Too Much?

I know that we are supposed to always serve joyfully. Whenever and whatever asked.

Lately I've been struggling with that.

I recognize that some of this is of my own making. My involvement in last night's Pinewood Derby is a case in point--I wanted it to be nice for my own kid and took too much on myself that might have been easily and (equally successfully) delegated. There are areas to simplify my own service and if I'm not happy then I can see places I need to make changes.

My husband on the other hand ends up a little bit more stuck than I do. He is the Elders' Quorum President and I'm surprised by how much of his calling-time is made up of things that others need/ask/want him to do. Outside of his regular meetings he ends up doing a lot of visiting--either as a stand-in Home Teaching companion or with his presidency to get to families that haven't been visited in many months. He does exchanges with the missionaries and teaches the quorum on a regular basis. This is in addition to his regular home teaching route. This spring, in the last month or two on Saturdays, he's been to three moves and been the only one from our ward to show up at a service assignment at the stake camp, He also had to work one Saturday. Not long ago I heard him pray for a Saturday to open up so he could get his stuff done around the house. Not fun stuff, mind you . . . mostly stuff for me.

He has planned to rip out the floor and toilet in our bathroom, and last Saturday finally was free for him to do it. In the middle of the week he checked an email message that had come through the previous Saturday (he doesn't check his email very often.) It was a "reminder" that his Elders' Quorum was responsible for taking down the Stake Relief Society activity in the middle of the day on Saturday! He contacted the person and asked her how on earth it could be a reminder when this was the first he'd heard of it. She explained that she is a fairly new secretary and that she was told that there was an assignment calendar that was supposed to be good through 2017 (!!) and somehow none of the current EQ presidents seemed to have a copy of it.

Plantboy sent out the word to his email group--a mixed response proposition at best and said to me with a tired sigh, "I thought the whole point of those round tables was that sisters were supposed to be able to set them up and take them down on their own?" I had heard this somewhere once myself.

I was reminded of being in the young women's and being constantly bombarded with service requests--can't the girls just volunteer to babysit for such-and-such activity? For couples to go to the temple? Won't the girls serve at the Christmas dinner? We know there is an activity, church and fireside this week but we also need them on Thursday night to hold a meeting about. . . . You get the gist. I sometimes felt that the girls ended up so over-committed because they were seen as perpetually available and willing to those not in their lives.

I recognize that some of what my husband has going on is directly related to the fact that our ward experiences a particularly low activity rate--something perhaps most pronounced among the elders. He can't compel them to serve, of course, nor can he seem to stop the constant bombardment of requests to do more service.

So here are the questions I have. When is it okay to say "no?" Is it okay to say it even if you know it means that something won't be accomplished? Something somebody else views as really important? When we raise hands to sustain somebody, what is the extent of that? Does it mean that I need to babysit for a friend whose husband is out of town nearly every week when she is supposed to be at Young Women's? Even if being asked to do so makes me wonder why she said yes/was asked in the first place? When does all the doing take away from the "why" of the Gospel?

Just in case you were wondering: Plantboy did not help on Saturday, and only two men showed up to help. I didn't go to the RS activity: I chose to spend the afternoon working on scrapbooks with a friend. When we got to Church on Sunday we realized that we had forgotten a building-cleaning assignment. The reminder had come in the mail Friday, which I had failed to check.

While the Mommy's Away . . . .

Yesterday I spent the afternoon working on scrapbooks with a friend. It was National Scrapbook Day, by the way, but I will spare you any details. It's not that kind of blog.

This, however, is the pix message that came to me during Mommy's day out. And now you know why I need Mommy's day out.

Probably Preaching to the Choir, but . . .

I read Mormon stories in the news. It is the Mitt Mormon Moment, after all. I never comment. Those who log in are so full of vitriol and hate it is almost shameful to even engage. But I couldn't stand by today. To a reader's scandalized comment that ended with "what the hell is magic underwear?!" I gave the following response:

 I would like to comment here, though normally I think it is wiser to avoid these types of conversations, if it can be called such. I am an active LDS person (Mormon) who has been to the temple. After attending the temple, we wear a particular style of uber modest underwear (it is basically a tee shirt/camisole and long boxer-style shorts) under our regular clothes. We consider them sacred, not "magic," and to a religious person this is not splitting hairs. To others in this forum it may sound that way, I know. These undergarments act as a constant reminder of the things we have committed to do--to serve others, to act in Christlike ways, and to be generous. Do we sometimes/often fail in these things? Of course, we are human. The best analogy would probably be to a Jewish boy wearing a yarmulke or his mother a prayer shawl. A Protestant Christian wearing a cross. An Islamic woman wearing her hijab headscarf. No doubt, to some (and for some) these outward religious symbols are intended to intimidate or put religiosity on display. For others, however, these important symbols serve as reminders about the people we wish to become. In Mormonism, we just choose to keep our symbols to ourselves.

No doubt others here will have much to say about what I've written, and, no doubt, much of it will be very unkind. Assuredly some of these will question my motives; but, believe me, I have absolutely no personal stake in improving Mr. Romney's chances. I'm a registered Democrat in the teachers' union, and believe firmly that government is best when it is run by men and women of principle (religious or otherwise) who understand that politics is the art of careful compromise, and who put people ahead of profits. I've been a stay-at-home working mom and in in-the-workforce mother as well as a combination of the two for the last 11 years. I understand that the religion in which I choose to practice is not without its flaws--the natural outgrowth of it having people in it. But my biology degree could never do more than satisfy my questions of the mind, not the heart.

In all my years in the Church, including the time I spent as a missionary, I have never seen as much vitriol directed toward it as I have in the last few years. As an American, and a firm believer in religious freedom (and freedom from religion) as a founding principle of our country, I find these current attacks very disheartening and out of step with the America I believe in: a place where people might work for the common good to achieve great things. Lately it seems that the only right people want to exercise is freedom of speech. Perhaps with the right of speech comes the responsibility to listen. 

Really? Calling People Pinko is so 1950.

I might not make it until November without my head exploding.

Maybe literally.

Figuratively is bad enough.

A Republican house member from Florida was in his home state this week and said that "about 78-81" Democratic members of Congress were Communists.

On how many levels is this just insane?

Is there a consipiracy?
Do they have horns or something?
Where does this bizarrely specific number even come from?
Do they carry cards?

My other new favorite is all the candidates who have pledged to vote a certain way AHEAD OF TIME. I'm not talking about campaign rhetoric--these pledges are something else entirely. This is signing their names to back positions before they see a bill. Before they discuss a bill. Before stopping to consider what might be best for the voters. They are selling out instead to the PACS with all the money. This is such thinly veiled vote buying that it makes me fear for the future of our country. Where are the statesmen??

Mitt Romney has committed both in writing and in words to a lot f these. The linked article is an editorial, and admittedly, a bit inflammatory, but it presents some really important questions. Who will really be running the country if he is elected? The money makes me sick. I know. . . . I know . . . those of you more right leaning can make the argument the other direction: who is running it now? The to-the-right answers range from socialists to communists to unions to intellectuals. But if I had to choose, I think I'll take my chances with the unions and intellectuals over the banks and oil companies.

Grrr. . . The Sound Mother Bear Makes Before She Rips Somebody's Head Off

I volunteer at the school a couple of mornings each week, mostly doing math. Today I was helping some kids make test corrections related to concepts with which they were struggling. One of the kids in the group went totally punk on me. He had multiple errors, but every time he corrected one problem he would stand up and say "I'm done." After I asked him to sit back down three times so I could check his work (always needing more corrections) and listening to his sass, I gave up and helped the three sweetums and let Punk go back to class. Hey, it isn't a paid gig.

Teacher knows about Punk's attitude and concurred that parent-teacher conference this week won't be pretty.

Fast forward to after school.

Jedi Knight came home in a vile mood. After some cajoling, I got to the heart of the matter. During soccer today at recess, Punk was repeatedly tripping him and encouraging others to do the same.

Does anybody have a ten year old desperately in need of a friend?

Progressivism Redux

One more thing to say on the subject.

Today I read this talk by Bruce Hafen, given in the late 1970's at BYU. I'm so glad I stumbled across it. It was just what I needed to hear.

In the talk, he quotes an English writer who laments the uselessness of both pessimists and optimists. Yet, he doesn't say that the third group are the standard "realists." He calls them the improvers. In other words, these are the people that see both the good and the bad--unwilling to either whitewash what they can't deal with or dwell on all that is wrong and relish being critical--but they choose to make the most of the world as it is. Improvers aren't naive, nor are they cynical, Hafen explains that they are those who have moved past each of these places into a category where they might actually do some good in the world.

It will take some time to go through the talk. It isn't short. But it is so wonderfully illuminating.

Progressivism

In recent months, I've sometimes referred to myself as "progressive" toward politics. I'm a registered Democrat, but I find the title rather pigeon-holing. People might assume all kinds of things about me and my belief-system from it. The connotations for "liberal" are too negative. And, truthfully, I'm not all that liberal either in my attitude toward social policy or in my desire for government expansion. The progressive label seems, to me, more descriptive. I also find myself aligning my thoughts with other politicians who have sometimes termed themselves as progressive.

But there is also progressive with a capital "P." An actual movement from the 1880's through the 1920's (some say earlier, others later). Its accomplishments are many, and it might be argued that modern America owes its start to the Progressives. The Progressives were either directly or indirectly responsible for ending slavery (including the Constitutional Amendments associated with it), banking reform, universal suffrage, clean milk and water, labor unions, government transparency, birth control and Planned Parenthood, city parks and the National Park system, free and fair public education, the ending of child labor, income tax, expose journalism . . . you get the picture. Those of you with attention to the dates will also note that the Progressives were responsible for Prohibition too. Hey, I didn't say it was all good; though even in that there are lessons for modern history.

I have been fascinated by this lately because I recently listened to a Podcast in which a man who recently published a book titled "A History of Mormonism" was interviewed. He is a member, but also a scholar, and in Richard-Bushman-fashion, he has endeavored to tell a history that is factual and fair and unbiased. In the latter he probably only partially succeeded, he is a member of the Church, after all. He spoke warmly about the research that his study has now opened up. He is interested in how the Progressive movement influenced LDS history in the post-Nauvoo era.

The Progressives were an interesting mix. They believed firmly in a very strong Protestant work ethic, and yet they had great faith in the scientific, modern world also. From Wikipedia, "The progressives were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society's weaknesses. Characteristics of progressivism included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind's ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention."

In addition, they felt that all of this innovation and efficiency and government intervention should be to advance one key goal: to strengthen families.

The Progressives really caught fire in the post-Civil War era when regular folks were so fed up with government corruption and cronyism. As individuals improve, so do institutions. . . which then reciprocate the benefits. Even prohibition (which only outlawed the sale, not consumption of alcohol) was an attempt to break the backs of political cronyism conducted in seedy backrooms instead of in open legislative halls. Progressives wanted government to be truly FOR THE PEOPLE. They believed that people should work hard and be independent, but that there should be an expectation that the government's role was to create opportunities through which people could improve their lives--outdoor space, integrity in water and food supplies, equal roles for men and women, the ability for women to have a say-so in the bearing of the children for whom they were responsible, education for all children, opportunities or higher learning, the scientific application of knowledge . . . .

So let's look sideways to the LDS Church in the same era. This is a time of explosive Church growth in Utah. A substantial number of LDS people were living in open polygamy, including many leaders. Family was emphasized repeatedly. Brigham Young made a concerted effort to re-establish Relief Societies throughout the Church for the improvement of the Sisters and to offer relief to the poor. Education was encouraged; at one point Young even introduced a unique written English alphabet among the early Saints. Young Men and Young Women formed "retrenchment" societies designed to root out all that was evil. In fact, "retrench" was a major catch word at the time. Early Mormon women were powerful advocates of universal suffrage and Utah was one of the first states to allow women to vote. In 1896 a Mormon woman became the first woman elected to public office in the entire country. She was a doctor, and she had beaten her husband in order to do it. The Church also were early adopters of the Boy Scout Program (progressive with a capital "P") for the improvement of boys and young men.

I've been told, or had it implied, far too often that my own political leanings are not in alignment with Church teachings. I respectfully beg to differ. I believe that the government's end goal should be similar to that of the Church: to engender an atmosphere in which people (working in their families) might reach their full potential.

From an LDS perspective, the obvious difference is quickly apparent: we believe that programs within the Church are inspired from God, and that government programs are generally designed by groups of men and women forced to compromise and just doing the best they can. However, even in the Church, inspired programs are run by regular people working from varying degrees of their own inspiration. Even if a program could be perfect, it would still fail people for a hundred (and more) reasons. These failures become even more pronounced in government programs.

Still, I think the Progressives were on to something. Transparency. Equal Rights. Children celebrated and educated. Green space in our cities. Logical decision-making. What do you think?

Also, in light of Elder Christofferson's timely talk about prophets being fallible men and what constitutes doctrine, do we think the fervor of Progressivism influenced early Church programs (many of which we still have)? Or were Church leaders influenced first and the light of the Holy Ghost inspired good men and women everywhere with an idea whose time had come? Some combination of the two?