Of Action Groups and Sunday Pants

When I first read through the Facebook event description of the Wear Pants to Church Day event sponsored by the action group All Enlisted, I wasn’t particularly alarmed. Really, I agreed with most of their intentions. In fact, just last night I was talking with my husband about how most members of the Church frequently mistake Church culture for Church doctrine.

I have said before (simply echoing Church leaders) that the doctrine of the Church is actually very limited. Anything beyond the true doctrine is policy, policy we believe is based on an understanding of doctrine and revelation. Policy we sustain in General Conference twice a year as we sustain the leaders who we trust to make the policies Heavenly Father feels are best for our time (which means they – the policies – do change).

The Fight Against Cultural Myths: A War Worth Fighting

Back to my first impressions of the Wear Pants to Church Day event. I loved much of what the sisters said on the Facebook page. I think what tempered the whole description for me was their first paragraph, the reading of which almost caused me to shout “Amen! Hallelujah!”

Did you know that church leaders have not discouraged women from wearing pants since 1971? … After many reports of overt or silent judgment, a group of LDS women decided it was time to stop the perpetuation of the cultural myth that there is something wrong with women wearing pants. (emphasis added)

I felt that they were actually acknowledging that the problem in the Church (judgment over women wearing pants/people wearing jeans/tennis shoes/colored shirts/etc to Church) is a cultural myth, rather than some Church policy. And before you start tossing out quotes from General Authorities counseling us to wear this or wear that, let me remind you of Elder Christofferson’s most excellent and timely talk in April 2012 General Conference during which he appropriately reminded us,

…it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.

So you can erase your comment with a quote from some apostle or prophet that said you should wear a white shirt while passing the sacrament. That’s great, if you have a white shirt. If you want to wear a white shirt. Owning a white shirt or having a desire to wear a white shirt is not a prerequisite to being ordained to any priesthood office, or performing any priesthood duty. If you feel like you should wear a white shirt to perform your priesthood duties, great for you. If you don’t think it matters, good for you. What matters is that you are worthy to perform those duties – which has more to do with the heart than the outward appearance.

The sisters describing their demonstration kept getting more and more points with me as the description went on –

“The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women’s or girls’ dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing.”--LDS Church Presidency (1971)

“Attending church is about worship and learning to be followers of Jesus Christ. Generally, church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the savior, but we don't counsel people beyond that.” –official church statement December 12, 2012

Why, this is most excellent! Someone is helping educate the masses about how dumb we all are for thinking that cultural norms (even Church culture ones) are somehow what the doctrine of the Church mandates. Or even Church policy. Obviously, women wearing skirts is not Church policy, and I thought these great women did an excellent job explaining that.

The Bait-and-Switch

I must have skimmed through the rest of the description because no red flags went off until I read the post a second time.

This event is the first act of All Enlisted, a direct action group for Mormon women to advocate for equality within our faith. … we do want the LDS Church and its members to acknowledge the similarities [between men and women]. We believe that much of the cultural, structural, and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS church today stems from the church's reliance on – and enforcement of – rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality.

Wait a minute! You just told me that your goal was to correct a cultural myth, but you’ve just pulled a bait-and-switch on me! Now you’re telling me that you want “equality within our faith” and you see “doctrinal inequalit[ies]” in the Church, perpetuated by “the church’s … enforcement of … rigid gender roles.”

I had so much hope – this was almost a group I could stand behind. I was excited that someone was trying to address the cultural myths that seems to be endlessly perpetuated in the Church. These cultural myths are not perpetuated by the General Authorities, or by Church policy. On the contrary, I have heard the prophets and apostles constantly hounding us in General Conference, urging us to give up the culture and live the doctrine. It’s the members of the Church falling short of the counsel of the prophets that perpetuates cultural myths.

Stoning People for Their Sins

My thoughts went immediately to the new Church website, Love One Another. Nothing found on that website is news. There are some great personal stories, which I think are very effective in breaking down culture – when people can see what happens in cultures outside their little bubbles, they are more appropriately armed to take down the culture in their own bubbles. None of the doctrine on the Church’s new website is different from anything that has been preached previously. Since Christ walked the earth we have been counseled to love one another regardless of our differences, regardless of the sins of others. It was Christ himself who said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”, the adulterer.

It is not our place to stone people to death, literally or figuratively, for their sins.

A Misguided Discussion

The purpose of the Wear Pants to Church Day demonstration was not the only thing that bothered me about the entire situation. The comments that have been elicited have been equally as disturbing. Comments such as,

“What if these women have received revelation that this change needed to be enacted?”

“I'm offended you would ask me to wear a colored shirt, one that I shouldn't be wearing while performing priesthood ordinances.”

“maybe … the ones that have left will come back knowing that the church is finally putting action towards attitudes”

“the Lord has told us that dresses are a sign of reverence and he has asked us to wear them..its not a commandment … but we are to listen to the Lord and to our prophets”

“I feel sadness for the sisters that feel hurt and confused enough to feel they need to participate in this, because it means that they have not yet gained a true testimony of the divinity of womanhood in the Lord's plan of happiness, and how ESSENTIAL we are to that plan”

“To me, their reasons are that they don't understand the basics of the gospel. They don't understand the priesthood and womanhood. And that this is the Lord's church. They don't understand the symbolism of the temple.”

I have problems with all of these comments. People are either continuing to perpetuate the cultural myths by spouting their misguided understandings of Church policy (the colored shirt comment) or they are confusing culture with doctrine.

People who are helping to perpetuate cultural myths need to stop it, and people who are confusing culture with doctrine need to stop it.

And all of us need to stop judging each other. I said to my husband that it seems like the people who think you should only wear dresses are judging the women who would like to wear pants, and the women who would like to wear pants without being judged are judging the very women they accuse of judging them.

Let us please apply Uchdorf’s Hammer: STOP IT!

An Action Group For Cultural Change

Where does this leave me?

Wanting to form an action group for women who want to promote charity and the doctrine of the Church. Women who want to break down the cultural myths and replace them with kindness, love unfeigned, boundless compassion, and non-judgmental attitudes.

So I thought to myself “Why not form one?” An action group – dedicated to these very things.

Our motto would be “Charity never faileth.”

And then I remembered – there is already an action group for that.

It’s called Relief Society.

The Savior Himself has organized the women of the Church into an action group. One that should be at the forefront of breaking down cultural myths. A group that should be at the forefront of compassionate outreach to women who feel marginalized and pushed aside.

It is a worldwide sisterhood, but at the same time, it is a grassroots movement. Each ward has a Relief Society specifically and specially equipped to deal with the issues in that particular ward. Why? In my ward, the women in my Relief Society, the women who need my help, are my neighbors. I live, work, and play in the same places as them. I see them on a regular basis. If I am doing my job as a disciple of Christ, I am listening to the pain in their hearts. I can see if they are being ostracized by judgmental skirt-wearers. I should be observant and recognize when they feel left out because their husband is blessing their baby and no one gives them the accolades they deserve for gestating, laboring, and delivering that beautiful baby. If I am doing my duty as a real Christian, I will be reaching out to include the broken hearted, those who are different in whatever way – whether it be homosexuality, divorce, single motherhood, whatever makes them different, I can be the one who reaches out and helps them feel unity and love under the umbrella of compassion and charity.

So I have no need to start an action group. The Savior did that already. But I am renewing my membership. I am gearing up to be the best member of this action group I can be.

Who’s with me?

I write with Real Intent

Behind the scenes for the past several weeks, I have been working with a wonderful group of bloggers getting ready for the launch of a new blog – Real Intent.

Since you are probably a regular reader of my blog, you know that I have been dissatisfied with the gospel conversation lately. It seems that most of the gospel conversation online is critical of the Church, fault-finding, and focused everywhere but on the atonement of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and the power that atonement can have in our lives. Unfortunately, a lot of the gospel conversation offline is shallow, often close-minded, and shies away from the hard questions.

Until today, the only place to discuss hard questions and gospel principles in a meaningful way was online in the “bloggernacle” – but finding people asking questions with real intent was hit and miss. Occasionally you could find a good post or two, and frequently there were parts of posts that were faithful and encouraging, but for the most part it seems like the entire world is dissatisfied with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or, at least, the entire blogging world).

Well, thanks to the amazing hard work and dedication of fellow blogger Bonnie, there is now a place for the hard questions to help us develop our faith, rather than tear it down.

Announcing the new blog, Real Intent –

from the blog:

We, the authors at Real Intent, are interested in promoting a journey of discovery through the experimentation of faith, aiding one another by sharing insights and solutions regarding issues that face individuals, families, and communities in an increasingly divided world.

We hope that you will join in the conversation and help to create a community where we can ask hard questions with real intent, and hopefully find answers and strengthened faith and renewed commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

See you there!

Cognitive Dissonance and the Church

Image Credit: Mark Klotz

I became interested in this term, cognitive dissonance, when I read an article in Psychology Today that discussed the results of a study that showed parenting does not actually make people happier. Rather, parents simply convince themselves that they are happier/healthier/etc with children, when in fact they are not happier/healthier/etc.

Now, we could have a nice little debate about what criteria they used for “happiness” and the varying experiences that people will have, and that would be fine, but I want to delve a little deeper into what cognitive dissonance really means.

The Church, and its members, are often criticized by this theory of cognitive dissonance. Most recently I heard the term applied to Josh Weed, a gay Mormon man who is in a straight marriage (married to a woman). The comment was from a gay ex-Mormon who said he didn’t really want to read the piece because, “I'm worried that I won't be able to deal with reading about the cognitive dissonance required to be in this guy's head.”

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

It had been a while since I had heard the term used, and so I read a little more about cognitive dissonance. The Wikipedia article about cognitive dissonance says that it is a “discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.” First of all, this should mean that there wouldn’t have to be cognitive dissonance in Josh Weed’s life, because, to him, the cognitions are not “conflicting”. In fact, who is the judge of what cognitions are conflicting? Wouldn’t that be the person holding the cognitions? So I guess the only determiner of cognitive dissonance would be the person himself. If he is experiencing discomfort, and that discomfort is caused by what he believes to be conflicting cognitions, then that would be cognitive dissonance.

Later in the Wikipedia article we read, “Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one’s belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.”

This is the part that I want to talk about in an analysis of how cognitive dissonance plays a role in our lives as members of the Church.

Cognitive Dissonance for a More Perfect Understanding

Due to what I believe is an incomplete understanding of the gospel, members of the Church, when confronted with information that is inconsistent with our beliefs (i.e., Joseph Smith was sealed to women who were already married, blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978, etc) feel a discomfort, or a dissonance of sorts. I have at times felt that dissonance when confronted by something that I didn’t understand, or something that was inconsistent with my imperfect understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Wikipedia article suggests that in such a situation, when there is discomfort and dissonance, there are a few  things that may happen to reduce that dissonance:

1) change one’s beliefs
2) misperceive, reject, or refute the information
3) seek support from others who share beliefs
4) attempt to persuade others

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-15; emphasis added)

Ironically, the solution I have found to the problem of discomfort when something is inconsistent with my “beliefs” is to change my beliefs. That may sounds as if I am being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, but I was not born knowing everything. I was not born with (nor do I yet possess) a perfect knowledge of the gospel. My faith, my beliefs, have “not grown up to a perfect knowledge.” (see Alma 32:29) It is my goal to feed my faith, and to find the seeds that swell, sprout, and grow – the good seeds. And only after I have found out that it is a good seed will my knowledge be perfect “in that thing” and my faith will be dormant (in that thing). But will my knowledge of all things be perfect? No, I am still growing and learning, by the help of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers who are helping to perfect me until I come in the unity of the faith. It’s a process.

A more accurate description of this process, rather than describing it as changing my beliefs is, rather, changing my understanding of my beliefs. I claim the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and more specifically, I claim the beliefs of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sometimes my understanding of those beliefs is not perfect, and so comes the cognitive dissonance as something is placed in my way that seems inconsistent with “my beliefs”. Rather than being inconsistent with my beliefs, that something is usually inconsistent with my understanding of my beliefs.

In the Wikipedia article about cognitive dissonance it references the cognitive developmental theory of Jean Piaget: “the inevitable conflicts a child experiences between current beliefs and new information will lead to disequilibrium, which in turn motivates the child’s progress through the various stages of development.” As we are all children in the gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe that this dissonance between our understanding of our belief system and what is reality plays a similar role. The disequilibrium that is experienced by us in our journey in gospel learning motivates us through the various stages of development of our testimonies.

Cognitive Dissonance and a Retreat from the World or a Retreat into the World

I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. (John 17:15-16)

Going back to the options for resolving cognitive dissonance, I wanted to look at the last three options:

2) misperceive, reject, or refute the information
3) seek support from others who share beliefs
4) attempt to persuade others

Option #2 happens all the time in the Church. This is the one where people say “Oh, there’s no way Joseph Smith had all those wives.” “The Church would never do ___.” “Joseph Smith never married women who were already married, that’s just a story some anti-Mormon made up to discredit him.” These are examples of rejecting, misperceiving, or refuting information that sounds inconsistent with one’s beliefs.

Option #3 happens just as frequently. This is where members who don’t believe that unsavory things ever happened in the Church stick together and stay away from all the “heretics” who accept that there are unsavory aspects about every person and every organization. (Let me add here that unsavory aspects of our character make us human, not evil).

Option #4 is a little more subtle. I think this method of decreasing cognitive dissonance is found when members of the Church criticize those who are asking questions with the intent of gaining a better understanding of their beliefs (option #1). Members who are using option #4 will claim those using option #1 to gain a deeper understanding of their beliefs are headed down a “slippery slope”. There are those who will, in using option #1, rather than coming to a better understanding of their beliefs will abandon their misunderstood beliefs altogether, in effect becoming apostate, but not all members who ask questions in the face of cognitive dissonance are on slippery territory.

I frequently question my understanding of a belief, for example, the doctrine of gender identity is a doctrine I struggle with immensely – due to cognitive dissonance. However, I take the approach of “true until proven false” with gospel teachings, and what I usually find is that my understanding may be proven false, but the truth, or the doctrine, stands firm. It is a kind of refiners fire, where my imperfect, human perspective and understanding is burned off through these “hard” questions until only the pure doctrine remains.

Cognitive Dissonance – Hard Things and Joy

Going back to the article about parental love being merely cognitive dissonance takes me back to option #1 – changing our beliefs, or rather, having a more clear understanding of our beliefs.

The article may seem to contradict what the prophets have taught us – that families are important and that families bring us joy.

The truth of the matter is, things that bring us the greatest joy are often the hardest things to do. Ask anyone who has run a marathon, or climbed Mt. Everest, or walked again after a stroke. They won’t beat around the bush and say, “Oh yeah, those 26.2 miles, they were awesome!” or “My favorite part was the last mile to the peak. It was cake! I practically sailed up that mountain!” or “My legs felt light as feathers! I just stood up and I could walk!” More likely you will hear, “When I crossed that finish line felt like I had done something really amazing!” or “The view from the peak was breathtaking. Totally worth the climb!” or “Running in the yard with my grandkids again made me feel like a million bucks!”

When presented with the less pleasant, physically and emotionally draining, costly tasks associated with raising parents, this may seems to be inconsistent with our belief that children and families bring us joy.

The answer isn’t to refute the claims that parenting is hard (it is), or hang out more with other people who think parenting is all roses and candy (it isn’t), or attempt to convince other people that parenting really is fun all the time (it definitely isn’t) we can just deepen our understand of what joy really means.

Joy is s a feeling that we experience intermittently in parenting (when we see our children becoming kind, independent, functional human beings), and also in our gospel lives (when we have a glimpse of God in our lives). It’s that feeling you get at the finish line where you just know that you have done something really amazing.

How has cognitive dissonance played a role in the formation (or destruction) of your testimony? How do you respond to cognitive dissonance?

Equality and the War on Gender

I went through a few different titles for this post, thinking about what I was going to write: Women and the Priesthood, Women and Equality, Culture vs Doctrine, Feminist or Disciple of Christ? I hope this title describes the post accurately.

My mind has been really full lately. This post, I think, is really just me trying to sort out all those thoughts.

I am not sure what piqued my interest in the Mormon feminist movement, but I am pretty sure it had something to do with all the talk about Joanna Brooks’ book and Ralph Hancock’s responses and critiques of the book. It may have been a post I read on Segullah about the “war on womanhood”. Regardless, a few months ago I started doing a lot of thinking about equality, gender, and the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I also started thinking about the way women (and men) in the Church seem to misunderstand the fundamental doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Manhood/Womanhood vs Discipleship

A commenter on the Segullah post said, “I don’t think in terms of womanhood and manhood. We are all children of God with eternal potential. There is nothing uniquely female about the godly characteristics I am asked to develop.” I agree with this in a major way. In the Church’s handbook for parents there is a section that talks about teaching children to accept and understand their gender roles. If you are unfamiliar with the A Parent’s Guide, I will point out that it was published in 1985 and has not been revised since. When I read this section yesterday I was fully expecting to read about how the Church encourages stereotypical gender roles, such as cooking and cleaning for women, and college and job skills for men. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Church has been teaching equality of the genders at least since the mid-80s, but obviously the doctrine of Jesus Christ has been around for longer than that, and as “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33), this doctrine of equality has been part of the gospel since before any women’s movements.

A quote from the book that supports the commenter at Segullah says, “There are many patterns of behavior that are appropriate for all people. Everyone, male and female, is invited to examine the character of Jesus Christ and emulate him … Among the traits Christ revealed as proper for men and women alike are faith, hope, charity, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, kindness, godliness, humility, diligence, and love. These virtues transcend gender. They are Christlike attributes to which both sexes should aspire … Spiritual gifts, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 46, are not restricted to one gender either. Included are gifts of knowledge, belief, administration, organization, healing, and discernment.” There is more of the same through the section, including statements such as, “You should provide opportunities for your children to develop talents in various directions unhindered by improper stereotypes … Teach your daughters and your sons to seek opportunities to learn and to exploit every such opportunity fully … Boys must learn basic domestic skills, and girls must be able to earn a living if necessary.”

Gender as an Eternal Characteristic

However, the same guide says, “members of the Church must not be deceived about one immutable truth: there is eternal significance in being a man or a woman.” And recall that in The Family: A Proclamation to the World it states, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” So, if gender is so important, but each gender is equally expected (by Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father) to develop all of the characteristics of Christ (many of which, ironically, are “naturally” attribute to women) and any of the spiritual gifts available to God’s children, then what is the difference between the genders?

The same commenter at Segullah pointed out this problem we often encounter in trying to learn and teach about the significance of gender, “Our efforts to teach women of their spiritual equality often overreach into expressions of otherness, specialness, or even betterness [than men]. If we truly believed we were equal in God’s eyes we wouldn’t need to find ways to feel set apart or special.”

So, how do you teach the importance of gender and identity while staying away from expressions of “otherness” and “betterness”?

When Equality Gets in the Way

Equality is a hard principle. What does it really mean? Does equality mean that we should all be the same? Does it mean that everyone should have the exact some opportunities in this life? Does it mean that we should all be treated the exact same? Children should be treated like adults, young adults should be treated like mature adults, the elderly should be treated like young adults?

What does equality really mean? What do we really want when we say we want “equality for women”?

Men today are pressured to be worldly. They are pressured to neglect their families for their jobs, often using their families as an excuse for how much they work. They are pressured to provide the luxuries of the world for their families.

Image Credit: Alex E. Proimos

Families are used by the world as an excuse for men to focus on their jobs and careers, rather than focus on their family. It seems like the opinion of women is, “Why do we only pressure men to be worldly? I want pressure to be worldly, too!” That’s not what they say, but think about it – as women we are not fighting for men to come home, man up, and protect and lead their families. Instead we are fighting for women to be pressured to do more outside the home. We want equality, but we want it in the wrong direction. We are sick of the stereotype of women being housewives and staying at home and doing the laundry while our husbands are out smoking cigars and going to bars with their coworkers and bosses. Should we instead be sick of the stereotype of men being workaholics, spending more time pursuing their careers than spending time with their families?

Is our fight for equality perhaps pushing all of us in the wrong direction?

Manhood/Womanhood and Discipleship

Although there are cultural stereotypes for gender roles which, as members of Christ’s Church we should not espouse, gender is still a significant part of our creation.

In the world today I think that some would like to remove all distinction between the genders. In fact, we are moving at an alarming rate toward a society where you can choose your gender. You can choose to marry someone of the same gender, as if there isn’t a reason why we were created male and female. It was just chance, or it was a mistake nature or God made. If you don’t like it, don’t be that gender, don’t follow the “gender roles” of that gender (and I don’t mean the stereotypical ones here, I mean the we-need-a-man’s-reproductive-organs-and-a-woman’s-reproductive-organs-to-make-babies roles).

Why would we be created the way we are if there wasn’t a reason for it? There is a reason for it. Gender is essential to our identity as children of God. I am just still learning exactly what that means.

From the proclamation again, “By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”

What does this really mean, though? I do not think it means what a lot of people think it means. I do not think it means that men or women are necessarily more naturally inclined to perform their divinely appointed roles. I take this as more of a commandment. Rather than God saying, “Women, you are more naturally predisposed to nurturing, so you guys nurture. Men, you are more predisposed to protecting your families and earning a living, so you guys do that.” I think what God is saying is more like, “Regardless of what your ‘natural’ tendencies are, I want you, women, to nurture children. Men, I want you to provide a safe environment for women to do that, and make sure women and children are clothed and fed and sheltered, and help her out in the nurturing.”

My husband and I have talked at length about this. As far as providing for a family goes, I could make probably two or three times my husband’s income. But my husband has been commanded to provide for his family, and we feel that it is really important for him to do that. Staying home with kids and being nurturing is hard for me, even though I know a lot about raising kids (from a research stand point – not from experience). I can deal with workplace stress a lot easier than I can deal with children-induced stress. But we feel that it is really important that I learn how to nurture our children, even though I would rather provide for our family than nurture our family, and my husband would rather have it be that way, too.

I am aware that there are individual circumstances, but as with every other area in the gospel where there is an “ideal” we should not be looking for reasons to not live the ideal. Nor should we judge others who are not living the ideal for whatever reason.

Questions Without Answers

I’ve been asking a lot of questions in the past few months, and I don’t have all the answers yet – and I was hoping that I would have more answers as I wrote this post, but they seem to elude me. Please feel free to share your thoughts and feelings, and especially quotes from talks or scripture passages that help you answer these questions. Maybe I can find some more answers, too.

GCBC Week 3: “Teaching Our Children to Understand” & “Converted to His Gospel through His Church”

This week we are going to study two talks – both amazing talks – even though these two aren’t completely related. We’re doing this so we can fit in some talks from Priesthood and the YW broadcast. You could always read one in the next few days, and then study the other one later in the week, since they are both shorter talks.

Also, be sure to read the bottom of this post for information about how to engage in a General Conference chat in “real time”.

"Teaching our Children to Understand" - Sister Cheryl A. Esplin

 

“This divine privilege of raising our children is a much greater responsibility than we can do alone, without the Lord’s help. He knows exactly what our children need to know, what they need to do, and what they need to be to come back into His presence. He gives mothers and fathers specific instruction and guidance through the scriptures, His prophets, and the Holy Ghost…

Our role as parents is to do all we can to create an atmosphere where our children can feel the influence of the Spirit and then help them recognize what they are feeling.”

Sister Esplin’s talk was a great parenting mini-class. A lot of her thoughts were reminiscent of Elder David A. Bednar’s conference talk in April 2010: Watching with All Perserverence. He talked about bearing testimony spontaneously, and being aware of daily teaching moments to help invite the Spirit.

If there was one way I would sum up this talk it would be this: “The Spirit is the true teacher. Help your children feel the Spirit so that you and they can be instructed together by the Spirit.”

"Converted to His Gospel through His Church" - Elder Donald L. Hallstrom

“Some have come to think of activity in the Church as the ultimate goal. Therein lies a danger. It is possible to be active in the Church and less active in the gospel. Let me stress: activity in the Church is a highly desirable goal; however, it is insufficient.”

I think Elder Hallstrom’s talk was one of the most popular talks from General Conference. I loved the distinction he helped us make between the gospel and the Church – while noting emphatically that we, indeed, need both.

As I reread the talk I was reminded of the purpose of the Church as pointed out in the Church Handbook of Instructions (I think I have shared this before – probably multiple times):

“The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them.”

One part of Elder Hallstrom’s talk that I remembered from Twitter Stake, but did not remember it came from this talk was when he said, “Many of us are not being regularly changed by [the sacrament’s] cleansing power because of our lack of reverence for this holy ordinance.” I remember people tweeting about having more reverence for the sacrament, but I didn’t remember that it came from Elder Hallstrom’s talk. I had a personal experience about the cleansing and changing power of the sacrament last week. “How meaningful are the ordinances in our lives? How focused are we on our covenants?” I wish I could say that every week was a good as last week, but it isn’t always. I, for one, need to be more deeply converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What are your thoughts after studying these talks? Please share in the comments, and come back throughout the week to engage in the conversation!

------------------------------------

To anyone who is checking out GCBC for the first time, the goal is to read one General Conference talk a week and discuss it together as an on-line “book club.”  If you want more information about how it works, go here.  And then join us.

--------------------------------------

I have been forgetting to mention – I have teamed up with Dave from Downright Dave to coordinate our GCBC schedule with his Weekly #ldsconf Chat. Basically between 8-9pm MST each Wednesday, folks are getting on Twitter to “chat” about the talks from General Conference, and Dave and I have coordinated so that the talks each week are the same. That is, the talk I announce on Sunday will be the talks that they discuss on the Twitter chat on Wednesdays. So if you are itching for some more “real time” discussion format, I encourage you to head over to Twitter. Not sure how to participate in a “chat” on Twitter? Head over to this post from Dave’s website for more information. He gives some pretty good instructions after the schedule.

True Science. True Religion.

I was reading over at Fred’s Spiritual Corner the other day about science and religion, and it got me thinking…

If I haven’t mentioned it before, I studied mathematics and physics at the university level. I obtained a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, and a minor in physics. I love math. I love physics. I am a lover of science, and a lover of religion.

I am not all that unusual. There are lots of Mormons (Latter-day Saints) who love science. In fact, President Ezra Taft Benson once said, “Religion and science have sometimes appeared in conflict. Yet, the conflict can only be apparent, not real, for science seeks truth, and true religion is truth. There can never be conflict between revealed religion and true science. Truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion. All truth is consistent.”

In 1973, President N. Eldon Tanner wrote, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always taught that the glory of God is intelligence and that a man can be saved no faster than he gains knowledge.” Not only are many members of the Church well educated and lovers of science, but the gospel even teaches us to be lovers of science.

(image credit: euthman)

President Tanner went on to say, “Scientists who acknowledge God as a personal God and who accept the scriptures as the word of God may enjoy all scientific principles and scholastic training and progress as rapidly and as far as any other scientist.” We do not need to disregard religion in order to understand science. Nor is it necessary to separate the two.

The Lord has taught us that we should teach each other and learn “words of wisdom” out of the best books (not necessarily just scripture) by study – but also by faith.

It’s important that we don’t disregard our faith while we are studying. The most influential principle in my course of study in physics and mathematics has been learning that “by the power of the Holy Ghost [I can] know the truth of all things.” (Moroni 10:5; emphasis added) Notice the quantifier used here – all. The lack of any other descriptive term in this promise gives us a clue that Moroni doesn’t mean “all spiritual things” or “all things pertaining to the gospel of Jesus Christ”, but truly that by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know the truth of all things – even “secular” things. I have also come to realize that what President Benson said is true  - that “truth is truth, whether labeled science or religion.” There can be no truth that is not religious, because all truth leads us to our Father in Heaven.

We also need to be careful that we do not neglect to prioritize our study of the gospel. Surely we are encouraged to gain a knowledge of the way things work in this world, but these will do us no good if we don’t have a deep understanding of the most important things – things like our relationship with God and Jesus Christ, and our responsibilities in the plan of salvation.

President Tanner concluded his article with this statement, “Anyone who, with an open mind and a prayerful heart, will give as much attention to the teachings of Jesus Christ as to scientific and academic studies will keep his faith.” And, I would add, their understanding of those scientific and academic things will be multiplied.

There has been a lot of debate in the public eye recently about religion and it is very interesting to see how those who are not religious accuse those who are religious of being close minded. But how are those who ridicule religion not being close minded themselves? President Tanner said of these people, “They say one should keep an open mind and learn all the truth one can, yet they close their minds when it comes to the subject of religion.” It is also interesting that those experts in fields of science should feel bold enough to comment on religion, when if a religious expert comments on science they are ridiculed and mocked. Just because I lack an understanding of the principles of chemistry or biology does not mean those principles are not true. Similarly, a lack of understanding of religion does not make religion false or any more preposterous than the principles of evolution.

(image credit: NASA Goddard Photo and Video)

It is interesting to observe how the “truths” of science have changed over time. As we discover “new” truths in science they frequently over turn other “truths” we thought we knew for sure. The whole method of science is that you can never prove something isn’t you can only prove that it is – or, in the absence of a convincing conclusion, you can say there isn’t enough evidence to prove that it is – but just because you can’t prove it is true doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Why would we not extend this method of thinking to religion? And yet people devote a lot of their time and energy to proving that God does not exist, or that one religion or another is not true when in fact, we should be simply dedicating our energies to finding out what is true.

The same scientific method that is used to prove countless scientific principles can be used with religion. The only difference is that the “measurement” can only be found in your own heart and soul. Only you can measure the results from your experiment (although the “fruits” of your experiments may be seen by others – Matt 7:20) President Harold B. Lee quoted Dr. Henry Eyring who said, “I have often met this question: ‘Dr. Eyring, as a scientist, how can you accept revealed religion?’ The answer is simple. The Gospel commits us only to the truth. The same pragmatic tests that apply in science apply to religion. Try it. Does it work?”

I testify that I have tried it. I have tried the gospel. I know that it works. I have also studied science. I know that many of the principles science has discovered are true. I believe that understanding the principles of science can bring us closer to God. I know that we can believe in true science and true religion – and indeed, that is our purpose as Latter-day Saints – to come to understand all truth.

How do you view science and religion? How did you decide that God is real? Did you experiment, just as you would have experimented on an scientific principle?

For more reading on knowledge, science, and religion, see these books/articles:

Find the Answers in the Scriptures – President Harold B. Lee, Dec 1972 First Presidency Message
Right Answers – President N. Eldon Tanner, Oct 1973 First Presidency Message
Your Charge: To Increase in Wisdom and Favor with God and Man – President Ezra Taft Benson, Sept 1979 New Era
Chapter 27: Learning by Study and by Faith – Brigham Young; Teachings of the Presidents of the Church 1997