The Worship of Self

Many people today would teach that in order to be your "real self," in order to be "authentic," you have to pursue those things that make you unique, or that make you the most satisfied with where you are (defined as happiness, most of the time.) This philosophy has become so commonplace that it is often taken as a given. It is said that being your "authentic self" is the most important pursuit we could undertake.

But it is deceptive.

This is why there is such a disconnect of understanding between those who are spiritually religious and those who are culturally religious. (And note that I do not include those who are non-religious, because everyone has a religion of some sort, whether they realize it or not. Even the atheists. Sometimes, especially the atheists.)

There have been times in my life when I was presented with a clear choice, to be "myself" or to choose some other path. Because of this, I know that there are more important things than the pursuit of ephemeral "authenticity."

Can't I Learn Humility Some Other Way?

The other day, I caught myself beginning to obsess about some things that someone said about me. Whenever I am criticized, my habit at first is to panic. Could it be true? Could I really be that incompetent/ petty/ jealous/ angry/ whatever? Is there some major flaw in my character I'm not seeing that I need to fix RIGHT AWAY OR I WON'T BE LOVED?!?

One of my besetting sins is to continually desire perfection. Lest ye think that this is some pseudo-sin, let me assure you it is not. It has affected my relationships with people, myself, and even God. Most of my sorrow in life has been brought about because I was trying so hard to be good and failed. Again and again and again.*

My life-scripture, the one that seems to come up over and over again, is the Lord's words to Moroni. Moroni was looking at the testimony he had written and comparing it to the power the Lord had granted him in speaking. (I wonder what I wouldn't give to actually hear the words of those ancient prophets. If their written words are weak, then imagine the power of God present in their speech!)

Like Moroni, I see unflattering contrast between what I desire and what actually happens. I feel the power of God move in me, but I look at what I do and it is so weak in comparison to what I WANT to be doing. I long for human spiritual connection the way Moroni longed to Spiritually connect, and believe deep down that I have to be perfect to get it.

The Lord says to Moroni, "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble."

I hate weakness. I hate forgiving and then finding myself having to forgive again. I hate feeling like I don't know the rules to the game of life, and if only I knew them I could do them and everyone would love me. I hate feeling occasionally angry, tired, cranky, depressed or jealous when underneath it I have less than no desire to be any of those things, EVER.

And yet, I'm coming to understand that I will never be strong, and that is a good thing. So long as I use my weakness to look at myself and realize that I am not God, that weakness can change me for the better. If I come to accept that weakness, to ignore it, or worse to revel in it, I remain caught in pride and unable to serve the Lord.

So even though I see my weakness and ache to be rid of it, I am trying my best to forgive myself, to not obsess over all the things I do wrong, but to focus on what I'm doing right RIGHT NOW. I don't think it is coincidence that we later hear from Moroni one of the most powerful discourses on charity extant.

And maybe if I'm more humble, I'll be receptive when the Lord uses my weaknesses to further His purposes.






*As a side note, I I read a recent paper that discusses homosexuality and realized how many of those traits I shared. It got me thinking about ways of thinking in general (metathinking!) and how many of the principles described in that therapy could help with other issues.

Michelle Obama and the Price of a Loss of Religion

As I listened to NPR this morning, waiting for the gym to open, I heard an interesting opinion on Michelle Obama. (I tried to find a link, but I don't think it is yet posted. If anyone knows where it is, please let me know.) The woman speaking, Rachel, opined that the First Lady incumbent had a powerful image that was being made "more comfortable" for the American people. She claimed that America was uncomfortable with powerful women, and that is why Michelle Obama was focusing on work/life balance for women, military wives and other similar agendas. Claiming she was dumbed down for the American people to swallow her better, she said that Michelle was going to be the same First Lady we've had in the past. Her basis for this was that there was a lot of hype about Senator Obama and his children adjusting to the change, but little was said about Michelle having to "give up her identity" and her own paycheck and the adjustment necessary for that.

The discussion got me thinking about the view of motherhood. It was obvious from the discussion that Michelle was losing something by going from a powerful lawyer to a mom and First Lady. It was clear that the speaker considered a woman's value to be tied up in what she did and in having an identity independent from her husband. It is this sort of attitude I believe was criticized when the First Presidency issued the Proclamation on the Family.

Society has increasingly begun to view marriage and family as a mix between a burden and a luxury. Those who marry do so with a feeling of what they will get out of the arrangement. If you listen to the Proposition 8 riots and rhetoric, to much of the feminist rhetoric, and even to television and radio, you will hear marriage almost exclusively discussed in terms of benefits to individuals. In divorces, one spouse didn't "meet the needs" of the other, a couple "fell out of love" or tried to control each other. In discussing gay marriage, it is seen almost exclusively as a right with government benefits.

All of these viewpoints are poisonous. Marriage is not a contract with benefits on either side; it is a commitment. When two people marry, they commit to each other and to their future children. They dedicate all of their resources and time to the betterment of that new family unit. A person agrees to put the welfare of that tiny unit of society above their own individual welfare. It is the arrangement which best allows us to become like Christ, because we mimic His actions when He put the welfare of the world above His own.

Although many argue that atheism—a loss of belief in God—does nothing to remove morality—an understanding of the need to care and provide for another's needs—I think the root of all these problems in society is a loss of belief in God. For this purpose, it does not matter which belief in God you have as long as your belief includes a need to submit the self. Religions which focus on self-attainment or self-perfection miss the mark. I want to note here that Mormonism in practice often falls into this category, focusing far too much on self-purification and too little on selflessness. Our hands are not clean of this sin.

Marriage is not a social arrangement to benefit the self, it is a social arrangement to better the whole. Religion teaches this concept in a way that simple morality cannot. The Christian religion, since that is the one I know best, especially demonstrates this. If God, the greatest of all beings, was willing to lay down His life for an imperfect world, we ought to be able to lay down our lives, whether by living them or by losing them, for our imperfect spouses. I, for one, admire Michelle Obama for being willing to dedicate herself to her marriage and to her husband's glory, just as I admire husbands willing to work in a drudgery job every day to provide for their family, or vice versa. Marriage is a series of submissions from both sides of the equation. That is what the Proclamation on the Family has to teach us. That is what Christ taught us with His life. That is the value of religion and the price we all pay when it is mocked and trampled.

Professing Christ Means You're Better?

I'm not a big sucker for politics. I try to keep my boots as clean as possible while gathering enough information to vote. I don't usually comment on political issues, but this isn't really a political issue so much as a religious one. In watching the debates about whether or not good LDS members will break the Republican mold, a comment was made that voting for Huckabee is better than voting for Obama because "any person who professes Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior . . . will be a better person for it." I don't think so. I think it depends on what image the so-called "professor of faith" has created for Jesus Christ.

Evidence: The Crusaders professed Christ as Lord and Savior.
The Inquisition professed Christ as Lord and Savior.
The Salem witch hunters professed Christ as Lord and Savior.

I generally feel pity for atheists and agnostics, but there is one thing on which I wholeheartedly agree with them: unaccountable evil has been done in the name of Christ. Christ himself warned that many would come falsely in His name. That it is necessary to take upon oneself the name of Christ in order to be saved is inarguable. However, if someone confesses the name of Jesus Christ, but does so by redefining that name, he is creating a false Christ and is, essentially, taking the name of God in vain. The name of Christ is its own, it cannot be used to justify a person's own agenda. True belief in Christ is not a political tool.

Whether or not Huckabee falls into that category, I'm not intending to comment on, but simply saying "I believe in Jesus" is not enough to truly take His name upon oneself. Nor does it automatically make one a better person. In some cases, it has shown to make one infinitely worse. For me, I'd rather* have a sincere and humble follower of Islam in office than a two-faced, manipulative Mormon.

*Disclaimer: this is not a comment on either Obama or Romney, so don't get your knickers in a twist.