As I focused earlier this year on becoming more meek (“kind, generous, gentle”), I had plenty of opportunities to be more gentle, and I was struck by the following things:
1) I am naturally kind and generous, but I am not as naturally gentle in my verbal communication. I tended to be very straightforward, and I have a naturally sarcastic wit. Two out of three does not “wholeness” make. If I want to be more meek “than many people”, two out of three might suffice; if I want to be more meek **as I progress toward perfect meekness**, two out of three won't get me there. I need to work on the 1/3 I don't possess naturally.
2) It is much easier for me to be gentle outside my home and my interactions with my children than it is with my daily frustrations at home. Likewise, it is much easier to be gentle with strangers than it is to be gentle in situations where I am interacting with those I love and where I am invested emotionally to a deeper degree. That fascinates me, since it appears to be counter-intuitive. You would think I would be gentler with the ones I love the most, but the opposite is true. I wondered why that is.
3) Two things struck me during the month when I was focusing on meekness – relative to both my biological family and my on-line family (those people I have come to love and admire in my blogging spheres).
a) I am more protective of those I love, and the deeper that love is the more strong my protective instincts are. Therefore, I tend to “defend” them more instinctively – which means to act more quickly and reflexively – which means with less pre-thought and consideration and control. In these instances, I allow myself to be acted upon (to respond reactively) more often than when I have time consciously to think about and “choose” my actions (to respond proactively). Iow, when I feel that someone I love and/or admire greatly is being attacked or unfairly accused, I tend to fall back on whatever my “natural” reaction is – which tends not to be as gentle as I want it to be.
b) I have higher expectations of those I love and admire. I want them to be better – to grow – to progress – to be more Christlike. When some stranger does or says something insensitive or mean or even terrible, I don't like it – but I am not invested emotionally as deeply in that person as I am in someone whom I know far better and have served directly. Therefore, I am more able to respond in a gentle fashion – since my expectations were lower at the time. I found myself on many occasions that month and since, as I blog at various locations, being able to “step back” and reword my initial comments – often with the explicit statement “as gently as I can say this”. That has been encouraging to me.
It is much harder, however, when the insensitive, mean or even terrible thing that is said or done comes from a family member or someone on a blog whom I love and/or admire. My natural reaction is to be disappointed and, by extension, hurt by such words or actions; hence, my natural response is to deflect that disappointment and hurt back to the source – and that is not a naturally gentle action.
I have never understood very well the axiom, “You only hurt the ones you love.” I always have thought it was completely wrong and nonsensical, since I know -and know of – plenty of people who hurt those they don't love – often in terrible ways. I think I understand it better at the end of this month.
I think this is more of a terrestrial law, while what I understood previously is more of a telestial law. At the telestial level, people hurt people – with little distinction between those they love and those they don't love. At the terrestrial level, people have learned to not judge and react toward those they don't know; hence, they only hurt those they know – and those they love are those they know the best. (They are the only ones who care about you enough to be hurt by your actions; they are the only ones about whom you care enough to react in a hurtful way.)
At the celestial level, people stop judging those they know and love; they stop projecting their own expectations onto others completely and simply accept them as they are; they respond gently and lovingly because they stop holding others to a false standard those others simply can't live. It seems like such a paradox, since our ultimate focus should be to help others learn and grow, but that service can be given without expectation and pressure and disapproval and condemnation; it can be given gently and with love.
Well stated again, Ray. I especially liked the last paragraph, probably because I’m lacking in that area a lot, it seems. I’m working on it, though. Thanks.
Holy cow…dh and I were just talking about behavior tied to the three degrees of glory last nite, after I told him about the post I had written on my blog (about earnest efforts to really be plugged in and kind with my kids when I was ready to lose it).
His thoughts (a little more general than yours, but very similar) were:
telestial = giving into sin
terrestrial = fighting sin but more inwardly
celestial = choosing and doing good to others (think of the Savior on the cross — even in agony, He was caring for His mother, ministering to the man hanging next to Him, forgiving His murderers)
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Amy, you’re welcome.
mlinford, I really like your husband’s summary – a lot.
Spot on, Ray. Excellent.
Hmmmm… on one hand I agree and on the other I don’t. I’m not sure if that’s because I’m mistunderstanding what you’re saying or if I’m interpreting it correctly and simply disagree.
So help me figure this out!!
The last paragraph of the article:
”
I agree IF the standard we’re holding someone to IS “our own expectation” as opposed to God’s expectations, or if it’s a false one, or if we’re holding someone to a standard that is too “advanced” for them at their current level of spiritual development, OR if we’re holding them to a standard that is uniquely LDS or is a covenant between individuals and God, but isn’t a “commandment” per se, to the masses, or in some cases even to those who are temple going members of the church. (Which I guess, is pretty much the same thing as holding them to a standard that is too advanced for them at their current level of spiritual development. )
Several things come to mind as examples.
Modesty in dress, Word of Wisdom, magnifying a calling, appropriate church attire, fasting, tithing– you could go on and on.
But none of these are “false standards”. And if I expect them of my children it’s because they are God’s standards, not mine. I’m just teaching them to my kids. I guess I’m not really sure what you meant by “false standards”.
What exactly are you talking about? No singing at the table?? 🙂 We sing at our table. 🙂
Or do you mean like expecting them to keep their rooms clean and organized and punishing them or showing disappoval if they don’t?
There are things that I DO EXPECT my children to know and live by. However, I also understand that they are children and at first will only observe these things because they are taught to them and are simply being obedient, then as they grow older, mature in the gospel and in their testimonies, will live them not only to be obedient (which in itself IS a good thing) but also because they understand the principle and have experienced the blessings if they obey it and the pains when they don’t and gain their own testimony of that particular principle.
So– I didn’t EXPECT my kids to fast at 5 years old. But once they turned 8 and were old enough and mature enough to be baptised? You bet. On the other hand, I didn’t slam it on them all at once. Start with one meal, add another- etc. And I’ve never “forced” them to fast either. But they know it’s what they are supposed to do, that it’s expected of them. Same thing with tithing. I never force them to pay their tithing. But they’ve been taught that they should and WHY they should. Whether they DO or not is up to them, but they know it’s expected. And with both fasting and tithing– we don’t have to say a negative word, give a “look”, etc for them to know that we’re disappointed if they don’t, because they’ve been taught the prinicple and know that we hope and desire that they’ll follow it.
With people outside of our family, nonmembers etc– I don’t expect them to live our standards (besides the obvious ones that are simply human decency and politeness), and I’ve been careful to teach my children that as well.
Example: Grandma isn’t “bad” nor is she “sinning” if she has a glass of white wine at Thanksgiving. Having a glass of wine is not a sin. The sin is drinking a glass of wine when you’ve made a covenant that you wouldn’t. Grandma hasn’t made that covenant– we have.
face, based on your comment, I think you get what I mean at the most fundamental level. I could have posted this same general article under different titles, and the one that would have been the most appropriate might have been “For with what judgment ye judge, ye also shall be judged.”
To take your examples a little deeper, though, I want my children and church friends to fast fully once they turn eight, but I can’t turn that into an unbendable expectation for all of them. For example, there might be situations of which I am not aware that make fasting for 24 hours medically dangerous for one or more of them – like my son’s diabetes. Also, I can’t project a desire for perfect obedience onto them in areas where they simply aren’t capable of that obedience yet. Furthermore, I can’t impose an even stricter standard than the Church’s basic standard and expect them to be able to live it – simply because I am able to do so. I might see it as a “higher law” and a good thing, when, in reality, for someone else it might be just as unrealistic expectation – and a very bad thing.
I know siblings from a family to whom I was close growing up who still struggle to this day with deep feelings of failure and inadequacy because they were expected to be perfect as children. They were taught that good kids did (fill in the blank) and bad kids did (fill in the blank) – and that good kids felt (fill in the blank) and bad kids felt (fill in the blank). One child was called a slut simply because she was vivacious – so the boys liked to be around her. Everything that was said to them could be justified in some way as “just teaching the Gospel to my kids”, but the black and white, all or nothing, same expectation for all approach did serious harm to the family.
My point is that we need to do the best we possibly can to teach correct principles, but we can’t ever lose sight of the fact that not everyone is going to be able to internalize every principle (or a particular one) and live them (or it) fully – right away, certainly, but in many cases not ever in this life. We have to be founded first on a charitable base and not primarily on a judgmental one.
I hope that clarifies a bit. If not, ask some more – or correct me. 🙂
Nope– I got ‘ya. And I agree!
We have to be founded first on a charitable base and not primarily on a judgmental one.
Or a desire to control. I have come to realize how easy it is for me to have ‘expectations’ and to want people to act in ways *I* think they should. Even though we believe in ideals and standards and commandments, I am coming to learn that God works with us where we are and I think we as humans aren’t often very good at that. We judge in a vacuum based on ideals, rather than be willing to accept someone’s reality and love them and help them from where they are.