Conference tecrus::mormonism

There is a terrific book, called "Saintspeak: The Mormon Dictionary," by 
Orson Scott Card, published by Orion Books, SLC, copyright 1981. It's a 
toungue-in-cheek listing of some words and phrases common in Mormonism, 
with some absolutely hysterical definitions. I highly recommend it - it 
illustrates some of the cultural things about Mormonism that we take for
granted, for which a lot of other people must scratch their head in
bewilderment. 

Attached are some exerpts from the book. I'll type in more as I get the 
time:

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

BLESSING: 1). The ordinance in which hundreds of male relatives, home 
teachers, and members of the bishopric surround a newborn baby and 
bounce it up and down while someone, usually the father, mumbles into 
a microphone. Trapped and outnumbered, the child usually screams, 
unless it is unconscious. 
2). A traditional prayer offered over meals. Members of normal Mormon
families take turns saying pretty much the same phrases a thousand
times a year. Fervent believers insist on saying something new at
every blessing. Fanatics do the same but also say blessings over candy
bars, medicine and party refreshments. 
3). The ordinance of anointing and laying on hands to heal the sick;
most commonly done to those not sick enough to need a doctor or so
sick the doctors have given up hope. 

BROTHER:  What we call a male member of the Church instead of "Mr." if 
we wish to be formal or if we are younger than he is or if we can't 
remember his first name, as in, "Good to see you at sacrament meeting, 
Todd. You too, Brother Jones!"

CHAPEL: To children, the worst place in the world from which they 
endeavor to escape at any cost. To teenagers, a place where they can 
talk endlessly without anyone yelling for them to get off the phone. 
To fathers, a place of refuge from the world where they may sleep. To 
mothers, the exact equivalent of a nightmare amusement park, where 
they must tend the children without rides, refreshments, or relief.

CHORISTER: The person who stands in front of a group of singing 
Mormons, trying to stay with their tempo without letting the piano get 
too far ahead. No one ever watches the chorister, but no one will sing 
unless the chorister is there.

CHURCH: 1). A building with a pulpit and a basketball hoop. 2). A 
loving fellowship of believers who gather together to help each other 
and serve God.

ELDER: A nineteen-year-old boy armed with naivete, short hair, and
some memorized words who blunders his way through a door approach,
eats half a gallon of your ice cream, and gives absurd answers to
practically every question you ask him. But when he tells you that he
knows God loves you and sent him to teach you how to be happy, tears
come inexplicably to your eyes and you sit and learn from him as if he
were, after all, an old, white-bearded man with a century of wisdom to
impart. 

FAITH: A level of certainty that is stronger than belief. but weaker 
than knowledge. It means that you believe without proof something that 
does not need proof, and therefore you are not afraid to think about 
it.

FAST DAY: The first Sunday of the month, when normal Mormons skip 
breakfast and eat one huge meal right after Church. Fervent believers 
also skip dinner the night before, while fanatics don't drink any 
water, brush their teeth, chew gum, or bathe for twenty-four hours.

GENTILE: 1). Anyone who isn't a member of the Church, including Jews.
2). Anything that isn't LDS: "After I graduate from BYU, I've decided 
to get my master's at a gentile university." 3). Anything deliciously 
worldly: "Let's go down to the disco and do some gentile dancing."

GO BACK TO JACKSON COUNTY: What all Mormons expect to do someday, even 
the ones who have never been there.

HOT DRINKS: To normal Latter-day Saints, tea and coffee; to fervent 
believers, everything containing caffeine, including ice-cold colas; 
to fanatics, everything that contains caffeine *and* every drink that
is served hot.

    Great!  Hope to see more definitions soon.  Did Brother Card mention a
    Mormon definition of salad?  I'd love to hear/read what, if anything,
    he has to say about that.
                                                                          
    Regards,
    aq
    

More from "Saintspeak"....


INVESTIGATOR: Someone who suspects there are exciting, powerful truths 
in the gospel somewhere, despite the missionaries' best efforts to 
stick to the discussions.

IRON ROD: In Lehi's vision, the figure for the word of God. In the fog 
of ignorance and error, the iron rod leads straight to the tree of 
life. Of course, the iron rod also leads directly *away* from the 
tree, depending on which way you follow it.

LAST DAYS: The terrible time when Mormons will actually have to eat 
all the wheat and honey and powdered milk they've been storing all 
these years.

MORMON STANDARD TIME: Ten minutes after the appointed hour.

OIL: Normal Saints keep a small bottle of consecrated oil in the 
medicine cabinet at home. Fervent believers carry one with them always, 
just in case a miracle is needed. Fanatics use theirs so often they 
keep running out, and then ask you if they can borrow some of yours.

ONE-THIRD OF THE HOSTS OF HEAVEN: All the spirits in the preexistence 
who didn't have the guts to try and make it back to heaven without
someone forcing them to be righteous. Bishops whose ward members can't
seem to get anything done without supervision should console
themselves that Satan has to work with followers who have even less
initiative. 

PARADISICAL: A word that Mormons pronounce a hundred different ways, 
none of them correct. Just remember the phrase "part of a bicycle" and 
at least you'll have the rhythm right.

    
    Unfortunately, I called Beehive and Saintspeak is out of print!
    It looked like fun!  I'm going to try to track it down anyway.
    
    		Sheryl
    

    In January's BYU Alumni Magazine, Eloise Bell, a BYU professor of
    English has written a rather searing article on the practice of
    Niceness that is prevalent in Utah culture and as a whole in Mormon
    culture.  I was surprised to see this publication print such a scathing
    article.  I have entered just parts of it.  If you want a copy,
    let me know and I will send you a copy of the whole article.
                                         
    SUMMARY:  Utahs (and Mormons in general) are so bent on being nice,
    that they subdue anger to their detriment, psycholigically,
    pathologically and socially.
    
    When Nice Ain't So Nice by Eloise Bell
    
    The problem with Nice isn't that it's sometimes wimpy; the problem
    is that Nice can be dangerous.  More crimes have been committed
    behind the mask of niceness than behind all the ski masks worn to
    all the convenience sory stickups ever pertptrated....
    
    Nice cuts both ways in giving Utah its title as Fraud Capital of
    the nation; we produce con men so nice they can't say no.  Documents
    forger and bomb killer Mark Hoffman, they said, was nice.  Likewise
    convicted child sex abuser, Alan Hadfield -so nice that an entire
    community rose up to vilify the victims and slander the messenger
    rather than accept the verdict on their nice guy neighbor.
    
    Niceness begins in the home; it is taught as the prime docrine of
    the "poisonous pedagogy" Alice Miller exposes.  This doctrine teaches
    children to be nice.  It demands that children not resist the status
    quo, not take any direct action against whatever injustices are
    going down.
    
    ...the nice, friendly zucchini-sharing people of the Utah culture
    are not immune to the hostility that spurts out at strangers once
    we are behind the wheel.  Afoot and at home in our own neighborhoods
    we silently and smilingly put with each other's dogs that howl all
    night long, kids that trample out flower gardens, teens that sun-bathe
    and wash their cars to ear-shattering heavy metal music.  But when
    we drive out of those neighborhoods, any stranger becomes fair game
    for our angry honking, cutting in, heading oof, not-so-muted searing
    and flipping the bird.
    
    Nice takes other tolls.  According to an article in the Deseret
    News, 11 October 1989, pharmaceutical houses have hard data showing
    that Utahns  (with a national reputation as your generic nice people)
    use huge quantities of tranquilizers and anti-depressants, far more
    per capita than the populations of other states.  DEPRESSION OF
    COURSE HAS MANY COURSES, BUT REPRESSED ANGER IS AMONG THE FOREMOST.
    (My caps)  Anger is punished and prohibited from childhood in cultures
    that teach the poisonous pedagogy and preach the creed of niceness.
    
    The creed of Niceness does damage to the Self, to the soul.  The
    struggle for personal authenticity is a lifelong one, the true Hero
    journey we all must take if life is to have meaning.
    
    Niceness threatens by saying that there is no True Self or that the
    True Self is synonymous with the Natural Man (and thus an enemy
    to God), or that the False Self is what we ought to seek.
    
    Devotees of the cult of niceness abandon the True Self and promote
    the False Self, the self that the psychologist John Bradshaw describes
    this way:  "You pretend a lot.  You gauge your behavior by how it
    looks - by the image your believe you're making.  You wear a mask,
    play a rigid role, and hide your emotions.  You say you're find
    when you feel hurt or sad.  You say you're not angry when you are."
   ======================================================================
     
    The above is only a selection from the article.  I lived in Utah
    for about 8 years.  And while there, I experienced this "niceness"
    and called it dishonesty.  I was surprised that Utahns, while as
    a whole a wonderful people, could not express their anger or annoyances
    honestly, but did so in a "whispering campaign".  I remember expressing
    my "rightous indigination" about a very wrong situation and was
    told that I had a "bad attitude".  I was overtly not nice in calling
    people to task about their behaviour. That was not nice of me.
    
    But this niceness is not just in Utah.  Look around your wards.
    I have experienced this same "poisonous pedagogy" in the culture
    at large.  We all seem afraid to 'rock the boat' and thus, let things
    go on and on when a little un-niceness would have done.  For instance,
    we have a single mother, convert, in our ward, who lets her kids
    roam throughout Sacrament Meeting, to the annoyance of everyone.
    Has anyone said anything?  No, it's not nice.  So, I did yesterday.
    Then felt the self-incrimination for not "being nice", in criticizing.
    
    As a people, we have a difficult time in giving feedback that is
    negative.  I have often felt that if this were 1776, Mormons would
    be backing the king, rather than participating in the revolution.
    (that comment was not nice!)
    
    Interesting comment by Dr. Bell about repressed anger showing up
    in other aberrant behaviour.  Ever see a Mormon angry!  Why are
    we so afraid of showing this emotion.  After all Christ did.  oh, yes
    I know we have whitewashed it with calling it "rightous indignation",
    but I believe, throwing tables over, scourging people with a whip,
    and throwing the coins around the Temple sounds like anger to me.
    
    This note is getting too long.  So I will end.  Your replies to
    this entry, nice or not, are welcome.
                                    

    Hi, Paul (nice opening, huh?)
    
    What in the world makes you think this is limited to Mormons?
    
    aq
    

	This is a very interesting article.  Maybe it should be titled
	"Hypocrites in the Church" instead of about Nice.  To cover up
	or hide what one really feels does that person no good at all.
	It is also an extremely discourteous behavior, IMHO, to have or
	exert no control over one's children; especially to the point of 
	annoying other people.  Personally I think you did the right thing 
	in telling that single mother about her children's inappropriate
	behavior, but I must also include that the situation is a failing
	of both the Bishop and Relief Society President (only because
	they are the leaders).  (sarcasm on) That new convert must really 
	feel the love and concern the ward members and leadership have for 
	her.  Why, with so many offers of help she must be overwhelmed!
	(sarcasm off)
	
	This is the whole problem as far as I am concerned.  Teaching our
	people and children to be "nice" is a crock.  I teach my children
	to express themselves, and I usually express myself a lot too.
	This does not mean, however, that I do so in the context of what
	I would call the "world" view of that expression.  Anger is of no
	use to the latter-day saint.  As James points out, it is just a
	weak person who "constantly" gives way to anger.  He also discusses
	sharp tongues, but then so does the Lord when he tells up to reprove
	with sharpness but afterwards show forth an increase of love.  This
	is the whole key to the matter.  Love is what should be our motivating
	factor and not nice.

	The world is "nice."  Mormons should not be "nice," but should have
	love as their guiding force.  If nice is the leading force of Utah
	and Mormon culture, then I think they are missing the point.  
	D&C 64:9-11 is what I try to use in guiding my actions.  It is very
	hard to do, but when coupled with other Scripture is very helpful.

	First I try to remember that I have to forgive everybody.  Then I
	think of the woman taken in adultery and brought before Christ.  As
	I am not without sin, I do not throw stones, but as I am trying to
	become Christ-like, I do not condemn either.  Joseph Smith taught
	correct principles and let the people choose.  Agency is an important
	part of this religion.  What does this have to do with nice?  Only
	how we feel.

	I remember sitting behind a woman with twins and two other children.
	The twins were the youngest and caused the most trouble.  At first I
	was extremely annoyed with the noise and disturbance.  As I sat and
	thought about it, it was I who was annoyed.  The mother was trying
	as hard as she could to control these unruly children.  Children
	are not as controlled as adults, so I considered if they were really
	unruly or just being children.  Since I was unwilling, or unable,
	to offer any help, I came to the conclusion that the discomfort I
	was feeling was my problem and not hers or her children.  I passed it
	off and let it go and went back to the meeting.

	We can express our anger, displeasure, discomfort, or whatever if we 
	want to, but we should always do so in the context of the Scriptures
	which has taught us to do so with charity and love.  This article
	about nice just goes to point out that Mormons do not always practice
	what they preach.  Love, unconditional love, is very hard to come
	by.  This is why the Lord has given us church positions of service,
	home teaching, visiting teaching, home evening, Scripture reading,
	seminary and institute, etc..  This is also why we have the atonement
	and the principle of repentance.  This is how we grow and progress.
	One day it just seems to come together.  This article would have
	been much nicer (pun intended) if it helped us instead of just
	putting us down.  How often do we get what we are doing wrong instead
	of what we should be doing?

	I feel like I am rambling, and maybe I am, but there is so much more
	to this subject than meets the eye.  It is very hard being a Mormon.
	It is so much easier to go the way of the world, but then eternity
	would then go the way of the world.  So we must learn patience and
	love, and remain obedient to the gospel and progress line upon
	line, and precept upon precept.

	In Christ's Love
	Charles

    Hi, Ann
    
    You asked what makes me think that this culture of niceness is only
    pertinent to Mormons.  I have found it among non-LDS also, but only
    rarely.  I have found that in general people will vent their anger.
    Among LDS, anger, all criticism, and even negative feedback is a
    definite No-No.  Thus, the constant whitewash of niceness or "All
    is well in Zion" syndrome.
    
    Do think it is prevalent in our society as a whole?  Maybe I am
    just reflecting my heritage (Italian and French), a culture not
    afraid to show their true emotions.  Whereas LDS tend to be 
    Anglo-Saxons?  What do you think?
    
    Paul

    re: .8
    Hi Paul,  I think that you find in many cultures, a tendancy to be
    "nice" about some tings, ie. pretend that there are no problems. Don't
    your italian family members never question the basic tenants of
    catholicism and in fact treat anyone that does with ostracization? Is
    that not an example of what we are talking about here?
    
    
    re: General topic. 
    I think we have to be careful to keep the worldly concept of "me first"
    which is a little less popular now but has been a really pervasive idea
    since the "hippy generation", from mixing with the gospel. I agree that
    to be nice in order to not "rock the boat" or "look out of place" or
    "make the church look bad" or etc. is a very  bad thing yet done often
    in our mormon culture. However, I believe that telling someone else how
    we feel just simply because we feel it is at least as bad. It not only
    hurts ourselves it directly hurts someone else.  Yes the Lord has
    instructed us "reproving betimes with sharpnes" BUT!!!! read on!!!!
    "When moved by the Holy Ghost".  I am sure that the Savior was so moved
    when he drove the money changers from the temple. But how often when we
    speak reprovingly are be moved by other feelings of our heart not the
    Holy Ghost.  Of course we have to remember the rest, after so reproving
    we are to "show forth after an increase of love lest he esteeem thee to
    be his enemy". Do we really work with the individual that we reproved
    to make sure that they really do know and feel and believe our love?
    
    I believe that one of the cnetral themes of the gospel is the value of
    each individual. Therefore I need to think about my behavior and how it
    affects others, I do need to therefore bridle my tounge at times and
    not express my opinions thoughts or emotions without first considering
    what impact this will have upon others.
    
    An example of the Savior bridling his own need comes to mind.  Perhaps
    the only time He actually asked for moral support was in the Garden. He
    asked the disciples to watch and pray fro him and went off by himself.
    This support of theirs was so important that he actually came back and
    seeing them asleep woke them and again asked them to pray for him. The
    third time finding them asleep he let his own needs be less than his
    concern for them, he spoke of their good intentions and let them sleep
    on. I think that counts very high on the scale of "niceness", basicaly
    at the very top. But it is a niceness based on genuine caring and
    concern, not on looking good in someone else's opinion.
    
    It is nice to be nice, just do it for the right reasons.
    
    Your brother 
    
    Len
    

    Good thoughts, Len.
    
    The gist of Dr. Bells' observations of Utah culture is that being
    nice becomes more important than truth, honesty and the search for
    being an authentic person.
    
    When this cult of niceness permeates a society, says she, pent up
    feelings of honest anger, annoyance, indignance go "underground"
    and manifest themselves in more violent and dangerous aberrant
    behaviour.
    
    Your thoughts are well put.  Just as the white wash of being nice
    is at one extreme, so is blunt honesty and complete disregard and
    disrespect (read disvalue here also) for the other person at the
    other extreme.
    
    Sometime where in the middle we have to place ourselves.  That is
    why the scripture you quote is great, "Reproving betimes" which
    means "be honest to your feelings of being offended, express them
    to the offender or person needing correcting."  Yet, show an increase
    of love afterwards to that person, so that he/she knows that your
    criticism is of the behaviour, not the person.  Kind of sounds like
    "Hate the sin, love the sinner".
    
    Paul

    My experience here at Digital (certainly not predominantly Mormon - I
    don't know about anglo-saxon) is that the culture of nice over truth 
    is extremely widespread.  However, for the most part, I think "nice" 
    helps lubricate the social process.  After all, when my mom and
    dad raised us on the Thumper rule ("If you can't say anything nice,
    don't say anything at all") it was a guide rule, something to measure
    against, not intended to override all comment and self expression and
    absolutely not intended to override truth.
    
    The three questions I tried to teach my children to answer before
    making, shall we say, an unnice comment:
    
    	Is it true?  If so, see next question; if not, abort - if I may 
    		     use the expression :)
    
    	Is it kind?  If so, go ahead and say it.  If not, see next
    		     question.
    
    	Is it necessary?
    
    Sure, these call for judgment; we have that God-like attribute,
    agency, and are here to use it.  I do not always know myself when I'm
    being nice at personal cost, but do not think that personal cost should
    be the primary criterion here.  I could do away with the three questions
    above and fall back to the two great commandments: Love God, Love my
    neighbor as myself.  There is an even simpler guideline: Am I
    assisting or hindering the Lord in his work and his glory (which is to 
    bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man)?
    
    On addressing other people's shortcomings:  Long ago I heard a
    two-and-a-half minute talk in Sunday School (see, I said long ago) in
    which the speaker pointed out that the easiest sins and shortcomings to
    see are our own, but that the easiest place for most of us to spot such
    sins and shortcomings is in another.  I've pondered that one many a time, 
    and tried to add it to my touchstones for personal progression.  
    
    Warning:  Anecdotal evidence (one of my favorite kinds) follows.
    
    One of my children (not the first) was born with a severe birth 
    defect, necessitating immediate life-saving surgery (I made sure 
    she received a priesthood blessing first).  She recovered well, 
    however, one of the effects of the problem was that her anal sphincter 
    muscle was extremely weak.  In fact for the first year of her life on 
    earth, she often smelled faintly soiled.  Many people came up to me to 
    suggest that I change her diaper, some did so repeatedly even after I 
    had explained the physical problem and (often) checked the diaper to 
    find it spotless.  Brethren, this hurt more than I can say, but I
    consider such comment to be prompted by kind and loving concern for a
    little one.
    
    In addition to the physical problems, this baby clung to me and  to her dad
    (small wonder, say I, poor infant was delivered and immediately medivac-ed 
    far away, whereupon she underwent surgical procedures - a tough beginning
    for any little one).  As time went on, I became somewhat sensitive to
    comment about her odors, or how we spoiled her.  
    
    One day, at church, an acquaintance came up to me and said, "This must be 
    your special little daughter."  My precious little one turned in my arms 
    and hid her face in my neck.  Why my heart was so sore that day I don't 
    remember, but I do remember thinking fleetingly that if the sister remarked 
    that my baby was clingy, or shy, or spoiled, I would probably burst into 
    hurt and angry tears.  
    
    Instead, healing tears came to my eyes, and return even as I enter
    this, as that sweet sister said, "That little girl sure loves her
    mommy."
    
    Give me the nice truthful ones.  Help me to be a nice truthful one.
    
    aq
        	

>    When this cult of niceness permeates a society, says she, pent up
>    feelings of honest anger, annoyance, indignance go "underground"
>    and manifest themselves in more violent and dangerous aberrant
>    behaviour.

That is a description of many marriages!  It is common for one to have his or
her feelings hurt and to clam up and not say anything.  The other spouse
senses that something is wrong but doesn't know what, and the barrier of
silence grows stronger and the marriage grows weaker.

I think that pent up feelings could be due to a desire to be "nice", but I
think it could also be due to other reasons such as shyness or a fear of
revealing oneself to another.  Whatever the reason, I think it is one of the
serious causes of marital discord.

Allen

    re .11
    
    Thanks Ann for sharing that.
    
    I like your "Thumper Rule". To add a little to that, if that which one
    desires to say fails the tests, given more thought and more
    consideration of the other person and where they are comming from,
    perhaps the communication can be modified to fit the "nice" test.
    Perhaps even the person that called your daughter special and so
    touched your heart may have had some other comment in mind first, then
    applied the thumper rule and modified it to focus on your relationship
    to her not on her limitations.
    
    Sometimes we say something with the best intentions but by the look on
    the face of the person we address quickly realize that we made a
    mistake.  May I suggest that that is not the time to turn and run, nor
    is it the time to sit with a blank stare, it is time to do the
    "increase of love" proceedure and find something to say that focuses on
    that person's good qualities, or your appreciation for that person.
    
    An example is being in the church but being childless for many years,
    Often we would meet someone new and they would say, "How long have you
    been married?" then "How many children do you have?" When the first
    answer came back longer than 2 and the second Zero, often the person
    would either just turn and leave or sit there with a strange look
    on their face and say nothing at all.  When they might have trained
    themselves to say something "nice" and both them and us would have felt
    better.  (of course it goes both ways, when we were feeling OK often we
    filled in with the change of subject into some "nice" safe topics).
    
    May the Lord bless us in learning how to work relationships with
    people better as we go along.  After all relationships are eternal and
    the skills we develop here will most probably be valuable for eons to
    come.
    
    Your brother in Christ,
    
    Len
    

    Here's an interesting thought.  How do the leaders of the church
    administer the affairs of the church without being nice?  In our
    careers, our supervisors and bosses can motivate us to do things since
    they have some tools at their disposal.  The things I am talking about
    are things like firing, salary issues, and work assignments.  It is
    another problem when it comes to getting us to get our hometeaching
    done, our genealogy work done, attend the temple, etc. and the many
    other things we need to do.  It is especially tough when we remember
    that service in the church is voluntary.  I can't exactly tell my
    elders quorum president to fire my hometeacher or dock his pay because
    he does not do a good job.
    
    How do we insure that someone will do a good job teaching a class?  People
    participate in the church, for the most part, because they want to.  The
    degree of participation is also varied and coincides with the faith of the
    participants.
    
    If someone with a shaky testimony goes to see the bishop about
    welfare assistance, what does he do?  He can be "nice" and help them out
    or he can not be nice and tell them to take a hike.  I think this
    "niceness" spills out into other areas of our lives since we are
    commanded to love all men.
    
    I remember when the church was taking a beating over the bombings in
    salt lake.  Elder Oaks was interviewed and explained that the price we
    pay for being so trusting of people in the church is that we will get
    burned once in awhile.  Being nice to all those around us will only
    allow the same thing to happen to us - we'll bet burned if we are not
    careful.
    
    scott
         

    re .14
    
    Yes indeed, there is the question. How does it all work. Why do people
    do this including pay more than 10% of their gross income, without even
    recieving a bill or a reminder? How in the world could it be that any
    organization could send large numbers of 19 year old kids out to
    preach? Especially since NEARLY ALL OF THEM GO! It boggles the mind.
    Why do people join this group even if it means loss of job, friends,
    even sometimes home and family?  Why do people make other such
    sacrifices such as selling everything they have to make one trip to the
    temple, knowing that when they get back they literally have nothing,
    not even a job or place to live? Furthermore why does such an
    organization that takes sacrifice (and I mean REAL SACRIFICE) as a
    normal basic principle survive from generation to generation? In fact
    How could it be that this organization grows in a time when other
    religions that cater to their people are loosing members?
    
    Those that claim that it is mass hysteriea or mass hypnosis clearly
    have not attended the meetings of this group.  Those that claim it is
    merely atracting the lonely and feeding on their needs, can't explain
    why it lasts and grows, and why these same people mostly stay even when
    personally hurt and insulted.
    
    Yes indeed, why does all this work? How could this really be happening?
    The mortal mind can't understand it nor see what possible causes could
    be doing this.  What could it be? Could there really be another side to
    mankind, as it were another sense that they can trust? could there
    really be some extra-mortal force guiding and directing all this? In
    fact succ an "illogical explanation" is the only plausible one. The
    very success of this church and kingdom is a valid tangible evidence
    for the "intangible", for God.
    
    Your brother
    
    Len
    

    Len,
    
    You asked so many questions in your last memo that it started me
    thinking.  The answer is ZEAL and in some cases fanatic zeal that
    drives people to do what they do in the name of "their cause".
    
    I believe that while the LDS are zealous also, it is not fanatic
    zeal that drives us;  rather inspired zeal that comes from a knowledge
    of who we are (offspring of deity), why we are on earth (to fulfill
    a critical step in our eternal progression), where we are going
    (a future state that is dependent upon choices made here) and of
    our true potential.
    
    Religious zeal is all alike.  What differs it, in my opinion, is
    the underlying motivations or reasons for the zeal.  I have a cousin
    who is a missionary priest in Japan and he is as zealous as any
    LDS I have known.  Yet do I also know, that that he is evangelizing
    is not fully true.
    
    So, are LDS zealous?  I would say probably not.  I would use other
    adjectives like perserving, dedicated, sacrificing, inspired,
    unswerving, loyal.
    
    Just my thoughts.
    
    Paul

    Perhaps it has to do with the level of conviction on the part of the
    believer. Some groups use various methods to strengthen the conviction
    and keep it alive. But strange it seems that in mormonism, there is a
    very high level of conviction without much in the way of formal
    processes to maintain that.  It is suprising how often a person may
    have separated completely with the group of mormons but still maintain
    a demonstratable level of conviction (try running down the church to an
    "ex" or "jack" and most often they quickly will defend it).
    
    Perhaps this is a demonstration of the validity of some kind of
    experience that we can't quantify or even describe very well that has
    to do with testimony generation -- the Spirit.
    
    Len
    

I think that part of the problem is in our acceptance of our Church leaders
as inspired men of God and our desire to not disagree with them.  Let me
illustrate what I mean with an example that has been occurring during the
past three weeks.

Three weeks ago, it was announced in Sunday School in my ward that the ward
choir would be singing in the Easter Program.  I thought this was interesting
since we don't have a ward choir.  We don't even have a Choir Director or a
ward Music Director.  We do have a small group of people who like to sing (I'm
one of them and thus had a personal interest in that announcement).

The Sunday School music leader said she had been asked to organize a choir
since the Easter program would be held during the Sunday School time.  Those
of us interested in singing got together, and we were given three songs to
learn.  I thought to myself, "Boy, three weeks to learn three songs.  Here
we go again with another mediocre performance."  None of us in the group are
"singers" but we enjoy doing what we can, and we need more than one-week/song
to learn a number. 

Well, the next week came, and we were given two more songs to learn.  I felt
like the Bishopric was really dumping on us!  To make matters worse, when the
next week came (just one week before Easter), we were told that the Bishopric
still hadn't made final decisions about all of the numbers to be used.  I
couldn't believe it!  I could tell that other choir members were also
frustrated about the lack of time to learn the music, and I could tell that
the choir director was frustrated as well.

After the practice was over, I talked with the choir director about the
situation (I lead the Sacrament meeting music so she and I have a common
interest in the music in the ward).  She was frustrated because she had been
given an assignment from the Bishopric and she was trying to do her best to
fulfil that assignment but it wasn't working out.  She didn't want to disagree
with the Bishopric and felt helpless in the situation.

I tried to counsel with her, as follows:

1.  If she were like me, she could tell the Bishopric, "Sorry, but we can't
fulfil your assignment; we need more time to prepare.  You want a choir
performance but you don't organize a choir on a permanent basis.  You don't
have a permanent choir director nor even a ward music director.  You won't
let us practice on Sundays (on a regular basis) and you want to approve the
music we select but won't make final decisions about it until one week before
the performance.  We can't operate under those restrictions."

2.  I also counseled her that if she didn't feel comfortable saying those
things, then she could bring the assignment to the group, explain the
restrictions we're under, and ask the group if they are willing to go the
extra 10 miles in time to learn the music very quickly.  This would give the
choir the opportunity to make its decision and possibly tell the Bishopric
that the assignment can't be fulfilled rather than her having to do it.

I tried to be careful and not blame her about the "mess".  She thanked me
for talking with her because she really didn't know what to do but didn't
feel like she should rebel against her Priesthood leaders.  She called me
later last Sunday evening and explained that two numbers had been dropped and
that we would only sing the original three songs.  Apparently, she was able
to talk with the Bishopric and discuss the problem and come up with a
compromise acceptable to both.

I discussed this last night with a counselor in my Stake Presidency while
being interviewed for a Temple recommend, and he and I agreed that the Lord
doesn't want us to blindly agree with everything our Priesthood leaders say
and do.  He explained that there are times when the Stake President will
ask him to do something, and he will explain that he can't do that but that
he can do such-and-such as an alternative, and the President is happy for the
suggestion about a different action.

I think we have a real problem in the Church about accepting our Church
leaders as 100% inspired and never disagreeing with their decisions.  By
doing this, we keep our frustrations inside us, and our anger grows and grows
until it explodes.  I think it is fine to disagree with our leaders as long
as we do it in a Christ-like way, in the spirit of the Gospel, and as long
as we are kind and considerate in our disagreements.  I even think it is fine
to refuse to accept assignments that we honestly believe we can not perform
but which our leaders insist be done.  Before we refuse such assignments, we
need to honestly evaluate ourselves to see if we can't accomplish the tasks
in some way, with extra effort.

In my case, when we were given three songs to learn in three weeks, I knew I
could never do that with only one 45 minute practice each week.  So I had my
daughter tape the tenor parts, and I spent about eight hours of commuting time
during the next week memorizing my parts.  However, when two more songs were
added the next week, I was ready to give up.  I had spent eight hours
memorizing my parts but had spent no time learning the words and learning how
to put meaning into my singing, and then to have two more songs added was
more than I was able to emotionally handle.

I hope that church leaders will sincerely try to set up conditions in which
people feel welcome to honestly discuss their concerns and frustrations about
the decisions made by the leaders without feeling they are on a guilt trip
for disobeying God.  If they don't, then, as Dr. Bell described, their
members will eventually explode with frustration and anger.

Allen

    Allen,
    
    You hit the nail right on the nose in your last note!!!!
    
    As a people, we accept our leaders as inspired.  True, yes.  But
    somehow this idea gets played out by our saying that we should never,
    ever, disagree with them.  They are above being criticized.  When
    not speaking for the General Church, concerning doctrine or policy,
    their pronouncements are simply those of men and women speaking
    their opinions/ideas.  
    
    Your example is a good one.  Here's one from my experience.
    
    Years ago we met in a building with another ward.  We were the new
    ward, having split from them.  For years the old ward got the first
    choice on meetings times and always chose a morning schedule.  WE
    "got stuck" for years with meeting for 3 hours in the afternoon.
     Finally they agreed they would swap with us in the new year.  Came
    the new year, they did not want to swap.  Again, we were asked/told
    by the Stake President we would meet in the afternoon.
    
    We said  "No Way!"  Several families decided to go to another ward
    that met in the morning. A rushed meeting with STake President and
    ward members was held in which a lot of pent up frustrations were
    expressed.  "Utah Mormons" in attendance were shocked that we would
    have such a meeting with the StaKe President, and express such
    feelings.  REsult was the old ward was moved to the afternoon schedule.
    
    As a high councillor, I remind myself that my role is to "counsel"
    the Stake Prsidency when asked.  And fortunately, our Stake Presidency
    asks for counsel all the time and asks for dissenting opinions also.
    
    Here's an example from LDS History.  Setting: Nauvoo Temple, Brigham
    Young speaking to LDS people, says (paraphrased):  "Get your stuff
    where going west. Those who are going meet outside".  No one moved.
    He went back in and asked why.  They said they wanted their Temple
    Endowments before abandoning the Temple.  He complied.
    
    Any other thoughts out there.  
    

    I certainly agree with Allen and Paul (.18 & .19). A comment on the
    danger of what often happens instead.
    
    Person 1 feels frustrated, so "works out their feelings" by talking to
    "just one close friend" about it. Result: that friend's feelings of
    frustration are raised (person 2) so 2 talks to one friend. and so
    forth. Soon there are several persons "murmuring" but they as
    individuals don't even recognize it, they are individually just
    "working out their feelings" but seen globally they are "murmurers".
    It is of course much much worse if each person talks to 2 friends. In
    addition sometimes these conversations do not remove the hard feelings,
    "worked out" but rather serve to support those bad feelings and make
    them stronger.
    
    As I recall the D&C counsels "if thy brother offend thee, go to him
    privately". This is of course what was counseled in .18 & .19 but again
    I just wanted to point out that "working our feelings out" by talking
    to a friend is a good example of what not to do.
    
    Your brother
    
    Len
    

    When I was young(er), I prided myself on being able to work without
    requiring any management.  If there was a problem, I took care of it.
    It gave my managers a good feeling because they never had to worry
    about me.  I am learning now that this is not entirely the right thing to
    do.
    
    The problem with this approach is that as a worker I often encounter
    problems that slow my progress.  In these situations, I need the help
    of management so that I can operate more efficiently.  By not drawing
    this to management's attention I am doing a disservice.
    
    The correct approach is to take care of issues and operate in a way
    such that you are not a burden to your managers.  But, when you find a
    difficulty that your manager can address more easily than you can, you
    should draw the attention of your manager for assisitance.  Good
    managers want to hear about these issues so that they can make your
    work run efficiently.  They don't want their best people wasting time
    because of trivial problems that management can handle.
    
    I think we get stuck on the parable of the wise servants.  We think
    that because the one servant invested wisely and required no management
    this is the way we should operate.  I suggest that there could be
    another servant that might have been even better favored.  This is the
    one that, after the master left on his trip, checked out all the
    investment options and FAXed a list of investment alternatives for the
    master to consider.  Then, the manager could FAX back a choice based on 
    his experience and weighing the risks versus the rewards.  Imagine what
    would have happened if the servant that invested the talents had
    invested them in the futures market and wound up not only losing the
    talents but also had to present his master with a bill from the money
    changers ...
    
    Sometimes the worst thing you can do to your manager is to be
    absolutely and thoughtlessly obedient.  Managers can make mistakes
    and if they do so, we know it and we are silent we cannot shed all of
    the responsibilities for the results.  This is not too far off from the
    counsel given us about missionary work and our responsibilities to
    speak up to our friends and neighbors concerning the Gospel.  If we
    remain silent, knowing that our friends might accept the Gospel given a
    chance, we might well share the responsibility for their errors.  By
    providing feedback, especially when our leadership may not have access
    to the information that we have, we are making sense of the concept of
    raising our right hands to show that we sustain our leaders.
    
    Steve
                                                                

Re .20

Hi Len,

You have a good point about "murmuring" spreading from person to person as
people try and "talk out" their frustration.  That is a very real problem.  

On the other hand, however, people who have pentup frustration must find 
some way to get it out.  Ideally, as you brought out, they would go to the
person involved with their frustration and talk it out with him or her.  
However, that frequently isn't done.  The very fact that frustration is being
pentup implies that such "talking out" isn't happening.  I guess people need
to find someone with a listening ear and a closed mouth to "talk out" their
problems.

Allen

I can think of another situation where the pressure to be "nice" can really be
stressful.  It is related to a situation that can result outside the Church, but
which is exacerbated when members are involved.  First, some background.

My wife has been trained in classical music and violin performance.  It's what
she got her degree in.  She plays now in a local philharmonic, teaches about
12 students and has previously been concert mistress in a university 
philharmonic for a number of years.  She has perfect pitch and has been judged 
to be of professional caliber by people in the business.

Now, I'm not bad at music either.  I've done music composition for more than
half my life, played in bands and orchestras and published a private cassette
album a few years ago.  It looks like some of my stuff will be in a Digital
training video one of these days.  My training is not as extensive, but I've
gotten good reviews.

When I was dating my wife I attended one of her performances.  Afterwards, she
asked me how she did.  I proceeded to compliment her on some sections, and
pointed out problems in others.  The latter was NOT what she wanted to hear and
it was made clear to me that if we were to continue to make beautiful music
together, as it were, I needed to keep my comments positive.  I have since
resorted to the Thumper rule ("If you can't say something nice, don't say 
nothin' at all") and use my standard "It was very nice." comment at all times 
when acquaintances perform and I'm asked for a review.

(Of course, there are other lines one can use.  "I've never heard anything quite
like it."  "Nobody can do it the way you do."  "It was really something." 
"It certainly was you."  "It sent chills down my spine." "There was never a
dull moment."  "I'm speechless."  You get the idea.)

She knows I have a good ear for music.  And, she understands that I will not 
give more than "It was very nice" at any time I'm asked how it was no matter 
how good or bad the performance.  And that's okay.  That's because NOBODY 
wants to hear real criticism after a performance.  And, I don't want to be 
accused of being critical of a performance when my responsibility, as an 
audience member and friend to the performer, is to reward the performer for
all the effort involved.  

Now, let's bring the Church in.  A typical Sacrament meeting.  I'm between
naps/speakers when, say, a youth steps up to the grand piano in front after
a quick introduction by a member of the Bishopric.  Well groomed and behaved,
this youth is a shining example of what I want my youngsters to be.  I wake up,
pull my 5 year old out from under the pews, prop him up and with my fingers and
most positive whispered voice draw attention to the youth.  The youth, aware of
the sudden and deafening silence of all the 5 year olds in the congregation 
can feel the touch of all pairs of eyes.  A bead of sweat tickles its way down 
the back.  Heartbeats thunder in the ears.  Trembling fingers hit (almost) the 
opening chord of a familiar classical piece. 

Eeek!  Oooh!  Ow!  Clunkers reverberate off the chapel walls.  An occasional
halting stumble.  Rats!  I should have gotten a page turner ...  Finally,
it's over.  The polite Mormon crowd does not applaud, of course.  (Not in the
chapel and that's as it should be, of course, because it would be irreverent.)
Again, there is silence, except for a baby who, like myself a few minutes 
before, briefly awoke.  But, I'm now wide awake.  I tell my boy, "It was very 
nice, wasn't it?"  He nods and looks forward to when he might get to perform 
before the congregation.  As I drowse off I hear the next speaker say, "Thank 
you for that very fine music.  It sent chills down my spine ..."

I usually wake up (sometimes with a snort) as the closing hymn is begun.  My
voice mixes with a couple hundred other voices in spiritual unity.  After the
closing prayer and as I wander out, I run into the youth or the parent of the
youth.  "How did you like the performance?"  I say ...

Now you understand the problem.  Of course, it all varies from situation to
situation.  Usually, the youth has really done a good job, considering the
level of expertise, training and so forth.  It's not professional and should
be judged differently than professional work.  And, the youth usually KNOWS, 
and quite painfully with clear and timeless recollection, all the fluffs, goofs,
boners, clinkers and clunkers.  It would truly be inappropriate to say 
something on the order of, "Well, with a little practice maybe some day
you'll get it right."  "It was very nice ...  except for that one part."
"You know, we've always had trouble with that piano."  One must be careful at
such times that one has not been completely honest with ones 5 year old. 
Otherwise, at this moment what you might respond with may make no difference 
as your little darling yells, "My dad says it made his teeth squeek.  Ha, ha!"
as he skips his way down to Primary School.

But, what happens when members confide in you and let you know that they have
decide to go "professional", perhaps after one of those performances that you 
are sure has shaken out one of your fillings?  "It was very nice."  Hmm.  That
might cut it.  Might not.  I mean maybe they can make it in the music biz.
Maybe not.  The Osmonds made it.  I mean, yeah, I did like that one tune they 
did.  And, there are other Mormon groups.  Aren't the Jets Mormon?  What about 
the "New Kids"?  Rumor, I guess.  Then there's the Azevedo syndrom.  (Lex is 
my wife's third cousin, by the way.  If you don't have anybody famous in your 
family, you can always marry it, I always say.)  That is, you can be a "Mormon"
performer catering to all those millions of Mormons.  Well, a few of them
anyway.  Don't recall if these kind of performers really ever make it big
though.

The problem is that when we perform for Mormon audiences, audiences that are
typically very friendly, polite and "nice", though not always awake, we have 
to be careful about taking the good response too seriously.  My wife has seen 
many a time where the Mormon audience, in an effort to be "nice" has lauded 
much approval for Mormon performers as though they were professional and where 
such approval may not have been warranted.  Things like standing ovations and 
bravo's during performances where simple applause is appropriate become 
embarrasing.  This tends to warp our perception of quality in performance.  
After such accolades for a mediocre performace from someone who should have 
done better, how can a Mormon audience react or even recognize a truly 
spectacular performance from someone who is performing at or beyond their 
previous known levels of capability?  In truth, we sometimes overdampen our 
response when we are exposed to professional quality performances from 
members.  This is because we don't want to make the lesser performers feel bad. 
Or, we prefer to dismiss the performer as having been "blessed" and therefore 
exempt from any show of approval (you know, "much is given ... much is 
expected").  And it comes off as indicating that we don't know a good 
performance from a bad one.  Better to have stuck with, "It was very nice."

Mormon audiences are "nice" audiences.  And, as a result, they are all but
worthless as indicators of whether or not one should become a professional
musician.  I suppose that this principle applies to more than just music.
If we do truly follow the advice from the scriptures to seek wisdom
from the best books, to discover that which is virtuous, lovely, truly
praiseworthy and of good report, we'll find true excellence in all things that
members try to do.  Perhaps we will be known far and wide for excellence in 
all of the arts.  But, for now, I'll stick with, "It was very nice."

Steve

    
    Thanks, Steve, for your thoughts.  They prompted 2 memories from
    the time I lived in Utah.
    
    After I first moved there, I went to several concerts with friends.
    After about 10 seconds of applause, most of the audience stood up.
    I did not, because a standing ovation is something you reserve for
    outstanding performances.  I was politely asked why I did not stand
    and when I told them I thought the performance was average, I was
    met with obvious indignant looks.  "I was not being nice."  Thereafter
    I stood whenever with friends.
    
    Second story - a BYU English professor friend of mine told me his
    experience with freshman English composition classes.  At the beginning
    of the semester he would correct compositions with remarks such
    as "Strengthen this paragraph"  "This idea not fully developed."
     In other words "soft" criticism of the students.  He reported at
    the end of the semester he would see no improvement in the writing
    skills of the students.  So for the next semester, he marked papers
    thus,  "Unacceptable"  "Rewrite", "F", "Not worth reading"  He told
    me that the improvement in the students was drammatic and immediate.
    
    Criticism of one's artistic talent is a touchy matter.  For amateurs
    I, myself, try to encourage artistic expression.  For professionals,
    my expectations are much higher.
    
    Paul