British LDS and high tea
Colleen Porter
spring break in a few weeks.
I am wondering about the propriety of going to "high tea" which is
such a London tradition.
Is this okay because it is really a meal, and would they have some
beverage alternative like herbal tea or hot chocolate?
Or should we "avoid the appearance of evil" by not participating at
all?
What do locals and missionaries do? Advice appreciated.
Colleen Kay Porter
bgirl
"Colleen Porter" <cpo...@afn.org> wrote in message
news:u5ud35d...@news.supernews.com...
> I am wondering about the propriety of going to "high tea" which is
> such a London tradition.
>
worry about. If tea is offered, you just say "no thank you". Tea time is
simply a figure of speech.
Plus you would be surprised that most of the teas that I was offered were
harmless herbal teas.
Every LDS house I went to had "high tea" as well.
Relax... (wink).....there is simply no evil you have to avoid.
*brianne
Ann Porter
news:u5ud35d...@news.supernews.com...
> Or should we "avoid the appearance of evil" by not participating at
> all?
Ms. Rogers will now explain what "appearance of evil" really means...
Go! Have fun! Sounds like a delightful adventure.
Is this going to overlap with my visit? Am I going to get to see y'all at
ALL when I'm in Florida?
Love,
Ann
Tom Moore
> I am wondering about the propriety of going
> to "high tea" which is such a London tradition.
This is a (cooked) meal, and not a drink. With it, will always be on
offer a selection of drinks, including tea, coffee, herbal teas, sodas and
so on.
> Is this okay because it is really a meal, and would they have
> some beverage alternative like herbal tea or hot chocolate?
A retail establishment would always have alternatives to both tea and
coffee. Frankly, the profit margins on their retail for consumption on the
premises is much higher.
> What do locals and missionaries do? Advice appreciated.
They understand the term "tea" to have more than one meaning, just as you
have two meanings for "gas:" you can cook with it, or put a completely
different liquid "gas" into your automobile.
You'll probably only find High Tea in Harrods, near Knightsbridge Station,
on the Piccadilly Line (dark blue) of London's subway, called the
Underground or "tube." Others will probably never use the term, as it's
out of fashion (and fattening).
Harrods used, and may still, allow patrons to eat as many cakes as they
like, but make sure this is after you complete the cooked part of your
meal. Otherwise, we'll starting wispering and tut-tuting. Many pompous
people use Harrods as a serious eatery.
Harrods is also about a mile's walk from Hyde Park LdS Chapel, aka the
Institute (South Kensington Underground, circle [yellow] and district
[green] subway lines). Walk south from there, and just past the V&A
Museum, you will find a road junction with traffic lights. Turn left, and
Harrods is about 3/4 mile on your right.
Inviting someone into your home for a cup of tea, means for a drink of
their choosing and chat; unless the person you're inviting is a lover, in
that case you must invite them in for coffee, which may turn out to be tea,
or some other drink. I trust that's all entirely clear and logical ;)
Do try to get out of London: it's no more England than DC is the US.
--
The World's most exciting WebCam
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~tom_moore1/webcam/webcam.htm
Craig Olson
>
> Colleen Porter <cpo...@afn.org> wrote:
>
> > Or should we "avoid the appearance of evil" by not participating at
> > all?
>
> Ms. Rogers will now explain what "appearance of evil" really means...
Not if I get there first!
To understand the real meaning of this scripture, you have to look at
context and customs of the time. First understand that the people
to whom Paul wrote had a childlike faith. In fact, they were just
about childlike - childish even - in many things. Keep that in
mind as we read in 1st Thessalonians Chapter 5 where Paul says:
21 Prove all things;
hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
The first part you can ignore; it was part of Paul's work with the
Thessalonians on pre-Euclidian geometry and he was reminding them
to complete their homework on proving the trigonometric functions
for triangles with two equal sides. If they had published their
results before the people in Isocelia, we'd call those figures
thessalones triangles, but it was not to be. Some kids just won't
turn things in on time, even if an Apostle were to ask them.
The next part is the key: it is Paul's encouragement to hold
regular fast meetings - something that is good to do. But, Paul
warns, try not to look so bad when you do that. Don't sit there
and hold your stomach, grimace and wring your hands. Don't
fast from combing your hair or washing your face, either.
In other words, when you hold a fast - which is good - abstain
both from food *and* from looking so wretched about the whole
process.
So, to apply this to Colleen's situation, I assume she was simply
saying it would not do to go to high tea while fasting, which
would prevent one from participating at all in the event.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Craig
Ann Porter
news:u60a3n6...@news.supernews.com...
> To understand the real meaning of this scripture, you have to look at
> context and customs of the time. First understand that the people
> to whom Paul wrote had a childlike faith. In fact, they were just
> about childlike - childish even - in many things. Keep that in
> mind as we read in 1st Thessalonians Chapter 5 where Paul says:
<snip bizarre explanation>
> So, to apply this to Colleen's situation, I assume she was simply
> saying it would not do to go to high tea while fasting, which
> would prevent one from participating at all in the event.
>
> Makes perfect sense to me.
Jet lag again, Craig?
Fondly,
Ann
Tom Moore
> Jet lag again, Craig?
If you think Melatonin is good for jet lag, you must bring your own on any
visit to Great Britain. There's no charge for its import, but you can't
buy it without a doctor's prescription, which most will have difficulty
writing, because it's not in the British National Formulary or on the list
of drugs normally available to British "National Health" patients.
BTW, a visitor from SLC told me, a couple of years ago, that the worst
thing about Great Britain, is having complete strangers correct your
pronunciation and grammar.
Colleen Porter
> Harrods is also about a mile's walk from Hyde Park LdS Chapel, aka the
> Institute (South Kensington Underground, circle [yellow] and district
> [green] subway lines).
Thanks so much for the info. We will be there on Sunday, March 3.
> Do try to get out of London: it's no more England than DC is the US.
Yes, but many Americans make a pilgrimmage to DC. In fact, I'm taking
the younger girls the last week in March.
This trip to London was the idea of my second daughter, who just
finished some art/humanities class where she read about all the stuff
in London's museums. I let her choose the destination since it is our
last voyage together for a while. She is in the process of putting in
her mission papers, and will hopefully leave during the summer.
As far as getting out of London--I can afford one overnight trip out,
and would love suggestions...we were thinking Canterbury or Salsbury,
but since one can't hardly get close to Stonehenge nowadays, I
wondered...suggestions welcome. Craig, I tried to reply to your
wonderful message about that, but the address did not work.
Thanks so much for the insights, everyone. I've travelled enough to
know not to take anything for granted, and it's incredibly helpful to
know what the locals think. For instance, to read the travel
brochures for Brazil, you'd think Carnival is a wonderful local
tradition...but the members of our ward in Brazil did not participate,
and shipped the young men and young women off to camps out of the
city. They felt the drinking and sexual innuendo is just too much to
be appropriate for LDS.
Ann, I shifted my dates when I got yours. We get back on the 9th, so
I'll be around all of Sunday, and Monday from lunch on.
Colleen Kay Porter
bgirl
>
> As far as getting out of London--I can afford one overnight trip out,
> and would love suggestions...we were thinking Canterbury or Salsbury,
> but since one can't hardly get close to Stonehenge nowadays, I
> wondered...suggestions welcome. Craig, I tried to reply to your
> wonderful message about that, but the address did not work.
>
Stonehenge is about a 2 to 3 hour drive from London.
Personally I'd go to Bath. Not sure how far that is from you, though most
of the British Isles you can get to with a 10 hour drive.
Cambridge is about an hour. Nottingham maybe 5 hours. (or less?)
Do take the Bus Tour in London. And if you go to Bath do it there as well.
You'll see everything.
Colleen...if you don't mind....could you explain your definition of
'appearance of evil'? I'm curious. Please take no offense by the comment. I
am genuinely curious of the different interpretations of this question....
*b
Haole
<moore_tom...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> BTW, a visitor from SLC told me, a couple of years ago, that the worst
> thing about Great Britain, is having complete strangers correct your
> pronunciation and grammar.
London is one of the very few places in the world where I feel completely
at home. It seems like every guy my age there has my taste in clothes,
hairstyle, etc, even names that sound like mine. Everytime I am on the
tube I feel like I am surrounded by cousins and kids I grew up with.
Whenever I am somewhere and someone asks the crowd to close their eyes and
imagine their favorite place, or a relaxing place or something like that,
I imagine myself in a Camden market on an early Saturday afternoon, or
coming out of the Brixton Tube station on market day. (Of course, much of
the rest of my travel has been in places where any white guy at all was a
rarety).
Oddly, many Brits can easily place my accent as Milwaukee, or at very
least midwestern american which is more than many Americans I know can.
In my opinion, the worst thing about Great Britian is how everytime I
return home I spend a week or so trying to get 'mate' out of my vocabulary
from having heard people call me that so much. That and the whole
hundreds and hundreds of years of oppression of Celtic peoples thing.
I recently learned that for a period of several years in the mid 1800s
there were more LDS in Great Britain or on their way to the US than
actually in the US.
Also, many of my more mainstream LDS friends are, uh, puzzled by my love
of wine gums, the British kind in particular, and some even find it
inappropriate. These, however, are people who don't know that I always
keep pub cans of Murphy's Irish Stout in my fridge for cooking. :)
I wish I had some good tips for the group about things to visit in London,
but I like things such as the House Captain Cook lived in, the pubs of the
early punk rock movement, soccer fields, and the shop that transformed Dr.
Marten's from a little-known facory shoe part manufacturer to a fashion
powerhouse (Holz' in Camden, look for my name and picture on the wall).
These might not be of interest to everyone here.
-Haole
Tom Moore
> Personally I'd go to Bath. Not sure how far that is from you,
Ca 100 miles from London. Oxford is very nice: frequent &
inexpensive coach service from Victoria Coach Station (different to
Victoria Bus Station), called "Oxford Tube."
> Nottingham maybe 5 hours. (or less?)
Much less. Two hours, at most, by coach.
> Do take the Bus Tour in London.
Yes, buy One Day Travelcards, go to Paddington (Circle, District and
Bakerloo subway lines), and catch a bus on route number 17: no commentary,
but it passes nearly all the sights, get off at Tower Bridge (the one for
which London is famous). During the day, Monday to Saturday, this route
has the old rear entrance Routemaster double decker vehicles.
Tim Hatcher
moving among the rankrs of the very rich or the upper classes/royalty etc
you may need to advise ahead of time that you will not drink traditional tea
but herbal teas/hot chocolate are available in any worthy hotel or
restaurant. If you are with the rest of us just don't worry at all. As
before advance warning to hosts is polite & gives them time to avoid any
mild embarassment.
Colleen Porter
> Colleen...if you don't mind....could you explain your definition of
> 'appearance of evil'? I'm curious. Please take no offense by the comment. I
> am genuinely curious of the different interpretations of this question....
Ah, well. My definition was mostly formed while a student at BYU, so
there's that disclaimer.
I think it is just anything that might appear from the outside to
other people to be possibly evil, even though it is NOT evil if you
could see the actual motivation.
And I try to avoid those situations which might be misinterpreted.
It is true that on one hand it is nobody's business, and their fault
if they interpret the situation incorrectly. But on the other hand, I
am a Relief Society president, and a popular columnist for the local
newspaper (in Florida, so I'm looked to as an LDS role model) and it
is just so much easier to fly well above the trees.
Some of the things I am careful about are that I never invite a male
colleague to my room when I'm away at a conference, even if we need
the time to prepare a presentation--we just work on it in a lobby or
meeting room instead. I also just about never drive anywhere alone
with a man other than my husband (about the only exception I can think
of is that occasionally I do drive out of town with a male colleague,
when it can't be helped.) And if I'm at an occasion where alcoholic
beverages are being consumed as well, I try to get the soft-drink can,
so that it is very clear what I am drinking. All my clothes are
clearly above or below the garment line, so that no one would ever
question my standards. And so on.
Colleen Kay Porter
bgirl
Being a huge Shakespeare fan I was enthralled......
and there is Warwick Castle and the Duke of Marlborough's (I think) near
there as well. Warwick is filled with Madam Tussows (I know THAT is
misspelled) wax figures and is quite enchanting!
bgirl
"> It is true that on one hand it is nobody's business, and their fault
> if they interpret the situation incorrectly. But on the other hand, I
> am a Relief Society president, and a popular columnist for the local
> newspaper (in Florida, so I'm looked to as an LDS role model) and it
> is just so much easier to fly well above the trees.
>
> Some of the things I am careful about are that I never invite a male
> colleague to my room when I'm away at a conference, even if we need
> the time to prepare a presentation--we just work on it in a lobby or
> meeting room instead. I also just about never drive anywhere alone
> with a man other than my husband (about the only exception I can think
> of is that occasionally I do drive out of town with a male colleague,
> when it can't be helped.) And if I'm at an occasion where alcoholic
> beverages are being consumed as well, I try to get the soft-drink can,
> so that it is very clear what I am drinking. All my clothes are
> clearly above or below the garment line, so that no one would ever
> question my standards. And so on.
>
understand. I am also from Florida (small world!)
Have fun on your visit to England. The people are wonderful! I miss it
dearly!!
much love,
*b
Peggy Rogers
> Ah, well. My definition was mostly formed while a student at BYU, so
> there's that disclaimer.
>
> I think it is just anything that might appear from the outside to
> other people to be possibly evil, even though it is NOT evil if you
> could see the actual motivation.
>
> And I try to avoid those situations which might be misinterpreted.
And, with all due respect to Colleen (who is someone I admire a great deal)
this is precisely the interpretation of Thesssalonians 5:22 that I hate
exceedingly. (After all, I do have a reputation to live up to here!)
If you look at the original Greek, what the verse "Abstain from all
appearance of evil" means something like "Always avoid evil, no matter what
it looks like" rather than "Always avoid looking as if you _might_ be doing
something evil." Big difference, IMO. But then, there's nothing _evil_ about
drinking beverages other than tea or liquor, or having business meetings
with men in a lobby instead of one's hotel room. So it's not as if Colleen
is acting contrary to my understanding of the scripture.
Peggy
Ned Kelly
here in Australia. It means "Dinner" or "Supper" (supper here in Australia
is a late-night snack). Even in the church, and amongst the missionaries,
the term tea is used. Missionaries have "tea dates". So, no worries!
David Bowie
: My college-aged daughters and I are traveling to London for their
Well, since we know that Mormons are supposed to avoid coffee tables and
coffee cake, i'm pretty sure a high tea would be right out.
David, omitting the smiley to confuse the clueless
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
David Bowie
: "bgirl" <bri...@spamtrapalpha66.com> wrote...
: > Colleen...if you don't mind....could you explain your
: > definition of 'appearance of evil'? I'm curious. Please
: > take no offense by the comment. I am genuinely curious
: > of the different interpretations of this question....
: Ah, well. My definition was mostly formed while a student
: at BYU, so there's that disclaimer.
Important disclaimer, too.
In my experience, BYU religion profs (speaking in overgeneralizations)
actually do a good job trying to teach the doctrines of the church, but then
the BYU bishops (again speaking in overgeneralizations) go and mess it all
up--and the "appearance of evil" misinterpretation is an example of that,
IMO.
: I think it is just anything that might appear from the outside to
: other people to be possibly evil, even though it is NOT evil if you
: could see the actual motivation.
But, as has been pointed out before, when the scriptures talk about fleeing
the very "appearance of evil", that's *not* what it's saying--it's saying to
avoid evil itself (more a "when evil appears"), not to avoid having things
appear to others like they might be evil.
I have no problem with people having such a rule for themselves, but i do
wish people wish such rules would use a different phrase for it.
</peev^H^H^H^Hsoapbox>
<snip>
David, who thinks this one's actually important
John S. Colton
[snip]
>But, as has been pointed out before, when the scriptures talk about fleeing
>the very "appearance of evil", that's *not* what it's saying--it's saying to
>avoid evil itself (more a "when evil appears"), not to avoid having things
>appear to others like they might be evil.
[snip]
That's very interesting, Dave. I hadn't heard that before. I'm
wondering what your reference is, though.
Here, the word translated as "appearance" in 1 Th 5:22 is given the
definition: "the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
form, kind", which doesn't exactly match your definition, but doesn't
exactly match the typical LDS usage either.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1491&version=kjv
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
Gerald G. Fuller
col...@blochsimplespamblock.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:50:20 -0000, David Bowie wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>But, as has been pointed out before, when the scriptures talk about fleeing
>>the very "appearance of evil", that's *not* what it's saying--it's saying to
>>avoid evil itself (more a "when evil appears"), not to avoid having things
>>appear to others like they might be evil.
>[snip]
>
>That's very interesting, Dave. I hadn't heard that before. I'm
>wondering what your reference is, though.
I agree with those who believe that the passage in question (1 Thes
5:22) means to shun evil, not merely its appearance. After all, if we
follow the example of the savior we might eat with publicans (tax
collectors) and sinners (all other people) without worry, but if we
abstain from the mere thought that someone might think we are doing or
about to do something evil, we could not.
Here are several translations from the Bible Gateway.
New International Version
Avoid every kind of evil.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
abstain from every [1] form of evil.
Or appearance
New Living Translation (NLT)
Keep away from every kind of evil.
King James Version (KJV)
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
New King James Version (NKJV)
Abstain from every form of evil.
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
abstain from every form of evil.
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
Abstain from all appearance of evil.
NIV formatted (NIV-IBS)
Avoid every kind of evil.
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
My brothers, ask God to help us.
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
from all appearance of evil abstain ye;
Darby Translation (DARBY)
hold aloof from every form of wickedness.
American Standard Version (ASV)
22 abstain from every form of evil.
I think it is evil we are to abstain from, not mere appearance.
Gene
Gerald G. Fuller
col...@blochsimplespamblock.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
Snip
>Here, the word translated as "appearance" in 1 Th 5:22 is given the
>definition: "the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
>form, kind", which doesn't exactly match your definition, but doesn't
>exactly match the typical LDS usage either.
>
>http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1491&version=kjv
John, I notice in your reference that the word is translated as
"appearance" only once in KJV. It is rendered as "shape" twice, and as
"sight" once. So we are to avoid, shun, flee, every sight of evil, or
evil in every shape. We are to shun evil whenever it appears.
Of course for our weaker brethren, Paul would tell us to avoid
appearing to be engaging in evil as well, so maybe all those BYU
bishops that David was talking about are not giving bad counsel after
all.
Gene
David Naas
sisters -- Avoid the near occasion of sin -- which means : don't go where
you'll be tempted, if you can at all help it. If you are an alcoholic, don't
go to meet a friend in a bar, etc. ( OTOH, there is Paul saying that his
exercise of freedom should not be an occasion to cause someone else to
stumble. OTOOH, can a person's actions be held hostage to the phobias of the
weakest of the brethren. On The Gripping Hand, if we don't cater to those
phobias, are we really demonstrating Christian charity?
Regards,
David Naas
who is really confused sometimes, and othres is positively muddled.
Colleen Porter
> "Colleen Porter" <cpo...@afn.org> wrote...
> : "bgirl" <bri...@spamtrapalpha66.com> wrote...
>
> : > Colleen...if you don't mind....could you explain your
> : > definition of 'appearance of evil'? I'm curious. Please
> : > take no offense by the comment. I am genuinely curious
> : > of the different interpretations of this question....
>
> : Ah, well. My definition was mostly formed while a student
> : at BYU, so there's that disclaimer.
>
> Important disclaimer, too.
>
> In my experience, BYU religion profs (speaking in overgeneralizations)
> actually do a good job trying to teach the doctrines of the church, but then
> the BYU bishops (again speaking in overgeneralizations) go and mess it all
> up--and the "appearance of evil" misinterpretation is an example of that,
> IMO.
Well, I went to a Provo ward rather than a BYU ward, so you can't
blame that:)
I don't consider this a "misinterpretation" because I never think of
it in reference to the original scripture. I just think of it as a
PRINCIPLE, which I believe is true and which I practice for myself. I
really had no idea where that phrase occured in scripture and don't
particularly care.
Is that the correct interpretation of that phrase? Maybe not. Have
the brethren told bishops and relief society presidents not to travel
together? Darn right they have. And used that phrase when teaching
the principle.
> I have no problem with people having such a rule for themselves, but i do
> wish people wish such rules would use a different phrase for it.
David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to describe
that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
For our family, those five simple words, "avoiding the appearance of
evil," has made a very quick and understandable shorthand when it came
to discussing issues like having male visitors when a parent wasn't
home, going on co-ed camping trips, appropriate dress for church
functions, etc.
Colleen Kay Porter
Ann Porter
> David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to describe
> that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
What concept?
The idea that what really matters is what something looks like, vs. what it
is?
"Lead me not into temptation..." might work, and it's more applicable to the
actual issue - avoiding situations that could lead to real trouble, vs.
being concerned about how a situation looks. And it's still only five
words.
FWIW, we only have one car, and for many months when I was attending ward
council the EQ president would give me a lift. After we got a new EQ
president, I started riding with the YW president, who was also a neighbor.
Now the new PP rides with the new EQP, because she also only has one car and
he lives about five houses away.
My main concern would be that I wouldn't want my kids to get the idea that
something is only bad if it looks bad.
Best,
Ann
John S. Colton
[snip]
>My main concern would be that I wouldn't want my kids to get the idea that
>something is only bad if it looks bad.
Along these lines, a concern of mine is that I wouldn't want people to
refrain from doing the right thing, because of people's perceptions.
For example, last year we had a speaker talk about IIRC how when he
was bishop, he once was driving along and happened to see his High
Priest Group Leader walk into a pornographic movie theater. As he
related, he was put into a quandary-- he felt like he should go into
the theater to "retrieve" the man, but "What if someone should see me
go in?"
My POV was that the question of others seeing him should have no
bearing on whether or not he should go in after the HPGL. (And for all
he knew, maybe the HPGL had gone in after someone else from the
congregation!)
David Bowie
: On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 16:50:20 -0000, David Bowie wrote:
: >But, as has been pointed out before, when the scriptures talk
: >about fleeing the very "appearance of evil", that's *not* what
: >it's saying--it's saying to avoid evil itself (more a "when
: >evil appears"), not to avoid having things appear to others
: >like they might be evil.
: That's very interesting, Dave. I hadn't heard that before. I'm
: wondering what your reference is, though.
: Here, the word translated as "appearance" in 1 Th 5:22 is given the
: definition: "the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
: form, kind", which doesn't exactly match your definition, but doesn't
: exactly match the typical LDS usage either.
: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1491&version=kjv
Actually, the definition you give appears to me to be perfectly
ambiguous--it can fit either reading equally well.
Just at the outset, try nearly every other translation in the Bible in
German and English. (German may be better, since it's easier to disambiguate
the two concepts in German than in English.) I readily admit i don't know
Greek, but i'm quite happy to rely on the weight of scholarship as evidenced
by translations of the verse.
David, who collects not Bibles, but Bible translations
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Actually, the definition you give appears to me to be perfectly
>ambiguous--it can fit either reading equally well.
Yes, I agree.
>Just at the outset, try nearly every other translation in the Bible in
>German and English. (German may be better, since it's easier to disambiguate
>the two concepts in German than in English.)
[snip]
Good idea. Here's the Luther Bible:
"Meidet das Böse in jeder Gestalt"
(John's translation: "Avoid evil in every form", or perhaps, "Avoid
every possible type of evil.")
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>(German may be better, since it's easier to disambiguate
>the two concepts in German than in English.)
>From the 1545 Luther translation, <<22. Meidet allen bösen Schein!>>
"Avoid all evil manifestations!". This is from the 1545 Luther
translation, so it probably means:
<<22 Meidet das Böse in jeder Gestalt,>> Which is the 1984 rendition.
In English:
"Avoid evil in all its forms."
There still seems to be enough ambiguity there to allow for both
Colleen's, John's, and your interpretations of the verse.
>From the (untrained transliterator's) Greek (Wescott and Hort, 1881),
we get, "apo pantos eisous ponerou apekhesthe", meaning, roughly,
"abstain from every perceivable kind of wickedness," which seems to me
to lend itself more towards avoiding evil itself than the appearance
of evil.
Rob
Colleen Porter
> Colleen Porter <cpo...@afn.org> wrote in message
> news:u6dfis4...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to describe
> > that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
>
> What concept?
>
> The idea that what really matters is what something looks like, vs. what it
> is?
Nope. I would never say that "what something looks like" is what
REALLY matters. Of course appearances are far less important than
substance. What is in our hearts is what REALLY matters.
But I would say that "what something looks like matters." It matters
some. And since it is generally so easy to avoid "an appearance of
evil," I try to do so.
> "Lead me not into temptation..." might work, and it's more applicable to the
> actual issue - avoiding situations that could lead to real trouble, vs.
> being concerned about how a situation looks.
That is not quite the message I am trying to convey. I don't honestly
believe that inviting a male friend to my hotel room will lead to
temptation. All it does to avoid that situation is to avoid the
appearance of evil. And that's worth doing, especially for those of
us who live our lives in the public eye.
Because my mug shot appears in the local newspaper once a month, I
have people coming up and wanting to talk to me in all kinds of
places. At the public swimming pool, in the produce section of the
grocery store, at the gym, at the hospital...I'm so glad I had my
surgery in Atlanta instead. And these folks expect me to act just
like I write. So I do, to the best of my ability. I try to avoid
giving an appearance of not living up to the standards I espouse.
> FWIW, we only have one car, and for many months when I was attending ward
> council the EQ president would give me a lift. After we got a new EQ
> president, I started riding with the YW president, who was also a neighbor.
> Now the new PP rides with the new EQP, because she also only has one car and
> he lives about five houses away.
Of course each of us does what we can and must. I'm sure that a
blanket policy banning opposite-gender driving together will never be
part of the General Handbook of Instruction, because different
localities have different needs and realities. But every stake in
which I've served in a leadership capacity has asked leaders not to
travel alone with those of the opposite sex, and in our family we've
been fortunate enough to be able to arrange our lives to follow that
counsel. When we lived elsewhere, my husband would take the car to an
early-morning leadership meeting, and the kids and I would come later
with a married couple. Of course, upon moving here, we bought a home
4 blocks from church, because he was stake clerk at the time.
I did look back and try to see what influences had given me this idea
that appearances matter, and here are some:
Elder James E. Faust gave a talk back in October 1977, in which he
said, "Since there are no harmless flirtations and no place for
jealousy after marriage, it is best to avoid the very appearance of
evil by shunning any questionable contact with another to whom we are
not married." I really like his use of the term "questionable,"
because I don't think any of the things I try to avoid are actually
evil--but they could be misinterpreted, so they are "questionable."
There's also an Ensign article from October 1980 by Diane K. Jennings,
discussing the role of a bishop's wife, in which she wrote, "We were
also counseled to avoid the very appearance of evil at all costs, so
my husband frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have
offered a ride, and I occasionally sat in the deserted chapel foyer
late at night while my husband counseled a sister alone." Yup, that's
exactly the kind of thing we would do, too.
And the other reference I do not have, because my husband gave it away
to one of our kids, but in the book "One flesh, one heart," by
Carlfred Broderick, he talks about how, as a young bishop or stake
president, he told President Kimball to his face that policies against
opposite-sex leaders driving together are insulting, and what the
response was.
So while I do consider this a personal choice and not church policy
per se, it's a pretty mainstream idea.
> My main concern would be that I wouldn't want my kids to get the idea that
> something is only bad if it looks bad.
I wouldn't want that either, but it's never been much of a problem.
We never worry about what people think when it comes to the brand of
gym shoes or jeans we wear, or the books we read or the color of our
hair. We could care less about what the in-crowd thinks about stuff
like that.
But to have someone misunderstand and think we are failing to live
church standards--well, that is worth avoiding, especially when we
have found it pretty easy to do so.
Colleen Kay Porter
John S. Colton
[snip]
>There still seems to be enough ambiguity there to allow for both
>Colleen's, John's, and your interpretations of the verse.
[snip]
I didn't actually have an interpretation of the verse. Since Dave's
interpretation was different than what I'd heard before, I was just
wondering where it came from.
Indeed, after researching a bit, it would seem that likely a proper
interpretation would be, "avoid evil, in all its appearances".
This commentary points out that if Jesus had been trying to avoid
appearing evil to the Jews, he wouldn't have healed on the Sabbath, or
eaten with publicans and sinners:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=1th&chapter=5#1Th5_22
This other commentary, OTOH, does seems to espouse the "traditional
LDS version" of the verse, i.e., that one should avoid that which "may
be suspected of others to be sin":
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=1th&chapter=5&verse=22
Bryan Stack
> Indeed, after researching a bit, it would seem that likely a proper
> interpretation would be, "avoid evil, in all its appearances".
Or perhaps "manifestations" or "forms," just to avoid
the appearance of meaning appearance when you really
mean appearance... ;-\
-- Bryan
Gerald G. Fuller
wrote:
Snip
>Is that the correct interpretation of that phrase? Maybe not. Have
>the brethren told bishops and relief society presidents not to travel
>together? Darn right they have. And used that phrase when teaching
>the principle.
But the underlyhing principle here, in my own opinion, is not that it
may give a bad opinion to those with suspicious and evil minds who
themselves might take advantage of such a situation, but that it gives
an opportunity for a temptation to arise that is best resisted by
avoidance or fleeing.
Joseph (son of Israel) fled from the room of Potiphar's wife not
because being there might appear to be evil, but because evil had
indeed shown up there. So "appear" and "appearance" have at least two
meanings. If you feel safer staying away from that which might appear
to others to be evil, then by all means do so. But even if you are
where there may be some question in the minds of others, if evil
actually occurs there, be sure you are not part of it. Flee when evil
shows up!
Snip
>David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to describe
>that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
If you are referring to a bishop and a RS president travelling
together unacompanied, rather than "avoid appearance of evil" isn't it
rather "avoid occasions of temptation"?
Snip
Gene
Ann Porter
> There's also an Ensign article from October 1980 by Diane K. Jennings,
> discussing the role of a bishop's wife, in which she wrote, "We were
> also counseled to avoid the very appearance of evil at all costs, so
> my husband frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have
> offered a ride, and I occasionally sat in the deserted chapel foyer
> late at night while my husband counseled a sister alone." Yup, that's
> exactly the kind of thing we would do, too.
I think it's interesting that we have such entirely different takes on this.
I DO care what people think about unimportant things, like if what I wear is
fashionable and if I look old before my time because my hair is so gray and
if I'm doing a good job at my work and with my kids, and if my kids'
behavior will reflect well on me and such. But while I would avoid some of
the situations you describe (particularly meeting a man in my hotel room
when traveling), how it looks to others would not be AT ALL why I would do
it. Paraphrasing Gene, we aren't responsible for the petty, critical
assumptions of those with small minds. I wouldn't meet a man in my hotel
room because if we meet in the lobby, I much less likely that I'll be
assaulted if he shows up drunk, or succumb to smooth talk if I'm feeling
lonely and the home life isn't so pleasant.
In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus describes two people who walked
past the man who had beaten and left for dead. Jewish law is very specific
about who may come in contact with a dead body. Those who passed by the
injured man without stopping to help may have been in violation of the Law
if the man had been dead, and that would have been problematic for them.
They would have been "unclean" and had to go through a period where they
were restricted from certain activities. But Jesus doesn't use their
responses (which were perfectly reasonable within the narrow confines of the
Law as an example of acceptable behavior. Rather, he points out the person
who DID take a risk and extend himself as the "neighbor," and the one whose
behavior was worth emulating.
I think what bothers me most about the quote above, "...my husband
frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have offered a ride," is
that it's just so...unchristian! The writer of an article in the March 1995
Ensign, "Trust that deepens through the years," says,
"A friend came to me in tears and told me that she had seen her husband
driving with a young woman in his car. My friend was convinced that her
husband was having an affair. I could not understand how she could reach
that conclusion with no other evidence. If I had seen my husband in that
situation, I would have assumed only that he was giving the young woman a
ride for the sake of her security. I don't take Lloyd for granted, but I
know that he avoids spending time alone with other women. He knows that I
observe the same caution about spending time with other men."
I think if people know what kind of person you are, they will not assume the
worst about you because you are doing something as innocent as giving a
stranded coworker a ride home. Far from "how things look" being a
determining factor, I think it's far more important to consider how things
are. If my husband were to drive past a woman walking alone in the dark who
was obviously not out for a stroll (say, because of the hour or because of
how she was dressed,) I would be disappointed in him.
As Peggy said once, we should do good, regardless of what it looks like.
> We never worry about what people think when it comes to the brand of
> gym shoes or jeans we wear, or the books we read or the color of our
> hair. We could care less about what the in-crowd thinks about stuff
> like that.
>
> But to have someone misunderstand and think we are failing to live
> church standards--well, that is worth avoiding, especially when we
> have found it pretty easy to do so.
It is worth avoiding as long as it doesn't keep us from doing things that
ought to be done. Helping others who need our help is not something that we
should skip doing just because it might look bad.
Best,
Ann
David Bowie
"John S. Colton" wrote...
: On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:55:13 -0000, Ann Porter wrote:
<snip>
: For example, last year we had a speaker talk about IIRC how
: when he was bishop, he once was driving along and happened
: to see his High Priest Group Leader walk into a pornographic
: movie theater. As he related, he was put into a quandary--
: he felt like he should go into the theater to "retrieve" the
: man, but "What if someone should see me go in?"
: My POV was that the question of others seeing him should have
: no bearing on whether or not he should go in after the HPGL.
: (And for all he knew, maybe the HPGL had gone in after
: someone else from the congregation!)
Sometimes i fear that, on this issue, we Mormons are like children in the
marketplace--people have fun, we criticize them for not being somber enough;
people mourn, we criticize them for not enjoying themselves.
Seems like i read someone use an image like that somewhere else...
David "Matt 11:16-19. It's more topical than might seem." Bowie
David Bowie
: David Bowie <db....@pmpkn.net> wrote...
<snip>
: I don't consider this a "misinterpretation" because I never
: think of it in reference to the original scripture. I just
: think of it as a PRINCIPLE, which I believe is true and
: which I practice for myself. I really had no idea where
: that phrase occured in scripture and don't particularly care.
(The above is left in for context, so that the final bit makes more sense.)
: Is that the correct interpretation of that phrase? Maybe not.
: Have the brethren told bishops and relief society presidents
: not to travel together? Darn right they have...
Call for references, including particularly whether it was general or
specific counsel.
<snip>
: > I have no problem with people having such a rule for themselves,
: > but i do wish people wish such rules would use a different
: > phrase for it.
: David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to
: describe that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
Avoid looking like you're committing evil.
Don't give a negative impression.
Leave situations that could go bad.
&c.
There's varying levels of ambiguity in those, but they're more clearly about
the sorts of things you're after. (I like the second one, myself.)
<snip>
For my part, though, i must admit that i don't like the POV that says you
shouldn't let people think there might be evil going on (and Ann has given
fairly eloquent reasons, i think, in her responses). I've had deeply
spiritual experiences talking about the gospel with people in bars. Should i
avoid going into a bar with friends just so people won't think i'm drinking?
Of course, part of the chain of experiences that led very directly to my
conversion involved watching the movie _The_wall_, so part of this may just
be that i have very strong personal experiences that have led me to
disassociate what people tend to presume the results of a situation will be
from what the results of such situations often are.
David "Story *not* available on request" Bowie
David Bowie
<snip>
: I think what bothers me most about the quote above, "...my
: husband frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have
: offered a ride," is that it's just so...unchristian!...
This gets me, too. I think it's a reflection of the mindset that leads to
lessons like those on whether to stop to help someone change a flat tire[1]
or get to an important church meeting on time. Invariably, there's a huge
debate, with people having strong opinions on either side, and often
compelling arguments. Why can't the answer be that the answer's different at
different times for different people, which is why one has to rely on one's
own knowledge and spiritual attunement?
<snip>
[1] For some of us, it's not an issue. I wouldn't feel safe riding in a car
whose tire i changed, so i don't see why i would feel like i was doing
anyone a service by changing their tire for them. (Seriously.) I might help
them flag down someone who might be more capable with something even as
simple as tire-changing than me, though.
David, who notes church lessons aren't good with flexible applications
David Bowie
<snip>
: And the other reference I do not have, because my husband gave
: it away to one of our kids, but in the book "One flesh, one
: heart," by Carlfred Broderick, he talks about how, as a young
: bishop or stake president, he told President Kimball to his
: face that policies against opposite-sex leaders driving together
: are insulting, and what the response was.
Recognizing that your response will be purely from memory, but what was the
response?
<snip>
David, who interprets Faust's "questionable" differently from Colleen
Colleen Porter
> I think it's interesting that we have such entirely different takes on this.
Yes, it has been an interesting discussion.
> [...] But while I would avoid some of
> the situations you describe (particularly meeting a man in my hotel room
> when traveling), how it looks to others would not be AT ALL why I would do
> it. Paraphrasing Gene, we aren't responsible for the petty, critical
> assumptions of those with small minds.
I don't think they are "small," just not fully educated:)
In Acts 28-29, the early saints are told that the Holy Ghost has
counseled the leaders not to make unnecessary demands on the saints.
Among those "necessary" requirements is that they abstain from meats
offered to idols. Why is that so important? Well, in 1 Cor 8:4-13,
we find out why that might be a problem. In actuality, there is no
evil in eating it, but some watching it might misunderstand. Verse 9
says, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
stumblingblock to them that are weak."
That's pretty much what I'm trying to avoid. I can't control what
folks think, but I can certainly try to avoid giving them anything
much to think about.
> I think what bothers me most about the quote above, "...my husband
> frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have offered a ride," is
> that it's just so...unchristian!
And of course, since full-time missionaries always follow that policy,
they are the most "unchristian" of all!
Seriously, I do appreciate that my outlook on this is very skewed by
having been Relief Society President for so long that I can't remember
what it is like not to have that kind of scrutiny and expectation.
Note that the wife above did state that this level of scrupulousness
was something they started while he was Bishop. There is indeed more
pressure for leaders to appear to be entirely "above reproach." Ask
me a few months after being released, and I may be much more laid back
on all this stuff.
However, I can tell you that a few years ago, I did go through some
very embarassing and painful incidents learning about the expectations
that my readers have of me. I found out that the hard part about
being a columnist is not coming up with a new commentary every month,
but "walking the walk" during the days in between. And I found it was
better, and really easier in the long run, to make it a point to think
about appearances, because then I don't have to explain anything.
> I think if people know what kind of person you are, they will not assume the
> worst about you because you are doing something as innocent as giving a
> stranded coworker a ride home.
Well see, I can't agree. From my experience, I think people are just
waiting to catch you in the least bit of seeming hypocrisy. That
common human characteristic is why the tabloids sell so well. Much of
the public enjoys a good scandal, even if there is only circumstantial
evidence of guilt.
My non-member neighbors and co-workers know about LDS standards, and
are quick to let us know when we do anything out of line. My daughter
was in a community playhouse production that was directed by an LDS
lady and included some LDS youth, and they were just in tears because
if one of the non-LDS caught them doing the least little seeming
"unchristian" thing, they'd be called on it.
> It is worth avoiding as long as it doesn't keep us from doing things that
> ought to be done. Helping others who need our help is not something that we
> should skip doing just because it might look bad.
I agree, and can't think when I've ever had to choose between the two.
Colleen Kay Porter
Ann Porter
> Well see, I can't agree. From my experience, I think people are just
> waiting to catch you in the least bit of seeming hypocrisy. That
> common human characteristic is why the tabloids sell so well. Much of
> the public enjoys a good scandal, even if there is only circumstantial
> evidence of guilt.
Why pander to it by setting superficial standards of behavior based only on
appearances? I have known people (church members) who are like the
pharisees of old that Jesus so harshly criticized, keeping to all the
outward requirements of the law, but who had no love in them, and thought
nothing of exhibiting different behavior in private than they did in public.
We call those people hypocrites. When how things look becomes ANY kind of
measuring stick, how things ARE will always play second fiddle.
Garrison Keillor wrote a wonderful essay about this topic. Humans are
willing to excuse almost anything from someone who has a vice or five. I
think he used the example of a shrieking harpy who drank too much and slept
around. People around her would often declaim, "Oh, Nelda is really a very
nice person. She's just had a really difficult life. She's great once you
get to know her." Conversely, the pillar of the community, carer for the
sick, tender to young children, baker of casseroles, PTA second vice
president and chair of the ministerial search committee for the Lutheran
church, and people whisper behind her back, "you know, I hear she's being
treated for depression."
It's human nature. The more ammunition you don't give people, the harder
they'll look :)
> My non-member neighbors and co-workers know about LDS standards, and
> are quick to let us know when we do anything out of line. My daughter
> was in a community playhouse production that was directed by an LDS
> lady and included some LDS youth, and they were just in tears because
> if one of the non-LDS caught them doing the least little seeming
> "unchristian" thing, they'd be called on it.
I am reminded of a line from the play "The Matchmaker," by Thornton Wilder:
"There are some people who say you shouldn't have any weaknesses at all - no
vices. But if a man has no vices, he's in great danger of making vices out
of his virtues, and there's a spectacle. We've all seen them: men who were
monsters of philanthropy and women who were dragons of purity... No, no -
nurse one vice in your bosom. Give it the attention it deserves and let your
virtues spring up modestly around it. Then you'll have the miser who's no
liar; and the drunkard who's the benefactor of a whole city."
Sometimes I think we LDS would have an easier time in the world (and do a
better job with missionary work) if weren't trying so hard to be role models
all the time.
Best,
Ann
Joel Rees
> I think if people know what kind of person you are,
I think this is where the problem lies. When you become "prominent",
the number of people who know who they think they want you to be
increases.
> they will not assume the
> worst about you because you are doing something as innocent as giving a
> stranded coworker a ride home.
I am thinking of a particular case I know of, where a little innocent
help caught the attention of the media. Pardon me for not going into
details, even about the damage done by the media. But it's a story
often repeated. A free people ought not to put so much on the people
they make idols/stars/celebreties/whatever of, but they do.
So, I think it's something you have to decide case-by-case, and yet
another reason we need to learn to think about the other person and be
sensitive to the guidance we get from God. No way to win without help.
Joel
John S. Colton
[snip]
>> I think what bothers me most about the quote above, "...my husband
>> frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have offered a ride," is
>> that it's just so...unchristian!
>
>And of course, since full-time missionaries always follow that policy,
>they are the most "unchristian" of all!
[snip]
In all seriousness, and going a bit beyond the simple "offering a
ride", if the full-time missionaries were to pass a lady that was beat
up and left for dead on the side of the road (re: good samaritan
story), I would hope they would not let their desire for obedience to
the mission rules take precedence over helping the lady. In fact, when
my brother in law left for his mission two years ago (he just got
back!), that was the advice I gave him-- it's more important to be a
good man than a "good missionary", and if the time ever comes when you
have to choose between the two, choose the former.
Haole
me think of a situation I had a while back, and i wonder what people here
think of it.
9 years ago or so I drove a newspaper van 3rd shift. I drove up to those
coin-operated newspaper boxes in the dead of night, jumped out of the van,
collected the money and previous days' papers out of the box and restocked
the box with fresh papers. This was in Milwaukee, a city I know like the
back of my hand. My route took me through some really tough parts of town,
where there were regularly full streets of people out at 3am (drug
dealers, buyers and hookers mostly).
Once I had a woman with a bruised face and revealing clothing (I assumed
she was a hooker, but she might not have been) explicitly offer me sexual
favors in exchange for a ride. I declined the offer of favors but did
drive her to where she needed to go.
Did I do the right thing?
-Haole
David Bowie
<snip>
: In Acts 28-29, the early saints are told that the Holy Ghost has
: counseled the leaders not to make unnecessary demands on the saints.
: Among those "necessary" requirements is that they abstain from meats
: offered to idols. Why is that so important? Well, in 1 Cor 8:4-13,
: we find out why that might be a problem. In actuality, there is no
: evil in eating it, but some watching it might misunderstand. Verse 9
: says, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
: stumblingblock to them that are weak."
: That's pretty much what I'm trying to avoid. I can't control what
: folks think, but I can certainly try to avoid giving them anything
: much to think about.
But if you read 1 Cor 8:4-13 closely, you'll note that Paul states right off
that there's really no big deal with eating things offered to idols.
(Especially in v. 8, where he explicitly says it doesn't matter.)
Note also that vv. 10 and 13 include really *big* ifs! It doesn't say not to
eat meat offered to idols so that those weak in the faith won't have
problems, it says that *if* those who are weak would be offended by it, then
it should be avoided.
There's a big difference here, as well, between avoiding looking like you're
doing evil and what Paul's talking about.
If we're trying to avoid doing anything that might look wrong to others,
we're in a losing battle from the outset--people can read whatever they want
into whatever we do. If we're trying to keep people from doing wrong, then
we've got a better motive.
Of course, as i've pointed out before on this forum in discussions on
modesty, if someone has lustful thoughts because of the way someone else is
dressed, isn't that the sin of the one doing the lusting, not the one being
lusted after? To claim otherwise is, i believe, equivalent to saying that
women wearing miniskirts deserve to be raped "'cause they were asking for
it".
<snip>
: > It is worth avoiding as long as it doesn't keep us from doing
: > things that ought to be done. Helping others who need our
: > help is not something that we should skip doing just because
: > it might look bad.
: I agree, and can't think when I've ever had to choose between
: the two.
You have been lucky.
David, who hasn't been nearly as lucky
David Bowie
<snip>
: Sometimes I think we LDS would have an easier time in the
: world (and do a better job with missionary work) if weren't
: trying so hard to be role models all the time.
I think that part of it is that we've gotten weird about what it means to be
a role model. It doesn't mean to obey a particular set of rules of behavior,
i'd say--rather, it means that we have convictions and let our actions flow
naturally from them.
David, working on that
David Bowie
<snip>
: Once I had a woman with a bruised face and revealing clothing
: (I assumed she was a hooker, but she might not have been)
: explicitly offer me sexual favors in exchange for a ride. I
: declined the offer of favors but did drive her to where she
: needed to go.
: Did I do the right thing?
I'd like to say publicly that i would answer yes.
David, who once helped clean drug residue out of a junkie's car
John S. Colton
[snip]
>Did I do the right thing?
I'm certainly not going to say that you should have done anything
differently.
However, one might suppose that under such circumstances a set-up
could occur, where the girl is a distraction from a mugger who might
then catch you by surprise. Maybe I've been watching too much TV.
Anyway, at the risk of sounding too "Molly-Mormon-ish" (is there a
male term for that??) the Spirit should guide.
Haole
col...@blochsimplespamblock.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
> However, one might suppose that under such circumstances a set-up
> could occur, where the girl is a distraction from a mugger who might
> then catch you by surprise.
Can you think of a situation where this would not possibly be the case?
I can't.
-Haole, who thinks God would rather see me beat up than uncharitable
Ann Porter
news:u6oaau8...@news.supernews.com...
> However, one might suppose that under such circumstances a set-up
> could occur, where the girl is a distraction from a mugger who might
> then catch you by surprise. Maybe I've been watching too much TV.
> Anyway, at the risk of sounding too "Molly-Mormon-ish" (is there a
> male term for that??) the Spirit should guide.
One of my favorite hymns.
I think in the absence of an impression, the best choice is to help. If
impressed not to, then it probably IS a safety matter, so listen.
Interesting, the thought of a setup never occurred to me (naive, ain't I?).
In such a situation, I would only be able to hope that the Holy Ghost would
warn me.
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
news:u6nqrns...@news.supernews.com...
> Once I had a woman with a bruised face and revealing clothing (I assumed
> she was a hooker, but she might not have been) explicitly offer me sexual
> favors in exchange for a ride. I declined the offer of favors but did
> drive her to where she needed to go.
>
> Did I do the right thing?
By declining the favors or providing a ride :?
I think you did. But what do I know?
Best,
Ann
Ann Porter
news:u6oa948...@news.supernews.com...
> I think that part of it is that we've gotten weird about what it means to
be
> a role model. It doesn't mean to obey a particular set of rules of
behavior,
> i'd say--rather, it means that we have convictions and let our actions
flow
> naturally from them.
>From the part you snipped, "Cultivate one vice, and let your virtues spring
up modestly around it."
I'm trying to decide what vice to cultivate. I'm leaning toward profligate
spending, which isn't a violation of the law of chastity, or the Word of
Wisdom. Plus, Calvin is leaving for a month, so the timing is right.
Best,
Ann
Colleen Porter
> Colleen Porter <cpo...@afn.org> wrote in message
> news:u6mab9...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > Well see, I can't agree. From my experience, I think people are just
> > waiting to catch you in the least bit of seeming hypocrisy. That
> > common human characteristic is why the tabloids sell so well. Much of
> > the public enjoys a good scandal, even if there is only circumstantial
> > evidence of guilt.
>
> Why pander to it by setting superficial standards of behavior based only on
> appearances?
I am not setting superficial standards of behavior. I am simply
trying to strive for behavior that is obviously consistent with my
beliefs.
Do you think President Hinckley is "pandering" because he is always
seen wearing a white shirt and smiling? Or is he really like that?
And if he is like that, is it that he is naturally like that, or does
he make an effort to engage in certain kinds of behavior?
> I have known people (church members) who are like the
> pharisees of old that Jesus so harshly criticized, keeping to all the
> outward requirements of the law, but who had no love in them, and thought
> nothing of exhibiting different behavior in private than they did in public.
> We call those people hypocrites.
Well, some of us don't call them that, because some of us don't go
around judging others, appreciating that we can't see into other
people's hearts.
Personally, I try to avoid farting in public. Does that make me a
hypocrite?
In my book, the issue with hypocrisy is not so much public vs.
private, but rather behavior that is not in sync with stated beliefs.
People like me do act pretty much as we claim to believe. It's just
that we may also take steps to be clear to others that we are acting
as we claim to believe.
Of course I'm not perfect. I have lots of vices; Thornton Wilder
would be proud. But I consciously try to give the appearance of
living up to the moral standards that I do, in fact, live by.
> When how things look becomes ANY kind of
> measuring stick, how things ARE will always play second fiddle.
I honestly haven't found that to be true. I don't see this as a
contest with a "first" at all. I can't remember when I have ever had
to choose between looking good and doing good. It's just that during
this season of my life when I am in the public eye, I occasionally I
take steps to be clear to others that I am indeed doing good.
When I was in grad school, I wouldn't have thought anything about
meeting someone in a bar. Nowadays, I would suggest an alternative
location. I'm not going to commit a sin if I go to a bar, but it
"looks" more clearly in sync with my belief if I go someplace else
instead.
Another example: a few weeks ago, I had a talk with my editor. We do
most of our business by email or phone, so it was a joy to see him in
person. He was very complimemtary and supportive, and when I got
ready to leave, I had an urge to hug him. But I didn't, because
people were around and I didn't want to project anything questionable.
(Oh, that hug of Monica's that they kept playing over and over...)
Instead, I looked him in the eyes and told him how much I appreciated
him.
And while I have never driven past a sick man on the side of the road,
I certainly would help that person, but I'd do it in a way that is
both safe and avoids being alone with a strange man; I would call for
help from my cell phone before leaving the car, so that reinforcements
would already be on the way in case it was a ploy and he there was an
accomplish in the bushes.
In any of those cases, I really don't see me putting appearances first
or engaging in fakey behavior. I do see me considering the possible
consequences of my actions and choosing the way to do good that is
least likely to be misinterpreted by others.
> Garrison Keillor wrote a wonderful essay about this topic. Humans are
> willing to excuse almost anything from someone who has a vice or five. I
> think he used the example of a shrieking harpy who drank too much and slept
> around. People around her would often declaim, "Oh, Nelda is really a very
> nice person. She's just had a really difficult life. She's great once you
> get to know her."
But the reality is that while she is "great" to talk to, they may not
trust her to watch their kids, answer the office telephone, or write
for the newspaper. We all know people like that, who are fun but not
reliable.
There are advantages to consistently projecting integrity and having a
reputation that people respect. I wouldn't put up with the crap if
there weren't some benefits. I've had many wonderful experiences of
being out doing Relief Society work where someone recognized me from
the newspaper, or felt comfortable in the investigators class because
they already "knew" someone. That would not happen if I was a
"shrieking harpy who drank too much."
> Sometimes I think we LDS would have an easier time in the world (and do a
> better job with missionary work) if weren't trying so hard to be role models
> all the time.
If that works for you, go for it. However, please understand that
some of us have different experiences and get different promptings.
It was certainly not my idea to be a role model or to "try" at it,
believe me (ohmigosh, I could tell stories about my struggles to
accept that). But I am quite sure that this is how I should be living
right now.
Colleen Kay Porter
Colleen Porter
> : Have the brethren told bishops and relief society presidents
> : not to travel together? Darn right they have...
>
> Call for references, including particularly whether it was general or
> specific counsel.
The counsel from general authorities was in books and stuff I read in
religion class at BYU--sorry, don't remember the references. (I
started at BYU when I was a member for 4 weeks, so I didn't do to good
at keeping the modern prophets straight at first.) I have heard that
same advice in stakes in which I served, and it was always given in a
meeting and directed specifically to leaders.
> : David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to
> : describe that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
>
> Avoid looking like you're committing evil.
>
> Don't give a negative impression.
That is good, thanks.
>
> For my part, though, i must admit that i don't like the POV that says you
> shouldn't let people think there might be evil going on (and Ann has given
> fairly eloquent reasons, i think, in her responses). I've had deeply
> spiritual experiences talking about the gospel with people in bars. Should i
> avoid going into a bar with friends just so people won't think i'm drinking?
You know, the great thing about living in these last days is that we
have one thing the Old Testament dudes did not--the Holy Ghost. This
is certainly one of those areas where the promptings of the Spirit can
guide us to what we should do. And different people may get different
answers in situations that may appear quite similar.
For me, I have usually found ways to avoid going into bars. I would
never judge you for what you choose to do. For a while, my son
enjoyed driving various cool sports cars home for friends.
Colleen Kay Porter
Colleen Porter
> "Colleen Porter" <cpo...@afn.org> wrote...
> : In Acts 28-29, the early saints are told that the Holy Ghost has
> : counseled the leaders not to make unnecessary demands on the saints.
> : Among those "necessary" requirements is that they abstain from meats
> : offered to idols. Why is that so important? Well, in 1 Cor 8:4-13,
> : we find out why that might be a problem. In actuality, there is no
> : evil in eating it, but some watching it might misunderstand. Verse 9
> : says, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
> : stumblingblock to them that are weak."
>
> : That's pretty much what I'm trying to avoid. I can't control what
> : folks think, but I can certainly try to avoid giving them anything
> : much to think about.
>
> But if you read 1 Cor 8:4-13 closely, you'll note that Paul states right off
> that there's really no big deal with eating things offered to idols.
> (Especially in v. 8, where he explicitly says it doesn't matter.)
Right, he says it doesn't matter, the way it doesn't matter if I drive
somewhere with the elders quorum. As far as substance, it doesn't
matter. But the truth alone may not be enough.
> Note also that vv. 10 and 13 include really *big* ifs! It doesn't say not to
> eat meat offered to idols so that those weak in the faith won't have
> problems, it says that *if* those who are weak would be offended by it, then
> it should be avoided.
But in Acts 15: 28-29, there are no ifs. They are simply told to
abstain from those meats. It's right up there in importance with
fornication. Is it that the Corinthian saints have different rules,
the way some stake leaders might give slightly different counsel to
their flocks? Or is it that the verses in Corinthians are explaining
why the saints should follow the counsel in Acts 15: 29?
> If we're trying to avoid doing anything that might look wrong to others,
> we're in a losing battle from the outset--people can read whatever they want
> into whatever we do.
I don't feel like it's a losing battle; I find it very worthwhile. It
is theoretically correct that people could interpret anything any way
they want. But the times I've been caught it was because my behavior
was indeed questionable--it could easily have been interpreted in a
negative way. So all I try to do with my efforts nowadays is avoid
the questionable stuff.
You are right that I can't do anything if people are absolutely
determined to find fault, but those are far less common.
> If we're trying to keep people from doing wrong, then
> we've got a better motive.
I also think that setting a good example for others is worthwhile. I
know I've benefitted from watching other people's examples.
> : I agree, and can't think when I've ever had to choose between
> : the two.
>
> You have been lucky.
Or perhaps I have been blessed for my faithfulness in accepting the
tasks that have been given to me, and my obedience in following
counsel of church leaders?
Why do you insist on assigning this to just dumb luck?
Colleen Kay Porter
Gerald G. Fuller
wrote:
Snip
>> [...] But while I would avoid some of
>> the situations you describe (particularly meeting a man in my hotel room
>> when traveling), how it looks to others would not be AT ALL why I would do
>> it. Paraphrasing Gene, we aren't responsible for the petty, critical
>> assumptions of those with small minds.
I don't archive my deathless prose, but I hope I intended to say more
along the lines of dirty minded people who judge or assess the conduct
or possible conduct of others by their own desires.
Snip
>In Acts 28-29, the early saints are told that the Holy Ghost has
>counseled the leaders not to make unnecessary demands on the saints.
>Among those "necessary" requirements is that they abstain from meats
>offered to idols.
Yes, but wasn't it also true that Paul counselled saints to eat what
was set before them without asking if it had been offered to idols?
>Why is that so important? Well, in 1 Cor 8:4-13,
>we find out why that might be a problem. In actuality, there is no
>evil in eating it, but some watching it might misunderstand. Verse 9
>says, "But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
>stumblingblock to them that are weak."
True. That does not negate the fact (in my mind) that the command to
avoid every appearance of evil means to avoid it when it shows up.
This other is to avoid providing occasions of tempting your brother,
which of course is a subset of the set of all times evil shows up.
Snip
>> I think what bothers me most about the quote above, "...my husband
>> frequently drove past a sister to whom he might have offered a ride," is
>> that it's just so...unchristian!
>
>And of course, since full-time missionaries always follow that policy,
>they are the most "unchristian" of all!
Indeed so. That may well be one of the commandments of men designed
prevent others from being tempted, and may in truth not be totally
within the Mind and Will of our Father, but is permitted by Him
anyway.
Snip
>> I think if people know what kind of person you are, they will not assume the
>> worst about you because you are doing something as innocent as giving a
>> stranded coworker a ride home.
>
>Well see, I can't agree. From my experience, I think people are just
>waiting to catch you in the least bit of seeming hypocrisy. That
>common human characteristic is why the tabloids sell so well. Much of
>the public enjoys a good scandal, even if there is only circumstantial
>evidence of guilt.
And that, of course, is why I was talking about the perceptions of
evil minded people.
Snip
Gerald G. Fuller
Haole) wrote:
Snip
>Did I do the right thing?
Absolutely!(Unless you violated terms of employment by taking someone
into a company vehicle or some such. Then it becomes a bit of a
problem.)
Gene
Gerald G. Fuller
col...@blochsimplespamblock.nrl.navy.mil (John S. Colton) wrote:
Snip
>However, one might suppose that under such circumstances a set-up
>could occur, where the girl is a distraction from a mugger who might
>then catch you by surprise. Maybe I've been watching too much TV.
>Anyway, at the risk of sounding too "Molly-Mormon-ish" (is there a
>male term for that??) the Spirit should guide.
And of course the Good Samaritan might (but was not) have been set up
by some member of a group of thieves who only pretended to be a
wounded traveller, while his band was lurking nearby to descend on
whoever was distracted and stopped to help.
Are we truly to be so afraid for our own lives as to avoid helping
someone simply because it might be a "set up"
Not being a Molly Mormon, I suppose Peter Priesthood would agree to
allow the Holy Spirit to guide. But this probably required having
practiced throughout the day, the week, the month, the year, to seek
His guidance in all things, not just in emergency decisions.
Gene
Gerald G. Fuller
<annyal...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Snip
>I'm trying to decide what vice to cultivate. I'm leaning toward profligate
>spending, which isn't a violation of the law of chastity, or the Word of
>Wisdom. Plus, Calvin is leaving for a month, so the timing is right.
It might be a violation of the law of consecration, and I think for
myself it is a violaton of the Word of Wisdom which was given, after
all, "... for the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days"
(possibly as protection against spending more than is needful), and
also it is given "in consequence of evils and designs which do and
will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days ..." (some
of whom I suppose to be advertising agencies, and corporation heads
who conspire to separate us from hard earned (or sometimes hardly
earned) money in exchange for "goods" that are not really very good in
a lot of cases, and in many more are not really needed.
But I know you were attempting levity. {8-)>
Gene
Gerald G. Fuller
wrote:
Snip
>Do you think President Hinckley is "pandering" because he is always
>seen wearing a white shirt and smiling? Or is he really like that?
>And if he is like that, is it that he is naturally like that, or does
>he make an effort to engage in certain kinds of behavior?
I wear white shirts on Sunday and at most other church meetings
because my Stake President strongly suggested I do so. I wore a suit
and white shirt today because I officiated at a funeral. But when I
visited with the family in the undertakers office the other day, I
word slacks, a sport coat and a colored shirt, if I recall correctly.
What is so morally correct about a white shirt? What message of evil
do I convey when I am seen in public in something other than a white
shirt?
I shaved a moustache that I had had for 36 years (half my life)
because a member of a Temple Presidency said they wanted Temple
Workers to be clean shaven (he was apparently speaking of men only.
What did my moustache hurt? That was, for me, a superficial thing, not
morally of any importance until it was suggested to me that it was
desirable to do it. Then obedience and sustaining my leaders became
the issue. That is the issue about wearing a white shirt on Sunday as
well.
I think President Hinckley's smile is genuine. It is part of who he
is. The white shirt? Habit and tradition. Next century, if the world
order as it is happens in some way to stand, it will be different.
Maybe rings in every conceivable place, and clothing equivalent to
tank tops and shorts. But for now, that is not what those who want to
appear to be (even when truly so) of a certain moral stance are
wearing. Joseph F. Smith, for example, could not be a temple worker it
seems. And that is all right. His beard when he lived on earth denoted
(connoted) something entirely different from what it would denote now.
In fact, after prayer and contemplation, I realized my moustache
possible reflected a bit of unrighteous pride. Thus, it came off.
Snip
>When I was in grad school, I wouldn't have thought anything about
>meeting someone in a bar. Nowadays, I would suggest an alternative
>location. I'm not going to commit a sin if I go to a bar, but it
>"looks" more clearly in sync with my belief if I go someplace else
>instead.
Would it have "looked" more in sync with what Jesus was trying to do
if He had refused to eat with publicans and sinners? If He had refused
wine? If He had associated only with the Pharisees?
>But I am quite sure that this is how I should be living
>right now.
By all means, do so. To do otherwise would be, for you, play acting.
(Isn't that what hypocrisy means?)
Gene
Tom Moore
> The term "Tea" in England (I assume) is used in the same way
> as it is used here in Australia. It means "Dinner" or "Supper"
> (supper here in Australia is a late-night snack).
English roads also have Tea-junctions (where the driver must either turn
left or right, but continue straight ahead). I've heard it said that some
americans, not LDS presumably, have even been known to wear Tea-Shirts.
Tom, planning on sending an Ovaltine sachet to BYU
--
The World's most exciting WebCam
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~tom_moore1/webcam/webcam.htm
Lynn Gazis-Sax
> "Colleen Porter" <cpo...@afn.org> wrote...
[snipped]
> : David, if you can come up with as precise and clear a term to
> : describe that concept, I would be happy to listen, and adopt it.
>
> Avoid looking like you're committing evil.
>
> Don't give a negative impression.
>
> Leave situations that could go bad.
I suppose I'd incline toward the second of these expressions (at least
for the really broadest form of this category, where more innocent
things like being in a car with someone of the opposite sex are
included). But for the more strongly questionable sorts of situations
that are being described (like being in a hotel room alone with
someone of the opposite sex), the scripture verses I'd want to apply
would be 1 Cor 8:4-13 (which I see Colleen has also mentioned in this
thread), and the similar passage in Romans 14:13-16. The thing I like
about these passages is the *reason* given for the advice: "And so by
your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, this brother for whom
Christ died," and "If your brother is being injured by what you eat,
then you are no longer walking in love." If love is the reason for
avoiding (in some situations) food given to idols, then that says
something about when considerations about how something appears to
others should be paramount, when they should be tossed aside, and when
a person is at liberty to choose either way.
For instance, on one occasion, when Joel and I were moving out of an
apartment, I was alone in the house cleaning the oven (so we wouldn't
be charged for the owners cleaning it), and I accidentally sprayed
myself in the eyes, at which point I ran outside and yelled for help.
Our next door neighbor, who was also alone in his apartment, was in
the shower, and, without dressing (I didn't notice this at the time,
but heard afterwards from my husband, whom the neighbor told the
story), ran outside, grabbed me, and dragged me back into the house
and under the shower, where he got my eyes washed out. In normal
circumstances, being in the shower with someone else's wife would
certainly be a questionable situation, but I think under these special
circumstances Jesus would judge that the man acted as a good neighbor
to me (and I don't imagine anyone would really judge otherwise).
Jesus himself, after all, ate with tax collectors and sinners, and was
willing to be executed as a criminal, so he surely didn't hold his
reputation too dear if doing so would get in the way of real charity.
On the other hand, if it's a matter of placing my own freedom and
convenience over what could seriously lead others astray, that's
another matter. At least some of the situations described as ones to
avoid (two unrelated people of opposite sex alone in the hotel room,
two unrelated teenagers of opposite sex at home together with parents
not present) could be considered as "occasions of sin" for enough
people, enough of the time, that it's reasonable to promote a standard
which avoids them (even if the two people involved on any particular
occasion wouldn't be tempted). Likewise, if something I'd consider
harmless, and feel free to do on occasion (like going into a bar with
coworkers and ordering juice) was likely, on a particular occasion, to
lead someone seriously astray (maybe tempting into the bar someone who
was likely to fall off the wagon), then I shouldn't do it. And the
reason I shouldn't make such choices isn't just concern for my own
reputation, but that doing these things would not be walking in love,
because they could be placing a stumbling block in front of other
people.
I'm a little puzzled by all the fuss over people of opposite sex
driving together, though; before reading this thread it honestly never
occurred to me that anyone would possibly get a bad impression from
that. Before we decided that our 86 Tercel was probably old enough
not to leave it as our only car, we were a one car family, and if the
car happened to be in the shop, I'd get rides from anyone, man or
woman, that I could. Maybe life is different when you're a columnist
in Florida, rather than a software engineer in California. I wish no
one had to worry about such things; it seems needlessly
scandal-mongering for someone to think the worst of someone else on
such slim grounds. But then, barring the occasional situation where a
man might want to give a woman a lift for her safety, or a sick person
need to be taken to the doctor, etc., people usually can avoid riding
alone with someone of the opposite sex (if I'd *had* to do so, I could
have kept calling till I found a woman to give me a ride, for those
times during our one car days that I needed one), so I suppose this
case is a matter of personal judgment and circumstances, with no real
reason a Christian (I can't really speak for LDS, naturally) should be
obliged either to adopt this rule or not.
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.alsirat.com or http://www.notfrisco.com
Haole
uss_wi...@altavista.com ( Haole) wrote:
> I can't.
I gave this a little more thought, and maybe, just maybe, the tone of my
first response was inappropriate.
I am almost never concerned about being mugged, for several reasons. (I
don't need to elaborate here too much I suppose, but these reasons
include; where I grew up, my fitness level, my fighting/self-defense
skills, and my worldview.)
For some people, getting mugged may be a real concern, even a paralyzing
fear. In this case, I was maybe a little hasty and somewhat cavalier in my
first response.
I do honestly believe, however, that God does expect me to be chartible,
even when it puts me in danger...even severe danger. Isn't this the real
lesson of the Soddom And Gomorrah story?
-Haole, who has spent time in a third-world jail
Gerald G. Fuller
Gazis-Sax) wrote:
Snip
> so I suppose this
>case is a matter of personal judgment and circumstances, with no real
>reason a Christian (I can't really speak for LDS, naturally) should be
>obliged either to adopt this rule or not.
Lynn, this is not a back-handed way to imply that Latter-day Saints as
members of The Church of Jesus Christ are not Christinas, is it? I
hope it was simply careless phrasing.
Gene
Lynn Gazis-Sax
> Lynn, this is not a back-handed way to imply that Latter-day Saints as
> members of The Church of Jesus Christ are not Christinas, is it? I
> hope it was simply careless phrasing.
It isn't, though I guess I see now how it could read that way. I
meant "Christians" to be inclusive of LDS, and "LDS" to be a subset of
"Christians" that I couldn't speak for, rather than a separate group
that I was contrasting with "Christians."
--
Lynn Gazis-Sax
http://www.notfrisco.com or http://www.alsirat.com
William Lenz
> : world (and do a better job with missionary work) if weren't
> : trying so hard to be role models all the time.
I'm sorry I probably should appologize because I read this and it just made
me laugh. Not in an insulting spirit just trying to ponder the mindset of
the one that wrote this. And not because I don't agree with the statement,
but why it needed to be stated in the first place.
Why is anyone even thinking in those terms trying to be a role model?
Basicly who's approval are we seeking if our motivation for living a certain
way is to be a role model? I would say certainly not Gods.
Name a recient role model you have who's goal in life was to become or be a
role model?
Let me ask is that why you live the way you do to be a role model?
If being a role model wasn't an issue how would you choose to live or be?
If you can honestly say I would live no differant than the way I do now,
then does the thought of being a "role model" benifit you or hinder you in
living the way you want or believe? According to the statement you made
above I would say it hinders your efforts.
> I think that part of it is that we've gotten weird about what it means to
> be
> a role model. It doesn't mean to obey a particular set of rules of
> behavior,
> i'd say--rather, it means that we have convictions and let our actions
> flow naturally from them.
The spirit of what we state here I like.
Myself though I wouldn't even bring trying to be a role model into the
picure though. Those around you who know you and those you touch define you
as a role model or not, we/you don't. If you only do and act the way you do
for surface reasons, but inside your something completely differant, what
word do we have for people like that? Which is better to change whats inside
first and let the surface reveal that change, or hide whats inside by
pretending to be something differant on the surface? By focusing on trying
to be a role model is the focus on the surface or on whats inside us?
cya
bill
Colleen Porter
> > : Sometimes I think we LDS would have an easier time in the
> > : world (and do a better job with missionary work) if weren't
> > : trying so hard to be role models all the time.
>
> Why is anyone even thinking in those terms trying to be a role model?
For me, the issue is not one of TRYING to be a role model, but coping
with being a role model. Some of us are thrust into the position of
being a role model, no matter whether we want to or not.
We do something, and people around us say, "Oh, so Mormons think it is
okay to (whatever)?" Or we have other people (younger women, in my
case) say that they want to be like me when they grow up.
Or people they say they are disappointed that I did something. (And
they have NO RIGHT to be disappointed. My life is my own, what right
do THEY have to be disappointed? Except that they had declared me to
be their role model, and felt that therefore they had a right to
notice and care. Sigh.)
Certainly, full-time missionaries are role models at that season of
their lives. In my case, my newspaper column is read by lots of
people, some of whom feel they learn from me and try to apply some of
the same principles in their own lives.
> Basicly who's approval are we seeking if our motivation for living a certain
> way is to be a role model? I would say certainly not Gods.
I don't feel that is true at all. Rather, I feel that in taking on
some of the roles that I have accepted, which I know were
opportunities made possible by Heavenly Father, I also agreed to live
my life in a certain way--taking just a bit more care to project an
appearance of being above reproach. Doing this is part of fulfilling
that calling, and my responsibility to Him.
A lot of folks find that one of the ways parenthood refines them is by
forcing them into being role models to their little ones. When you
decide to have children, you accept the responsibility of being a role
model. And guess what happens when the kids get just a few years old
and start imitating the parents? Many times parents give up bad
habits that they don't want their children to copy. The pressure of
being a rold model is just that little nudge they need to make the
extra effort in the right direction.
So are parents being hypocrites to be careful about the example they
set? Or is that pretty typical behavior?
> [...] Those around you who know you and those you touch define you
> as a role model or not, we/you don't.
Indeed. And then what do you when you know you have people defining
you as a role model? Do you feel a greater responsibility to make an
attempt to send consistent messages the same way parents might modify
their behavior when a toddler starts noticing? Or do you just figure
you can do whatever you like? I found that the latter course caused
me to spend time explaining:)
> If you only do and act the way you do
> for surface reasons, but inside your something completely differant, what
> word do we have for people like that? Which is better to change whats inside
> first and let the surface reveal that change, or hide whats inside by
> pretending to be something differant on the surface? By focusing on trying
> to be a role model is the focus on the surface or on whats inside us?
"IF" is a big word for having two letters. The other important words
you use are "only" and "completely."
I know that for me, I can honestly say that I have never done anything
"completely" different, or "only" just on the surface. But what I
*have* done is select which bits that were on the inside to project to
the public.
For one thing, I find my "insides" aren't entirely consistent all the
time. Sometimes I feel conflicting thoughts all at once. Am I the
only one with an "evil twin" in there at times?
For example (and I'm going to choose an example where I thought I
chose pretty wisely rather than one of the more embarassing ones), a
while back, I was at the municipal swimming pool registering my kids
for swim lessons. Now, those of you who can do mail or online
registration will quickly appreciate how STUPID it is to do in-person
registration only. What an inefficient waste of everyone's time.
Well, I was already at the pool that Saturday morning, because while
it isn't open to the public until 1 p.m., the local wards had rented
it for a 24th of July celebration during the morning. So when a line
of parents started to form, I hopped out of the pool, grabbed my
checkbook and got in line. I was pretty pissed at the maddening
stupidity of the registration process. I think I would have been
perfectly justified to complain a bit. But partly because of my
public image, I chose not to do that. Instead, I talked with some
other women about their kids in a positive way, giving them
encouragement for doing the hardest job in the world. And at one
point, one of the women behind me said, "Oh, you're Colleen, aren't
you?! The one who writes for the newspaper!" And all of a sudden,
about 10 people in front of us turn around, and some people behind us
lean out of line to see. And there I am in my swimsuit (no coverup!)
my hair dripping wet with all those people looking at me. So I talked
with them a bit, listening to their concerns and trying to graciously
accept their compliments and complaints. I had the opportunity to
explain why I was in my swimsuit, which church I went to, why we had
rented the pool. And I issued a general invitation that anyone who
wanted to bring their kids back and swim with us until noon was very
welcome.
And I found myself being glad that I had chosen to project the
positive thoughts that were inside, rather than the negative ones. I
don't think it would have been evil to have complained. I don't think
it would have done much harm for them to think that "Colleen" was
really a grumpy complainer. But I also think it was best that I left
a positive image of the church and my personal integrity by making the
choices I did. I'm glad this interaction with the church was
positive, and that they caught me acting exactly like I write.
I don't feel that was the least bit hypocritical or fakey, because I
was indeed projecting what I genuinely felt inside. I just didn't
show them *all* of what I thought inside. What I did was very much
the same thing that I do as a parent trying to set a good example.
Another case study: Yesterday, I was listening to a book on tape.
I'd enjoyed another book by that author, and the first side of the
first tape was fine. I was really looking forward to this novel. But
then I ran into some language that was unacceptable in our home, and
since the character speaking was going to be one of the main
characters in the book, I popped the cassette out, and decided not to
listen to it any more, and to return it as soon as possible. I made
that choice in private, nobody was around. But I did think about
someone seeing me when I return it to the library. I'd hate for
anyone to see me with it and think that I found it acceptable. So I
might purposely return it to an outside book drop instead. That's the
kind of consideration to "appearances" that I make nowadays. Ten
years ago, such a thought would never have occured to me. But I don't
think it really changes who I am at all.
Colleen Kay Porter
Craig Olson
>
> Along these lines, a concern of mine is that I wouldn't want people to
> refrain from doing the right thing, because of people's perceptions.
>
> For example, last year we had a speaker talk about IIRC how when he
> was bishop, he once was driving along and happened to see his High
> Priest Group Leader walk into a pornographic movie theater. As he
> related, he was put into a quandary-- he felt like he should go into
> the theater to "retrieve" the man, but "What if someone should see me
> go in?"
>
> My POV was that the question of others seeing him should have no
> bearing on whether or not he should go in after the HPGL. (And for all
> he knew, maybe the HPGL had gone in after someone else from the
> congregation!)
This image is just great. Imagine, if you will, the Stake President
who sees the Bishop going into the theatre, so he stops the car and
runs into the show only to find the Bishop looking for the HPGL who
is looking for the RS President who is looking for the EQ President
who is looking for the Compassionate Service Leader who is looking
for the Home Teacher who is looking for the Visting teacher who is
looking for the Ward Librarian who is really confused at why there
is such a naughty moive showing at at the phonographic display she
thought she was going to see (she collects old LPs of the MoTab).
By the time the Area President rushes in, 90% of the guests in the
theatre are LdS and are all trying to figure out what they are all
doing in the 5 o'clock showing of something that clearly is not
about stengthening families. By then, the police arrive, called
by the ticket teller as everyone after the Librarian just rushed
past without buying a ticket, and all perdition breaks loose.
Craig, just thinking of the lead on the local news ...
Tom Moore
> Warwick is filled with Madam Tussows (I know THAT is
> misspelled) wax figures and is quite enchanting!
We don't bother with your rediculous spellings (e.g. colour without the u)
anymore; prefering instead to protect ourselves from those dreadful
pronounciations, poor grammar and, above all, those US religions exported
and imposed upon a naive and generous country folk ;)
Tom Moore
> Why can't the answer be that the answer's different at
> different times for different people, which is why one
> has to rely on one's own knowledge and spiritual attunement?
In other words, situation ethics.
Jesus did not advocate removing parts of one's body, but illustrated that
love may require such actions. For it is love, and nothing else, that
makes an action right or wrong.
William Lenz
> "William Lenz" <bill...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:<u72afhj...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > : Sometimes I think we LDS would have an easier time in the
> > > : world (and do a better job with missionary work) if weren't
> > > : trying so hard to be role models all the time.
> >
> > [...] You know, I really have tried to thoughtfully consider these
> >thoughtful postings, and do some soul-searching about whether I was being
> >false, hypocrital, etc. and had need to repent. I did have a few more
> >thoughts.
Do realize what I'm pointing out here is the thinking process not what you
do or how you live type stuff. In your examples (that I cut from this) you
talked about not getting upset in line. Let me ask would it have been you,
and would you have take pleasure in complaining about the whole process? If
you were just you, not a Mormon, not public property would you have
complained? If that is you then you really should find a way to resolve
whats going on inside and make it not you, hiding behind an appearance helps
to hide if from everyone else, but in the end your the one that lives with
you, and the stresses of holding all this inside. If thats not you to be
that way and even though you might get urges you would not have done that,
they why cheapen yourself by saying I do it for the appearance.
The whole focus on being a good role model or setting a good example exists
only to condemn bad role models or bad examples into becoming good ones. I
have no complaint with that on the surface, I only complain when you replace
role model with reason. I do this for the appearance rather than I do this
because thats they way I am. Part of being yourself probably means to have
the respect for others and your church to put your best face forward, but
that to is you not you acting against your will to look good. Role model *to
its extreem* will produce you believing you do what you do for the sake of
appearance only, and that's where your reasons for doing what you do goes.
And in the end it will produce thoughts like this: you wrote "(And they have
NO RIGHT to be disappointed. My life is my own, what right do THEY have to
be disappointed?". If your life truly was yours and not theres because
you've given it up to them, why would you react to their disappointment in
the above manner? All things being equal and your living the life you want
to live the way you want to live it and that's the only reason your doing
all that you do, would your reaction be the same?
> > Why is anyone even thinking in those terms trying to be a role model?
>
> We do something, and people around us say, "Oh, so Mormons think it is
> okay to (whatever)?" Or we have other people (younger women, in my
> case) say that they want to be like me when they grow up.
Let me ask this, in all this role modeling are you happy, do you feel your
life is blessed, do you and are you loved, are you at peace within yourself
and your conscience? If you say yes to these is that a result of you being a
role model or you living a life that produces these fruits? If you say no
then what makes you think the younger women that want to grow up just like
you won't have to face the same issues you face? If your not happy being all
these things that a good role model is then what makes you think they will
be to.
> > Basicly who's approval are we seeking if our motivation for living a
> >certain way is to be a role model? I would say certainly not Gods.
<snip>
> taking just a bit more care to project an
> appearance of being above reproach. Doing this is part of fulfilling
> that calling, and my responsibility to Him.
If you want to think in those terms isn't your responsibility to Him to be
above reproach not just give that appearance? When you give the appearance
who sees it, and who is pleased by it, when you are what your appearance
reveals who sees it, and who is pleased by it?
> Many times parents give up bad
> habits that they don't want their children to copy. The pressure of
> being a rold model is just that little nudge they need to make the
> extra effort in the right direction.
Isn't the key word here "bad habits"?
If I have a bad habit that I feel is a bad habit isn't that in itself a
statement on how and what I feel about that habit? Why am I giving this up
because I consider it a bad habit in the first place or because I'm a role
model? So in what you say, I do agree, but the question is if I set my mind
to thinking I'm giving this up to be a role model what happens to the
conviction I have in giving this up because its bad? If once I set my mind
to the thought I'm giving "bad" things up to be a role model how much easier
is it to give anything else up for the sake of appearances. How much easier
does it become to even begin to go against my convictions for the sake of
appearances because now the appearance becomes the focus instead of the
conviction?
> So are parents being hypocrites to be careful about the example they
> set? Or is that pretty typical behavior?
Yes and no thats at times all apart of being a parent. Myself I grew up with
the occasional saying "Do as I say, not as I do". My young mind questioned
that, but as one gets older I saw the honesty in it. Were not perfect
beings, just because our convictions tell us this doesn't mean we can always
live up to that. We're all work-in-progress, and to me I learned a lot more
from that example and that fact, than I think I would have with the
appearance of perfection.
> > [...] Those around you who know you and those you touch define you
> > as a role model or not, we/you don't.
> Indeed. And then what do you when you know you have people defining
> you as a role model?
The same thing I did to attain that honor. I do what my convictions and my
belief bears witness to me as the right thing to do. I was watching an
interview with a basketball player, he was in a golf tournament and he made
a 3 foot putt to win. The guy asked him to compair the pressure of that putt
to making a couple free throw hoops to win a champoinship. His answer was
basicly there's no pressure where there's confidance. If a person (not a
child) looks up to me as a role model its because they see in me something
that they want to be, I would be doing them and me a disservice to become
something I'm not.
> Do you feel a greater responsibility to make an
> attempt to send consistent messages the same way parents might modify
> their behavior when a toddler starts noticing?
No in the case of a person looking up to you as a role model its because
they see something in you that they would like to emulate that's there
choice. A toddler is something completely differant it's not their choice
that they notice and follow because that's they way there little minds work
I'm responsable for putting them in that postition.
> Or do you just figure
> you can do whatever you like?
As in the above, if what I like is to give up a bad habbit but can't find
the will to do so, but then a child comes into my life and in that I find
the willpower....am I doing what I like? Is that a bad thing? If I want to
be a good parent and not pass certain things that I might do on to my kids
so I give them up....am I doing what I like? If I'm doing what I like in
this then why do I need to replace that reason with the reason of being a
good role model? Doesn't this produce the whole "I sacrificed and did all
this for you, and this is the thank's I get" kind of comments and mentality
:o).
> I found that the latter course caused
> me to spend time explaining:)
Let me ask what are the children like that you explained things to, what are
the children like that had that perfect role model to live up to?
<snip>
> "IF" is a big word for having two letters. The other important words
> you use are "only" and "completely."
Your right they are big words and I used them for a reason. That reason
being to show a condition that who ever reads that can evaluate from. So
your right in pointing that out.
> I know that for me, I can honestly say that I have never done anything
> "completely" different, or "only" just on the surface. But what I
> *have* done is select which bits that were on the inside to project to
> the public.
> For one thing, I find my "insides" aren't entirely consistent all the
> time. Sometimes I feel conflicting thoughts all at once. Am I the
> only one with an "evil twin" in there at times?
No I don't believe you are alone with that evil twin :o).
You have two choices laid before you one we'll call "good" one we'll call
"bad", both fighting to come out and reveal themselfs to the public. What
ever thought process you go though to make your choice on which one to
choose, you do in the end choose one. So why is it that the "good" choice is
the one that is chosen only because its a good example to show people, and
the bad choice is the one that is you the disappointment for those that look
up to you? Why can't we just say I made this choice becasue thats the kind
of person I am, and wow it also happens to set a good example to others to.
Cya
Bill
Colleen Porter
Appreciated the thoughts.
> [...] Part of being yourself probably means to have
> the respect for others and your church to put your best face forward, but
> that to is you not you acting against your will to look good. Role model *to
> its extreem* will produce you believing you do what you do for the sake of
> appearance only, and that's where your reasons for doing what you do goes.
> And in the end it will produce thoughts like this: you wrote "(And they have
> NO RIGHT to be disappointed. My life is my own, what right do THEY have to
> be disappointed?". If your life truly was yours and not theres because
> you've given it up to them, why would you react to their disappointment in
> the above manner? All things being equal and your living the life you want
> to live the way you want to live it and that's the only reason your doing
> all that you do, would your reaction be the same?
Well, I no longer believe that my life is my own. I went through a
tough year of realizing that I *did* have to let people have chunks of
me. I no longer think as in the paragraph above. I am basically
happy and at peace, but for me, part of achieving that peace was
accepting that lots of people are watching me, and it is not too great
of a sacrifice to do things a little differently at times to
accomodate that.
Again, your constant use of the word "only" tends to create a
distorted view that is not very realistic for many folks. From my
point of view, this whole issue is pretty multifactorial. I basically
live and do what I would naturally do. But at the same time, I have
in the back of my mind how something might look to others. (Before
being called hired as an editorialist and called as a Relief Society
president, I didn't worry about that last part at all. I sincerely
felt that if I was just trying to be good, outside appearances would
take care of themselves.)
> > Indeed. And then what do you when you know you have people defining
> > you as a role model?
>
> The same thing I did to attain that honor. I do what my convictions and my
> belief bears witness to me as the right thing to do.
That is exactly what I do, but nowadays there is new data entering
into the equation of what is "right," based on my public image. I
find that some "good" things can be the "wrong" thing to do in a
situation when you know people are looking. In the example about
hugging my male editor, I do believe that hugging him would have been
a good thing. It just wasn't the right thing to do at the time.
If humans had mental telepathy, so that we could all see into each
other's hearts, this would be less of a problem because there would be
no potential disconnect between appearances and motivation.
I agree that in the EXTREME, considering appearances can lead to
shallow thoughts and times when appearance becomes more important than
substance. But that is when appearance is the only or primary
concern. I just see considering appearances as a factor to consider,
and something I cannot ignore at this time of my life.
In the EXTREME, the viewpoint of just being yourself and letting that
come out naturally prevents lots of people from accepting mission
calls or even serving as a visiting teacher. They think they are not
good enough to do it, and so they are going to wait until they change
themselves inside. And sadly, some of them dwindle away in the
meantime.
Just because the EXTREME of something causes problems does not mean
that the principle is incorrect. It was Joseph Smith who observed
that truth sometimes takes a path between two roads.
Colleen Kay Porter
William Lenz
> tough year of realizing that I *did* have to let people have chunks of
> me. I no longer think as in the paragraph above. I am basically
> happy and at peace, but for me, part of achieving that peace was
> accepting that lots of people are watching me, and it is not too great
> of a sacrifice to do things a little differently at times to
> accomodate that.
Through the course of your work and your service how many other people have
you seen going through a similar year as you? What was there fate? Do you
consider yourself the exception one of the few that may go though a year
like that or this is something that happens to more than just you?
No its not to great of a sacrifice to add these considerations to your list,
but one bee sting hurts most people, hundreds will kill most people. Its the
differance between saying I do this as a sacrifice to them (when they do not
and never will apprecieate that sacrifice, most of all you can't expect them
to, because they don't see it as such), and you saying I do this because it
brings me happiness and peace knowing I'm doing the right thing. What
process you take to deciede what that right thing is, is one thing but your
doing it because you would feel wrong if you don't.
I'm going to move some things here from your original message and bring a
statement up to this point.
> I agree that in the EXTREME, considering appearances can lead to
> shallow thoughts and times when appearance becomes more important than
> substance. But that is when appearance is the only or primary
> concern. I just see considering appearances as a factor to consider,
> and something I cannot ignore at this time of my life.
Actually its not the shallow or shall we say "plastic" people that I've been
addressing. For them doing something for appearance is not an issue its a
way of life. There probably never bothered by the fact there the center of
attention or all these eyes are upon them. That in fact is what they live
for and thrive on so its not really an issue for them. Those that I'm
conserned with are the ones that we would classicly call "people pleasers"
those that truly do care and are conserned with others. The kind of people
that would put there own conserns, problems, and hurts aside to insure
another is happy. Arm these people with role model, or good example type
thoughts and your just asking them to spend the rest of there lives here
suffering, or at least until they give up, then you can only hope they
weren't pushed to far and they don't give everything up.
The funniest part about all this:
Let me ask if this is you: Your willing to see and know the influence you
have on others, so your willing to feel bad when others do something that
you feel your influence caused. And your willing to sacrifice some things
you may like to do because of that. Yet your the kind of person that will
refuse to say or accept that something you might do that might have been
caused by the influence of another was in the end your choice. You take
responsibility for how your choices influence others, and you take
responsability for how others influence you. Kind of a catch 22 type
situation :o), so does that sum you up in this?
> Again, your constant use of the word "only" tends to create a
> distorted view that is not very realistic for many folks.
Again what I'm stating is a thought process. Example:
Two people are in the exact same situation, they use the exact same thought
process to come to the choice, they make part or all of that decision based
on how those around them will react to it. Each sees the differant possable
choice, but in the end they act upon the same choice, and that's what the
rest of the world sees.
One of them would then say that this choice was the choice my convictions
had me make, it was what I felt was the right choice to make at the time,
and its the choice I'm happy or at peace with, and although another choice
could have been made I didn't feel it was the right choice. (Gods inclusion
in this process should be assumed although not stated here)
One of them would say although this is not the choice I would have liked to
make its the choice that best serves those around me and the example I'm
trying to show, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice and not follow the
choice I would have liked to make.
That's basicly the differance in what we're saying here. Myself I choose to
follow the first one and keep myself in balance. Right, wrong, or gray the
choices I make I'm willing to take total responsability for. Although I'm
aware and mindful of how my actions react upon others and try and apply
that, but in the end how they view me and how they react is there choice.
(the development of children aside in the last statement)
> I sincerely
> felt that if I was just trying to be good, outside appearances would
> take care of themselves.)
Ok what your saying is that they didn't take care of themselves? If I might
ask...how....what went wrong with that?
> > > Indeed. And then what do you when you know you have people defining
> > > you as a role model?
> >
> > The same thing I did to attain that honor. I do what my convictions and
> > my
> > belief bears witness to me as the right thing to do.
>
> In the example about
> hugging my male editor, I do believe that hugging him would have been
> a good thing. It just wasn't the right thing to do at the time.
Sorry I don't think that was an example in your earlier post although I
could be wrong don't have a referance back to it. Nonetheless though your
probably right in that instance that, that would be wrong. But realize
sometimes a hug can make an individuals day and be a great blessing upon
them. Just the knowledge that someone cares that words or a handshake can't
offer. To me thats wrong when public appearance becomes more improtant than
an individual who maybe in need. One should be mindfull of that to.
> If humans had mental telepathy, so that we could all see into each
> other's hearts, this would be less of a problem because there would be
> no potential disconnect between appearances and motivation.
If your motivation is in the right place isn't it there problem if another
sees that apperance as something else. If your motives are honorable and
fulfill the needs you seen in your brother, sister, or neighbor arn't there
needs greater than any misunderstanding that another may see in your
actions. If another has a problem with some action you took with an honest
motive let them ask, then ask them "knowing the person that I am, what do
you think my motives were for doing this?" If they come up with the proper
motive then no problems, if they don't then they obviously don't know you
well enough to judge your motives and have no real busness doing so.
> They think they are not
> good enough to do it, and so they are going to wait until they change
> themselves inside. And sadly, some of them dwindle away in the
> meantime.
Well if you just walk up to them and say "you want this calling or
mission...ok you don't feel ready let us know when you are" I'd say your
right in that. No one is ever ready to say there perfect, pretending to be
that doesn't help only cause greater guilt and shame. If you have people not
willing to step up to the plate maybe instead of telling them they need to
be perfect and above reproach if they accept this calling we should tell
them try and do the best job you can and grow with it you'll probably make
mistakes along the way, just know there are people here to help you as you
go.
> Just because the EXTREME of something causes problems does not mean
> that the principle is incorrect. It was Joseph Smith who observed
> that truth sometimes takes a path between two roads.
It was Pat Morita (sp?) that said something like, "Try and travel down the
middle of the road and you get squashed...just like grape" :o). Think about
what this principal JS observed states. Are principals like this true across
the board? That which motivates you to do the "right thing" would you claim
as a principal for all mankind to be motivated to do the right thing or just
you, that you know of for sure? Just because this principal may work for
those that need this to motivate them would you also impose this upon those
that don't? The truth does lie some where between and yes the principal can
be incorrect for those its incorrect for.
Thanks
Cya
Bill