The picture above, you will find, is somewhat misleading. I'm afraid this post may not be terribly sweet and flowery, though part of it will address flowers in a roundabout way. In fact, I feel the slightest bit guilty about posting this post because it is about something that annoys me, and I think annoyance is not a very nice emotion. But I wanted to get other people's thoughts on this one.
Jordan and I have a friend on a mission in Britain. Not only do I really like her, but I think she is smart, funny, and good. However, she sends emails home that sometimes get forwarded to me, and the other day she said something that inspired a negative emotion on my part. This is what she said:
"We went to Lyme Park for our P-day. Lyme Park is also known to the Jane Austen lover's world as Pemberley. Yes, this is where Colin Firth was filmed as Mr. Darcy in the 6 hour P&P. Very exciting, but oddly enough (or maybe this should be a given) it was not as fulfilling as teaching the gospel. I don't really know what has happened to me, this is Mr. Darcy we are talking about here...but I will say, that the gospel is much cooler."
Now, I have to say that I think I know what she's doing here. She's trying to stay focused on the gospel so she can be a better missionary and I think that is commendable. But part of me thinks, "Come on. Lyme Park is completely different than teaching the gospel. You're not supposed to compare it." I think by comparing something like that you take away from an experience that could be thrilling and even spiritually enlightening all by itself. Lyme Park is GORGEOUS. I think God would want us to appreciate a place like that for what it is. If we believe God created the world, can't we learn something about him in studying his creations as well as teaching the gospel? And, in fact, aren't God's creations part of that gospel?
I felt similarly to the way I feel when LDS people, on being asked what their favorite book is, say it's The Book of Mormon. I want to say, "Right. That's a given. There are so many other books out there. What else do you read?" I suspect that I'm not being fair. Maybe people that say The Book of Mormon is their favorite book love it more than I do or maybe it really is such a vital part of their lives that they are compelled to say it. And I think that is admirable.
I guess my real problem is that when people say things like this my instinctual reaction is to think, "You're not someone I find very interesting," and I feel guilty about it because it's not very nice. So maybe my frustration over comments like the ones mentioned above is just the sign of a guilty conscience.
16 comments:
That's so funny. I was just writing about the rampant use of incompatible comparisons the other day. I feel the same way you do about that. I would assume that if your friend were to read that letter a year from now, she would just roll her eyes at herself. That's what I did when I read my MTC journal (before I lost it).
Oh man Leland beat me to it. He must be working so hard. jk. Plus, Mr. Darcy is hot!
I have Lee's MTC journal. And I have a publicreading of it once a week at Brigham Square. Just kidding.
But really, I agree with your blog. It's hard to have a real conversation when people say things like, "I love the gospel." Then you say, "Me too." And then what? That's the end. And that's maximum boring.
Ha. Yeah, incompatible comparisons - we all do it sometimes, right? But sometimes the comparisons are pretty silly. And of course, missions seem to make the best of people pretty weird in a at least some way.
Darcy IS hot, and it's not really his fault.
Man, I would love to go to some of those journal readings, Natascha. You should start charging...make bank.
I find the vast majority of people uninteresting (I also find their blogs uninteresting, however I LOVED this post, your blog, and you and jordan). I agree with you. why do people wear their Mormonism on their shoulders. Get a hobby or something. seriously people.
A mission is a cult. Much of the models of thought missionaries are subjected to are very dangerous and even incongruent to the gospel eternal principles. Then after you are released, you have to be de-programed. I guess there has to be a mass psyche that needs to encompass the weakest and the strongest. It would be incumbent upon the individual to seek the level of light and intelligence that will fill his/her body that will eventually rise with the resurrection. It's a pill to administer to millions and millions of LDS people who are all in various degrees of light and understanding.
Pssshhh. I sound like a decrepit old woman.
If you like comments like that, you should come to the Jerusalem Center!
Hannah, is that an invitation? We accept...or would if we could.
Jim, you'd better like our blog or I'll mean comments on yours. Ha ha. I don't mind "wearing Mormonism on my sleeve," in that I'm happy being different than others and being open about the differences, but I think we can take it to a level that makes us innaccessible to others, including people in our own religion. And I agree, get a hobby. Find ways to relate to other people!
Christie, You? Decrepit. Never! Who just travelled all over Europe? I think you're right that missions are geared to fit as many individuals as they can. I think this inherently comes with some difficulties and it becomes imperitive for people to focus on their own relationship with God rather than just, say, with their mission president.
I agree with you Rose. But I have been thinking about this certain subject lately and the certain type of people that share the sentiment as your missionary friend and I can't help but question my own repulsed response to such people.
It makes me ask the question: Am I really offended by them and/or their opinions? Am I really questioning the sincerity in their testimony? If so, which I believe I have done and still do, that makes me very lame.
Yes, these people can do damage, by leaving others (especially those not of our faith) with a bad taste in their mouth for their self-righteousness or sanctimoniousness, but who do I think I am to condemn or judge their behavior or feelings? I don't have to agree or participate, but making light of their feelings or emotions can be just as self righteous, right? Doesn't setting myself above them because I disagree with how they feel (or at least how they express it) toward the gospel make me a bit of a hypocrite? A modern day Pharisee?
Thanks so much for posting this, this has really got me thinking.
I guess I am super late to respond to this, since I was off on my Utah-Wyoming adventure. But now that I am back home and have some peace and quiet for blogging, I read your post finally, and I can't not respond.
Your reaction to your friend is 100% the reaction I would have had. When people (of any tradition or belief) react to every topic or situation with only one response, I find myself incredibly frustrated and also completely turned off. And as you say, it isn't just an issue of either wearing a certain identity on your sleeve or not - you can feel proud of some part of yourself and be perfectly willing to publicly ally yourself with that belief/institution/position/etc but not insist on having that one identity be all you can talk about.
I think that I usually feel especially uncomfortable when people do this with religion because I often feel like the decision to make yourself into a person who, as in your example, can't even appreciate seeing a stunning piece of landscape and architecture without feeling pressed to demean the experience in favor of some sort of pious expression, says something else about the kind of person you are choosing to be. I think that often people think when they do this they are just proclaiming their faith or trying to be righteous, and as you say, that is all well and good. But I often feel like when people choose to interact with the world this way, they are actually sending the message that they are so narrowly focused on one way of seeing the world, God, and human experience that they are not going to be a person you can actually engage with. How can you have a conversation with someone who thinks they have to bear their testimony in every sentence? I always feel as though the person is communicating to me that we cannot actually have a relationship, because if I don't already agree whole-heartedly with every detail of that narrow view, we have nothing to talk about. So while I don't think I am "better" than them, per se, I do wind up feeling like exchange (and therefore relationship) becomes totally impossible between us.
Oh, I could go on about this . . . and I already have . . . I will shut myself up, but I just want to say that I appreciated your post a lot.
Rosie, I just remembered a really fantastic talk/lecture Hugh Nibley gave about this very subject. It's called "Zeal without Knowledge". Check it out if you get the time, he makes such great points on what we should aspire to be like, in terms of intelligence and religion.
Haught Fudge, I know what you mean about questioning your response to these people. I don’t want to let myself discard another person’s feelings or opinions just because I don’t like them either. I think one reason why I feel negatively about viewpoints like the one I saw reflected in my friend’s comment is that while growing up I felt like there was pressure to share that viewpoint; like that equaled righteousness. I think you’re right that we shouldn’t try to condemn or judge, but I also think that we shouldn’t try to pretend that we’re not making value judgments because when we choose the perspective with which we will see/would like to see the world we’re most likely choosing it because we think it’s better than the other ones. And I think we should try to be aware of WHY we think it’s better. Though there are always things we can learn from other perspectives. Your comments made me think more too. I’m excited to read the Nibley talk. Thanks for the recommendation.
Nerian, I’m really glad that I got so much of your time when you were barely back from your trip. I can use it as bragging rights now. These are some things your comments made me think about: I think that we have our experience in this world for a reason, and if we focus only on “churchy” things I think we’re missing a significant piece of the experience. It’s like when I went to girls’ camp and was only allowed to sit in the campground and do crafts for most of the week while the beautiful out of doors remained unexamined. I always thought, why have we come here? We could have done all this at home.
Hey remember when you told everyone in relief society that our exciting moment of the week was seeing David Beckham with his shirt off? It was like the record scratched and crickets chirped while we laughed our heads off. This story reminds me of that moment because come on! There is more to life than brothers going on missions or sisters having babies!
Ha ha. Oh, that hilarious moment. Hey, they just called that segment "good news." They didn't specify what kind of good news.
This is a really old comment because I was having too much fun with your visit to pay attention. Wahoo! But I can see your point. People on missions are pretty focused on what they're doing at the time. Beyond the mission, I agree that it is a little narrow for people to claim that only the Book of Mormon or gospel music or LDS centered things are their favorites, but then there are the opposites, like a professor who said, "Some people say the Book of Mormon is literature, but we all know better, don't we." It's people like that I want to smack for belittling others' opinions. I can deal with the sweetness and light members, but then I have to know a lot about LDS literature and music in order to have a good conversation with them, which is not all bad.The newer stuff coming out has merit, especially the YA and middle grade.
Driving home the other day I was thinking of how little I like missionary letters and how uniform they seem to be. Then I did a little thought experiment. What would a good missionary letter be like? Well, same as a good letter. Telling the events they experienced good or bad and their thoughts and reactions. So what is it that missionary letters do so much of that are not that? Rather than give their own thoughts and reactions they seem to be aping pre-approved interpretations of the experience for themselves and their family in a way that echoes how we're told to think about missions: ie, they're good but hard or hard but good. So instead of just saying how the week went and what happened like a regular person, all the events and interesting stuff become case studies that reinforce the "more important" and generic messages which underline what missions are supposed to mean: how much they love what they're doing or who they're doing it for etc. So instead of writing 'we tracked out the entire city... again!... and found no one... again!' it has to be 'our faith and dedication is being tested. i know there are people ready to hear the gospel right now, and we're doing everything we can to find them....' In short, the form of the missionary letter is hopelessly (?) wedded to its function of reinforcing the idea that missions are good and meaningful. And I do think they are, but I don't like that we don't seem to have enough confidence in their value to talk about their real-life experience but have to continually couch it in bigger picture rhetoric that renders almost any account of a mission generic and meaningless.
I don't know that I blame particular missionaries for doing this because its so inculcated from the time they start singing "I Hope they Call me on a Mission," but I do think our speaking of missions in such generic terms will accomplish what the rhetoric seems to be trying desperately to mask. By doing this we're losing accounts of missions as experienced by individuals which, I think, would be very valuable and interesting.
Post a Comment