demands of others or the demands of my own preconceived notions of what is acceptable or laudable in the responsibilities before me, my work is just work and can easily become tedious.  But when I look at the daily work before me (be it housekeeping, childrearing, church work or paid work) with a heart open to reality and a mind free to learn, research, think outside the box and solve puzzles in creative ways my work becomes engaging and more deeply satisfying.  "We were created to create."

"Increased Understanding"

There was a query in February's Ensign Magazine about feeling confused about "increased understanding I hear Church leaders describe" as a result of temple worship and a sense of concern that one is not making attending the temple "a learning experience".  Actually I think that sometimes we get anxious that each temple experience fall into the category of "unfolding the mysteries of God" in order to be acceptable, when, actually, learning through temple worship is far more varied and subtle.

My experience is that temple learning comes to me in multiple ways.  Three of them are: 1) from contemplation of the various things I can learn from the symbols there, 2) from personal revelation about my personal concerns that comes more easily to my mind and heart in a peaceful place, and 3) from thoughtfully reviewing the principles of righteous living and blessings that I am reminded of there.  At some times in my life learning has come in one of those ways and at times in another.  So sometimes when I feel that my learning curve has slowed it is because I have been focusing on one of those three learning methods and its time for me to learn better how to increase my understanding from one of the others.

That third way of learning is one that we sometimes overlook or discount as “increased understanding” simply because it involves nothing “new”.  I have found that, on occasion, I will learn something from the Lord during my temple worship which he hopes that I, personally, will consider and implement carefully into my life.  That consideration and implementation can sometimes take a long time.  During that time my temple worship changes and becomes a time for the Lord to peacefully review what he has taught me, and for me to celebrate that gift and to recommit myself to that process of living in a way that I have already felt inspired by him to do.  I am not necessarily learning new principles or new symbolic meanings, but instead, at those times, my temple worship leads me to reflect and turn my heart to the Lord, which in turn helps me to remember that understanding which I previously received, recommit to incorporating it wisely into my particular life and to perceive, with divine help, how to better do so with love and courage.  That is also “increased understanding”.

"Everyday family life fosters or hinders a child's spiritual growth more than any Sunday manual ever could."

Roslyn Welch posted, here, about her parents thoughtful education, both religious and secular, of their children.  It reminded me of my own upbringing for which I am ever grateful.  Among other things, she wrote:

"When it comes to family environment, I won the lottery. My parents are ordinary humans with ordinarily imperfect kids, but they created a family environment that equipped us extraordinarily well to meet faith challenges without fear, betrayal, or emotional crisis. Certainly I hold myself up as no paragon of faith or spirituality. But my own challenges with belief have brought me relatively little personal upheaval and no rupture of my relationships. Whether or not my parents' approach was typical, or whether it would work for everybody, who can say? Nevertheless, and on the strength of personal anecdote alone, here's what worked in our home.

"1) Teach your children to read critically. Reading with my parents was the defining experience of my childhood. They read to us and with us all the time: stories every night before bed, scripture every evening at dinner, Sherlock Holmes stories on long Sunday afternoons, anything and everything on the endless road trips to Utah. Every chapter was a covert lesson in critical reading. To read critically doesn't have to mean negatively or skeptically, of course; my parents approached scripture with love and respect. But they showed us how to read a text as more than just words on a page: look for connections, make inferences, recognize different points of view, point out interesting contradictions, begin to historicize, suggest several different interpretations. A child can't find real value in scripture until she can ask real questions of it.

"2) Buy books, lots and lots of books, for them to read. My parents' personal library is legendary. They bought the best books in every category: Mormon studies, including critical and outsider treatments, and religious studies generally, of course, but far beyond that. Science, history, mathematics. Politics, biography, memoir. Literary criticism, social science. Philosophy and poetry. And shelves and shelves of children's fiction. There was a bookshelf in every room, but the bulk of the collection was shelved topically in the family room where we spent much of our time. The titles and subtitles lining the wood-paneled walls were an education in themselves, and their image still wallpapers the back of my eyelids. I've pulled only a fraction of those books off the shelf, but their presence in the home, their constant accessibility, and the silent conversation among those thousands of spines worked on us day and night. A library of books in the home builds a library of ideas in a child's mind, ideas that can make sense of challenges when they come. Kindle can't do that, folks.

"3) Take responsibility for your own children's spiritual formation.We attended church faithfully every week, but my parents did not rely on the ward to manage our spiritual education. Never directly undermining what was taught on Sunday, my parents personally introduced us to Mormon history, scripture, cosmology, sociology, and culture. They did this in family home evenings, in regular scripture study sessions, in Sunday family devotionals, and in special summertime seminars for the teenagers in the house my mother called "School of the Prophets." They gave us free access to their complete collection of Dialogue and BYU Studies—and they read the journals themselves. They did not parade us past every bit of challenging history or cultural gripe they may have harbored, but they gave us the tools to cope with them when we encountered them on our own."


Well said.

Jephtha and his Daughter

In the last two hundred years there have been multiple scholarly responses to the story of Jephtha and his daughter found in the book of Judges.  In a nutshell, Jephtha, was a military leader among the Israelites in a period of time when they, "again did what was evil in the eyes of God...they abandoned God and did not worship him. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the Ammonites ..." (Judges 10:6-7).

Jephthah lived in Tob, east of Gilead where he, "there gathered around him some worthless ["empty"] men, and they went out with him." (Judges 11:3) The elders of Gilead asked him to be their leader in the campaign against the Ammonites, but he held out for a more permanent and a broader position, and the elders agreed that, provided Jephthah succeeded in defeating Ammon, he would be their commander permanently. So, Jephthah challenged the Ammonites and after the campaign began to be successful and the Lord began to help him, he made an oath:

"Whatever/whoever emerges and comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be God’s, and I shall sacrifice him/her/it as a burnt offering

The victorious Jephthah was met on his return by his daughter, his only child. Jephthah tore his clothes and cried, "Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low!" but is bound by his vow: "I have given my word to God, and I cannot go back on it" (Judges 11:35). The girl asks for two months' grace, "... that I may go down on the mountains ... and bewail my virginity" (Judges 11:37). And then Jephthah "carried out his vow with her which he had vowed" (Judges 11:39). The story ends by recounting how "the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite" (Judges 11:40).

Contrary to popular understanding of many modern Christians of the inerrancy of the Bible, the accuracy of the Bible translations was frequently doubted by believing scholars in the 17^th and 18^th centuries.  The most well known of these might be Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783) perhaps the leading English Old Testament scholar of the period, who agreed with the deists, such as Voltaire who used the story of Jephtha as a catalyst for their arguments against the veracity of the Bible, that the Hebrew text was corrupt and unreliable, although he and the deists drew different conclusions from this shared realization.  His decades of work in collecting, translating and comparing ancient biblical texts to compare with modern translations was legend.

Scholars of the Christian tradition, both believers, and unbelievers, (as well as Jewish ones before them) have debated this story of Jephtha for centuries, mostly centering their arguments on the etymology and translation of the text.  Some declared that Jephtha actually sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.  Others disagreed.   For example, there was much debate in the 17^th and 18^th centuries on what should be the translation of verse 31: “Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”

One key to the scholarly, believing revisionist reading was that “and” (in “and I will offer it up”) could be translated as“or.” Robert Jenkin (1656–1727) who was a Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, for instance, wrote that, “it is well known” that the word “which they translate and in the Text, often signifies or.”

Addressing the problem of why, if Jephtha’s daughter had not been killed, it should have become the custom to “lament” her, Jenkin suggests a better translation than “lament” would be “to rehearse or speak”: “From whence it has been supposed, that she was not put to Death, but was obliged to live in a State of Virginity and Solitude.”  She would have been required to live the life of a Nazarite.

Samuel Humphreys, similarly arguing against the sacrifice in "Sacred Books of the Old and New Testament" (pub. 1735–39), also suggests that “or” is a better translation than “and” in verse 31 and criticizes the Vulgate’s reading “whoever” as inferior to the King James’s “whatsoever.”

Humphreys concludes that if the creature greeting Jephtha is human, “he or she shall be consecrated to the service of God as some sort of Nazarites were; or if it prove a beast, it shall be offered up for a burnt-offering.”

Whichever translation is most accurate, however, and whatever the ultimate fate of Jephtha’s daughter, the story still feels problematic to many readers.  As a teenager, in my first encounter with the book of Judges my response was “What!!??”   What was I supposed to make of this book full of stories of people who were ostensibly of God’s chosen house of Israel but who continually undertook, what seemed to me at best, stupid, and at worst, depraved actions.  In the years of Sunday school and seminary that followed I heard Jephtha held up as an example of the virtue of being willing to sacrifice anything to the Lord as well as the explanations brought forth about mistranslations, stating that his daughter bewailed her virginity because she was about to commence a life of nazarite vows.  The former sounded barbaric and the latter like a senseless imposition of submissive though misguided obedience to parental authority.  Neither sounded like an example of enlightened Godly life to me.

I have come, however, to believe that the book of Judges is best approached as a fine example of what can happen to people in a culture that has a history of belief in God, but who have lost their sense of a direct connection to God and for whom their religious orientation has become, at most, a part of their tradition and culture (and in some cases, see the last couple of chapters for example, is totally abandoned), instead of a breathing, living, daily communication with God.  The stories of Samson, Gideon, and Jephtha all contain examples of this slide into a sense of God as a formula or tradition or a force to make bargains with instead of a divine, loving, intimate, personal daily guide.  As such it is good to look at elements in the story of Jephtha one by one and then look at our own modern culture and relationship with God to see if we find parallels to be wary of.

First, Jephtha’s desire for a powerful position.   The man is asked to assist in the war against the Ammonites.  He refuses, holding out for a more permanent position of power beyond the immediate task at hand before he will join in the war.  His interest is not in the completion of the task being asked of him, but instead in the power and career it will afford him if he participates.  My question:  what are my motives when deciding whether or not to assist in an undertaking?

Second, having procured a conditional bargain with the elders of Gilead (“if you are successful, then we will give you the position you want’) he is willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to be successful.  My question: am I making the mistake of becoming the sort of person who will sacrifice anything, no matter what, in order to become “successful” in the eyes of those in power or those who will determine the course of my career?

Third, the Lord inspires Jephtha once he undertakes the work (yes, God does help further causes even when the leaders thereof are stupid) (vs. 29) and Jeptha’s response is not humilty or gratitude, but rather, bargain-making.  My question:  Do I fail to recognize God as a loving, daily, helpful, awe-inspiring guide, but instead see him as another political ally that I can make intermittant powerful contractual bargains with in order to achieve the good things that I want to have happen?

Fourth, once Jephtha makes an oath, he keeps it even when he discovers that doing so will be destructive.  We see this sometimes masquerading in modern culture as “honor”.  My question: When I make a promise and I later discover that it would be destructive to keep it, does my traditional sense of pride and “honor” prevent me from being humble enough to admit my mistake and do what is kindest and best?  Does my sense of pride and honor take precidence over my commitment to charity and justice?  Does it prevent me from communicating with God about making a change in my declared course of action?

Fifth, (and I realize that some will take issue with this, because it concerns the victim in this case and the phrase in question can have layered meanings) when Jephtha’s daughter realizes that she faces being sacrificed (either literally killed or given over to a Nazarite life) and that there is no recourse for her, the focus of her mourning is her virginity. I guess that this part of the story particularly jumps out at me because of the increasing and erroneous notion expressed in media for young people that, of all things that it would be tragic to die (or to live) without experiencing, the most tragic would be to not have experienced sex.  My question: If I were facing a medical diagnosis with a short estimated time of life left, or if I came to realize that I would be single all of my life, what would I mourn not having the opportunity to do?   Would my sorrow be selfish or selfless?  And would my faith in the recompense and mercy of God carry me through that sorrow?  

Sixth, if we assume the interpretation that Jephtha did in fact sacrifice his daughter we realize that he has offered a sacrifice that is, according to the descriptions given by God, repugnant to God.  God’s descriptions of acceptable sacrifice are very clear in the book of Leviticus.  Human sacrifice of one’s children was forbidden.  Sacrifice of one’s child was, on the other hand, a type of sacrifice that was acceptable in the worship of the god Moloch, a Caananite god worshiped at the time.  Thus we find that Jephtha has dictated the bounds of the sacrifice he will make, using parameters set forth in an aspect of society that does not worship God, instead of following the direction of the Lord as to what an acceptable sacrifice is.   My question:  How often do I determine what is acceptable to the Lord by looking to what the society around me sees as most noble or heroic, rather than seeking to find what the Lord asks of me?

Whatever interpretation of the story of Jephtha and his daughter one takes as most accurate, the questions are good to ask.


Bibliography:
The Holy Bible KJV
Susan Staves, "Jephtha's Vow Reconsidered", Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp 651-669, University of California Press 2008.

One man's learning curve of life

My department at my alma mater has a  newsletter that it sends annually to each of us alumni.  This bit, amidst the various news items about various of us caught my attention.

"Neville W______ (MA 1978) died in October 2010 in K______, Maine.  According to his obituary, "W_______ was well educated, attending Kings College (Cambridge, England), Tufts University (magna cum laude, 1965), and Stanford University upon receiving a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship in 1965-66.  After retiring from retail in 2002, Neville was able to return to his lifelong love and pursuit of painting and poetry.  He published his first book of poetry, The Early Morning Clapboarder, in 2007.  His poems remain a legacy of joy, love and wonder of life.  His life is well summarized in a quote he gave for a 2007 interview in the local Tourist News: 'It takes time to reach the center of who you are.  I found that life is ever changing, and there are no certainties, only possibilities.  Love is man's last great hope of peace and the source of all that's important.  The journey is what's important.'"

Well said. A discourse worth listening to.

"Grace shall be as your day."

Brad Wilcox on grace.

Notes on Ephesians 5

1.       To add to your repertoire of information on Ephesians 5:

vs 21, (members of the church) submit yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Greek word for “submit”: hupotassomai
vs 22 Wives submit submit yourselves to your husbands. Greek word used for “submit”: hupotassomai
vs 23 Husband is the head of the wife. Greek word used for “head”: kephale
vs 25 Husbands love your wives: Greek word used for “love”: agapeo
vs 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church. Greek word used for “might present”: parasthsh

Hupotassomai doesn’t have a direct English equivalent but means something along the lines of “give allegiance to”, or “tend to the needs of ” or “be supportive of” or “be responsive to”. In military contexts it is used to describe taking a position in a phalanx of soldiers; to be united with the group in effort and support. The German Bible translates it as “to place oneself at the disposition of”. This is what members of the church are asked to do for each other and what wives are asked to do in these verses in Ephesians. Its meaning relates very much to the admonition in Galatians 6:2 to “bear one another’s burdens”. Very importantly, Greek not only has active and passive forms of verbs, but also a middle form, which is used when the subject of the sentence neither acts on another nor is acted upon, but rather volunteers willingly to a state of being or to a course of action that is self-directed, not imposed. Hupotassomai, in these verses is in the middle form. Paul uses it to invite a purely voluntary action, not as a command.

“Kephale” is a word used to denote a person who goes ahead into battle, putting himself the most dangerous and vulnerable position in the phalanx.

“Agapeo” is used here and also in the commandment to love our neighbor and God and our enemies and in Jesus’ description of the Good Samaritan who loved and helped freely another who could not (and probably would not) repay his kindness.

Agapeo and hupotassomai are very similar words, both involve giving up one’s self-interest to serve and care for another’s. Both mean being responsive to the needs of others. Many scholars recognize this passage of Ephesians as a chiasmus with hupotassomai at the beginning of it and agapeo as an equal term at the end.

“Parasthsh” means “to stand beside”.

Knowing the Greek words sheds further light on the passage which the English translation obscures.

Thanks for some of the above to various sources, including 

What Paul Really Said About Women: The Apostle's Liberating Views on Equality in Marriage, Leadership, and Love

by John T. Bristow

Thoughtful listening goes both ways. Do I take time to explain well? Do I listen like he does?

"Most often when we pray, we expect to speak while God listens." 

Michael S. Wilcox, "Let Us Ask of God", December 2004

Artist: Nathan Florence

Quote for today

“Jesus Christ and all the writers of the New Testament call us to break free of mammon lust and live in joyous trust...They point us toward a way of living in which everything we have we receive as a gift, and everything we have is cared for by God, and everything we have is available to others when it is right and good. This reality frames the heart of Christian simplicity. It is the means of liberation and power to do what is right and to overcome the forces of fear and avarice.” 
—Freedom of Simplicity: Finding Harmony in a Complex World
by Richard J. Foster 

Thoughts on readers and modern serious fiction

The author Jonathan Franzen was interviewed on NPR yesterday and his comments about writing novels caught my attention.  This particularly:

“…much of the work on a novel for me consists in the kind of work you might do in a paid professional's office of trying to walk back from your stuck, conflicted, miserable place to a point of a little bit more distance,  from which you can begin to fashion some meaningful narrative of how you got to the stuck place. And the stuck-ness, for the working novelist — or at least for this one — has to do with not wanting to get into certain intensely fraught or private experiences… [but] feeling that it's absolutely necessary to say things that are absolutely unsay-able."

When the interviewer asked about “unsayable things” he responded:

“The great thing about novels is…you are converting unsayable things into narratives that have their own dreamlike reality and instead of having factual statements about what is [pause] ‘Here’s the factual statement I will never make about myself, I can’t make about myself, I’m afraid or ashamed to make about myself’.  If that can be translated into characters who feel like they have some independent life and if they are embodying through their story that informational material about myself then I feel as if it’s not quite been said but it’s been enacted.”

Though Franzen is talking about information about himself, the description also applies to authors who use this genre to relay information about social issues they know first hand as well.  He captures in these words something I’ve long understood about much of modern serious fiction; that it is an author’s way of portraying something that is a profound and also disturbing ("unsayable") truth to him or her in a way that is less direct than prose and, because it is fiction, also allows dramatic flair to be added to creatively emphasize the author’s emotion or thoughts on the subject or theme of the piece of work.  As such, it can be, in some situations, an effective way of teaching the reader, adding to the vibrancy of the reader’s understanding or empathy of the subject being addressed, particularly if it is a subject that the reader has not experienced first hand, or has been previously only marginally aware of.

In this sort of previously unaware reader, the reading experience, if it is taken thoughtfully, adds insight or understanding or sympathy.  It may even become a stepping stone to passionate action when the subject is encountered in daily life.  On the other hand, unfortunately, if the reader approaches the book as entertainment, it tends to harden the reader, making it more difficult for him or her to respond with anything other than passive amusement when the issues in the novel are encountered in real life.  

For a second group of readers, those who have encountered the "unsayable" issues portrayed in their own lives and are still dealing with the fallout the experience is quite different, and also variable.  If they are still angry or frustrated, the reading can feel cathartic, expressing in a dramatic form the feelings that they are still dealing with.  On the other hand, if the issues are still ongoing and raw, it can re-open old wounds and cause increased pain.

Finally, this type of fiction doesn’t work at all for a third group of readers.  For a reader who has experienced first or second hand in the real world the "unsayables" that the novel deals with creatively, and has already addressed and is still addressing it directly in their own mind and actions in proactive ways, the dramatic flair of fiction is annoying.  For such a reader, that fictitious dramatization often feels like a trivialization of sober reality, making a serious matter look like a form of voyeuristic entertainment that reduces the reader of it to a passive consumer.  And for this group of readers, passive consumption in response to the topics being addressed is unacceptable.

This last group of readers requires personal narrative or prose that they can use in the work they are already doing.  Fiction doesn’t work.

Prodigal's Older Brother Syndrome

It occurs to me that one of the reasons we may become judgmental of others who have not made the same decisions or commitments, or are not in the same place on the road home that we are might be this:

If your sense of self-worth is grounded in your ability to comply with the expectations or hopes of someone else (be it God, or a parent, or some other major figure in your life), then you will almost automatically have a psychological need to perceive as less-worthy someone who has not complied with those expected actions.   And any intimation that one of those "less compliant" people is loved and forgiven and blessed as much as you are will likely be very unsettling to your own sense of worth.  When this is your state of mind, it is easy for your sense of unfairness to overrule your comprehension of mercy and charity.

So really the cure for such a state is not necessarily persuasion that judging is wrong, but rather the education of the mind to understand the reality that the highest we can seek for is not "worthiness" but, rather, complete charity and the embracing, personally, of the principle of mercy.

So disciplining ourselves to value who we intrinsically are, and at that same time, learning to be able to perceive value in the intrinsic natures of others, in all their variety, and not place our sense of self-worth upon what we've achieved may be key to avoiding "Prodigal's Older Brother Syndrome".

Learning how to do this in a world where we are constantly called upon to measure and compare our scores and achievements and decisions with our own previous ones as well as with those of others or with what we perceive as "the ideal", and in communities that reward and laud us accordingly, is no mean feat.


.

A Line from "First Knight".

"How could I not love him, he wears his power so lightly, has such gentleness in his eyes."

"The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following official statement on immigration yesterday:

Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense. That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.

What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law.

"I want to hang a map of the world in my house. Then I'm going to put pins into all the locations that I've traveled to. But first, I'm going to have to travel to the top two corners of the map so it won't fall down."

~Mitch Hedberg

Insight from L.

 Jesus and Satan are polar opposites in the following way:

Satan does all he can to minimize the gravity and seriousness of sin and, when you do sin, does all he can to persuade you that you are horrible and/or seriously lacking, are a lost cause and declares that now, for you, there’s no way you really ever can come to complete reconciliation with God.

Jesus, on the other hand, is totally honest about the gravity, darkness and seriousness of sin and, when you do sin, does all he can to persuade you that you are known and loved, knows certainly that you are not a lost cause, provides a universally accessible way for you to become truly completely reconciled with God and has the power to make it so.

No Other Gods

I’m in the process of re-reading the Old Testament, so I’ve been thinking about the notion of  worshipping other gods which is a constantly reoccuring subject matter there.  There aren’t very many traditions of polytheism currently being practiced in North America these days, which leads us to hear to the oft-repeated question in Sunday School classes,  “What are the other gods we might be tempted to worship today?”  And people tend to think of cars or wealth or position or power or celebrity.

I think it might be helpful to consider what the patterns and desires are that were expressed in ancient worship as we try to consider what the parallels in our era might be, so, drawing upon my meager knowledge of South Asian and African cultures that do include differing gods and my understanding of ancient Greek and Roman religious beliefs which also included gods competing for mortals’ attention I can come up with the following:

Worship most commonly involved:

• A belief that a god’s opinion of you, or that being in his or her good graces, is the most important source for your success in life and your material well-being and emotional stability.

• A belief that sacrificing things that are important to you in order to win a god’s good opinion and help is effective in gaining what you desire.

• A belief that the gods that other people look to for help are not as powerful or effective as the ones to whom you look for help.

• A strong sense of tradition and custom that feels familiar and comfortable.

So, therefore, in considering the answer to the above mentioned Sunday School question…

From which people or institutions do I seek approval more than I seek to please God in my quest for social success, material well being and emotional stability?  And, is one of those people me?

For which goals or for which people’s approval do I sacrifice things that are most important to me? 

Are there things, philosophies or people that I think are more effective in helping me achieve my desires than God is?  Do I act like there are?

As I consider the people who I feel I most need to please in order to succeed, or the philosopies or assumptions that I most need to conform to in order to be succesful, how many of those are ones I embrace simply due to tradition and a comfortable sense of the familiar or established?

Food for thought.

Stumbled upon today

"Sometimes I don’t see my 5-year-old either, or my husband, or my 2-year-old.  It’s easy to see them as obstacles.  But then I wake up, remember that they are here happening for me, not to me."
~ Kamille

To Give and to Receive

To give yourself to a spouse in marriage:  to remember, as life gets crazier and children come and dreams look possible and you feel the thrill and sense of accomplishment that comes from giving yourself to those people and goals, that your giving of yourself to your spouse comes first and, if nurtured, will last longest and best.  It’s easy to lose sight of that.

To receive to yourself someone as your spouse in marriage:  to remember that you actively received that spouse, the attractive and good as well as the unattractive and imperfect aspects of their lives and personalities.  It is easy, as time passes, to be annoyed and frustrated at the minor imperfections and differences your spouse brings to a marriage and to wish that they were different from what they are.  But the covenant is to receive a spouse, not selectively accept only the parts that we like best and be dissatisfied with the parts that are different.  It’s easy to lose sight of that too.

What John Murdock wrote

 “In one of these meetings [at the School of the Prophets] the prophet told us if we could humble ourselves before God, and exercise strong faith, we should see the face of the Lord. And about midday the visions of my mind were opened, and the eyes of my understanding were enlightened, and I saw the form of a man, most lovely, the visage of his face was sound and fair as the sun. His hair a bright silver grey, curled in most majestic form, His eyes a keen penetrating blue, and the skin of his neck a most beautiful white and he was covered from the neck to the feet with a loose garment, pure white, whiter than any garment I have ever before seen. His countenance was most penetrating, and yet most lovely. And while I was endeavoring to comprehend the whole personage from head to feet it slipped from me, and the vision was closed up. But it left on my mind the impression of love, for months, that I never felt before to that degree.” 

John Murdock Journal, typescript, BYU Archives, p.13, capitalization standardized, italics added

Saving, in more ways than one.

Do not leave yourself or your family unprotected against financial storms. Forgo luxuries, for the time being at least, to build up savings. How wise it is to provide for the future education of your children and for your old age.

The smaller the family income, the more important it is that every dollar be used wisely. Efficient spending and saving will give the family more security, more opportunities, more education, and a higher standard of living.

Ezra Taft Benson, "Pay Thy Debt, and Live", Ensign, June 1987, 3

L’s parents lived on his father’s modest income.  His mother was a master at budgeting and making do and she and her husband were united on their financial priorities and they believed in putting aside savings for the things that were most important.  L’s father died suddenly and unexpectedly when L was 16 years old.  Two years later L started college.  A combination of scholarships, work study, attendance at a subsidized university and money his father had carefully saved for his education allowed him to graduate with his bachelor’s degree debt free.  Scholarships and work study were not available for his graduate education but the money his father had set aside was enough to cover his tuition at a state school where he was fortunate enough to be admitted.  He lived at his mother’s home for those first two years in order to cover his living expenses and then, after we were married, I worked to pay for them.  He graduated from with his doctoral degree without any education debt, something for which we are profoundly grateful. 

My parents had a larger income, though they also had seven children which made budgeting also important.  My father had paid for his undergraduate education with a combination of work and financial assistance from his father, who had saved money for that purpose.  My mother was an undergraduate with another two years of school ahead of her when she married my dad in his second year of post graduate education.  She worked part-time and finished her education two months before I was born.  Financial assistance from both of my grandfathers was essential for my parents’ family as my father did his six years of residency at a time when residents were not paid anything at all.  My parents were profoundly grateful and determined that they would try to bless their children similarly.

When I turned 18 and started college I also worked and studied and it was savings set aside by my paternal grandparents for their grandchildren that made up the difference in my tuition.  I finished without any debt as well.  Their assistance enabled my father to shift his education savings towards the education of my younger siblings.

What L and I found was that this tradition of older generations saving for the education of the younger leaves a profound gift of freedom for both generations and the extended family, not just the younger ones who are in school.  Finishing school without debt saved L and me not only from huge amounts of stress and anxiety about the future, but also enabled us to be available for more opportunities for service.  If we had been paying off education debts when L’s brother was called to serve as a mission president at the end of L’s training, we would not have been able to provide the financial assistance he needed in order to be able to respond to that call.  But, because we had no debt obligations, we could.  And L’s brother was able to serve.

We started saving for our children’s education when they were born.  At first it was only a little bit while we were living on L’s early small salary, but we knew we needed to start that habit in order for it to last for the ensuing decades.  We knew that if we waited we would wait too long.

 Sometimes we forget, as parents thinking about the future educational needs of our children, that financial aid packages not only require work study, grants, and student loans, but also parental contributions as well. I have sweet friends who were unable to save for their children’s education and thought that if they sent their children to community colleges and state schools they would be able to manage that.  Little did any of us anticipate how those tuitions would increase over what they were when we were students.  They are now are paying off parental obligation debts they incurred for their children’s education at state schools while their children struggle to pay off their own portion of those education loans.  My friends had planned to be serving as senior missionary couples by now, but those debts make that not possible.

Yes, if your children are blessed with particular athletic or academic gifts, or admission to a particularly inexpensive school they may be able to get themselves through their undergraduate education with a lot of work and no debt.  And I am very much in favor of students working to help pay for their tuition. But it is much, much harder for a student to graduate debt-free than it was when I was a student as tuition costs have far outstripped inflation. And the financial outlook is even grimmer for the children being born today.  It behooves us to make sacrifices that enable both them and us to enjoy freedom from enslaving debt as much as possible.

Finally, many parents are poor enough that saving is impossible.  Financial aid, scholarships and work study will likely decrease in the future as educational institutions struggle with budget decreases and rising costs.  The competition for those resources will increase as student population increases.  It behooves those of us who can set at least some money aside for education to do so in order that those resources may be spread more widely among all who need it.  Thus, saving for education not only blesses you and your children and your extended family, but also gives you opportunity  to fulfill the commandment that we assist those in need.

Ezra Taft Benson’s counsel has proved wise for us.

Taking upon yourself a name

Last night, due to a Primary lesson I’m preparing, I was trying to think about how to explain the concept of taking upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ when one receives baptism.  Children understand the idea of identifying themselves as individuals by their first names and being a “Jones” or a “Smith” by affiliation because of their last name.  But when you talk about adding Christ’s name to your identity they often don’t understand, because, of course, you don’t change what you call yourself.  Your name doesn’t change, even though you have gone through the formal ceremony of deciding to become Christ's “son” or “daughter”.

But how about if we thought about it rather like a title of responsibility?  Think about Albert who married Queen Victoria.  When he married her he was Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, (and after 1857) Duke of Saxony, but his friends and family simply called him Albert.  After he married Victoria went by “HRH Prince Albert” in formal circles and was called simply “Albert” by his wife.  He would not have introduced himself as “Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Saxony” or even “HRH Prince Albert” though he was duke of Saxony and designated as a Prince and always knew that about himself.  Perhaps in his mind, every time he introduced himself or said his name in one of its shortened forms, he was aware of the parts unspoken, though he felt no need to mention them.

Which made me think, what if, every time I introduced myself or said who I was on the phone, I said my usual name out loud and then in my head added “a disciple of Jesus Christ”.  What a pointed reminder it might be to me each time about how I should be treating the person with whom I was speaking or what my priorities should be or how I might better respond to the challenges or opportunities of that particular day.  It might not be a bad idea.

Autumn!

This caught my attention when I was working in the attic this week.  Fall colors.  We DO get some of them here.