Unwise, not Immoral

Growing up, I was part of the group of church members who believed that caffeinated sodas were wrong. We drank root beer and Sprite and orange soda and I was consistent at "standing for truth and righteousness" by abstaining whenever I was offered a Coke. I'm a little embarrassed to say I remember thinking less of my future husband when I saw him order a Dr. Pepper at a restaurant. 

This issue became a hot topic in our household. I knew that caffeine wasn't mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. I also knew that an isolated comment by one General Authority a long time ago didn't constitute church doctrine. Why then, did I feel so strongly about it? My argument was simple: regardless of what was said, caffeine is bad for you. And it's also addictive, which is bad. Finally my husband made a comment that shifted my paradigm: Sure, Coke isn't great for you, but neither are donuts. Why do you feel so opposed to one and not the other? 

Here's the moral of the story: I realized that I had been treating caffeinated sodas as a MORAL issue, instead of an issue of PERSONAL JUDGMENT. And I had continued to treat it as a sin even when I clearly recognized that it was not forbidden by any commandment, policy or doctrine. I didn't even realize I was doing it. 

God had not made caffeinated sodas forbidden, but somehow I still acted as though he had. Recognizing the unnecessary yoke I'd been wearing, I let go of seeing soda as a moral issue and gave myself the freedom to make a decision about soda (and donuts) as the Lord puts it, "according to wisdom" (D&C 63:44) or "as seemeth you good" (D&C 60:35).

This type of hidden morality can have a powerful influence. A recent article in Public Square Magazine pointed out that someone can belong to what amounts to a religion without realizing it.  Many people in society today adhere to an unspoken set of codes about what you can and can't say and do, who are the "righteous" and the "sinners", the need for punishment and repentance. These invisible values and assumptions are often promoted and adopted unconsciously, leading many well-intentioned people who consider themselves objective and scientific to "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7).

Interestingly, this new secular religion has led to an explosion of moral standards, not a reduction. Their commandments now cover secular topics which are never mentioned in any book of scripture. Diversity, global warming, vaccines - judgments of "good" "bad", "right" and "wrong" quickly accompany a discussion about virtually everything. 

It's important to note that there is a difference between saying something is a bad idea and that it is morally wrong. A bad idea is a just an opinion based on a set of facts. A moral wrong is an untouchable, unchangeable tenet, a test of character and integrity,  something to defend at all costs regardless of the facts, practicality or changing circumstances. When someone doesn't recycle, or asks to touch a black girl's hair, or hosts an all-male discussion panel, we sometimes attribute actions to wickedness (and its synonyms oppression, racism, toxic behavior, etc.) what may better be described as unwise, unhelpful, inconsiderate, or sometimes just a difference of opinion.

Is that distinction just splitting hairs? Why does it matter if we distinguish between opinions and moral stances? Those who view all secular subjects through a moral lens can usually find a way to make every issue boil down to a failure to "love thy neighbor" (you don't recycle? You clearly hate our grandchildren. You think "all lives matter"? You clearly don't care about people of color.) Often the argument will simply boil down to "people are dying!" as though that should end any need for critical thought or discussion. 

Why does it matter? First of all - that is a rabbit hole that can literally go on forever (You threw a sock on the ground? You think I'm your maid and now I'm being oppressed). But secondly and more importantly, having a moral stance on every issue often makes it harder to solve that issue.

When we fashion our own religion where ANYTHING can be viewed as a moral issue, it means that there’s no room for nuance, negotiation or persuasion. By taking a “moral” stance (as opposed to "holding an opinion") on carbon emissions, gendered bathrooms, or immigration, it insists on specific solutions and then freezes all parties into positions they can’t relinquish or compromise on without ostensibly shirking their values. Hence, nothing gets done. 

Furthermore, if one's stance on the nature or solution to a problem becomes a moral absolute, then those who disagree are not simply of a different opinion, they are seen as someone with less character and integrity. Civil discourse disappears, all relationships quickly become toxic, and zero progress is made in the realm of public policy.

Is there only one approach to solving racism? Is the suicide rate of LGBTQ teenagers only caused by one thing? Are there alternative approaches to addressing greenhouse gases? Taking a moral stance about "the root of the issue" or "the right way to solve that problem" or "whose voice deserves to be heard" can discourage the kinds of back-and-forth that builds bridges, fosters collaboration, and leads to insightful, creative, high-quality solutions.

Deciding whether the police or BLM protestors are the "good guys" doesn't actually help us solve the problems of police shootings. It just creates a religious narrative accompanied by a sense of moral justice and demand for righteous punishment (in the form of shaming, jailing, or firing). If we treat the issue as a problem afflicting all parties, it becomes a problem to be solved instead of a stance to be defended or a person to be punished. 

In recent years, many initiatives around the country, including the Inner Harbor Project in Baltimore, have teamed up police with teenagers and community members to improve relationships across the board. They teach police how to communicate better with local residents and helps teenagers better navigate public spaces and create creative systems to foster goodwill with local business owners. These reformers recognize that getting one person fired from the police force will only address one aspect of the problems they are living with.

Historically, the Progressive movement of the early 1900's also provides good examples of this approach. In his new book The Upswing, Robert Putnam recounts the dizzying success of these reformers at addressing social problems of their day - women's suffrage, the Boy Scouts, Red Cross, Kiwanis and Lions and Rotary clubs, universal high school, labor unions, antitrust legislation, public libraries, child labor laws, the FDA, funding for disability and unemployment all stemmed from this period. Progressive reformers were members of both parties, and had bipartisan support for their efforts. Putnam identified two key characteristics among these reformers, who included people like Jane Addams, Margaret Sanger, Ida Wells, and both of the Roosevelts: they were people saw needs in their society, and they believed they had the power to address them.  

This can-do attitude had indisputable success in American society, in large part because problems were seen as independent issues, and not the fault of a specific group in society.  This allowed Progressives to work cooperatively with people in many different groups for a shared purpose, which not only got "buy-in" from more segments of society, but also built better solutions. Bills passed during this era often had the support of 70-80% of the members of both parties. Rather than radical, one-sided solutions, barely shoved into law by the majority party, social reformers and politicians crafted quality legislation together as teammates and fellow collaborators in their quest for a better America. 

The original Progressives were successful because they saw problems, not sins, and they measured effectiveness, instead of righteousness. 

Even their name is telling: social reformers reform. Social justice warriors only slay.

Maybe, like you, you are one of the unwitting victims of unconscious moralizing: Pick a social issue you care about. Identify your own beliefs about the nature of the issue, who or what is to blame, and what the solutions are, and then assess whether you hold those as opinions or moral absolutes: would your opinion change if studies came out disproving some of the premises of your argument? Do you feel morally superior to people who disagree with you? Do you feel a sense of satisfaction when they meet with failure, embarrassment, or social chastising?

Morality, whether attached to an organized religion or not, is a critical part of our humanity and our society. But secular morality, disconnected from traditional religion, is not superior. In fact, it can become its own form of religion, with commandments, superstitions, rituals and taboos - the problem is, because that religion is unseen, adherents may ethnocentrically feel that their beliefs and values are "common sense", as opposed to just one way of looking at things.

I will not attempt to change anyone's mind about that invisible religion, but I do hope that those with sincerely charitable desires will put off the soothing illusion that their sense of moral uprightness will actually improve society. Instead, may we see each other as teammates; even if others' priorities, perceptions, or solutions disagree with ours. Allow issues to shed their moral implications and just treat them as the social problems they are - things that ultimately hurt all of us.

Gender and Sex: These Tents Are Big Enough

What does it mean to be a man? or a woman? Do I fit into that definition, or am I something else? As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this post is meant to help people who accept the reality of modern revelation, including doctrine found in The Family: A Proclamation to the World but still struggle to understand how it fits with the diversity of human experiences, specifically regarding gender and sex. 

One of the challenges of studying gender is dealing with the paradox of both similarities and differences. As we measure men and women both physically, socially and psychologically, we will find lots of things that are statistically different between the two groups. But it is clearly NOT true that "Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus." Most of the time, our behavior and characteristics overlap a great deal, such as this graph of the average heights of men and women: 

In general, men are taller than women (see the blue vs. the red lines of the bell curve) but there is so much variety within men and women that any given man may be shorter than a given woman. The same thing is true with math scores, voice ranges, likelihood of choosing "blue" as one's favorite color, and rates of enrollment in marching band. How are we to treat two categories of people who share so much in common and yet consistently measure/score differently on so many measures? Is that important? SHOULD we focus on those consistent, measurable differences, or on our overwhelming similarities? Moreover, what should this help us understand about our fundamental concepts of gender and sexuality? 

In social sciences, we talk about “sex” and “gender” as two different concepts. Sex has to do with one's biology, gender has to do with social roles. That separation initially made sense to me, but increasingly I have realized that this division is a also social construct, and ultimately not a helpful one. I will explain. 

Traditionally, sociologists have set aside biological “sex” categories and spends their time trying to define the elusive meaning of “man” and “woman” or “masculinity” and “femininity”. The more we research it though, the more complicated and interwoven these become. Societies may accentuate certain qualities, but studies show that males and females in cultures around the world continue to have significant differences that make it difficult to keep “sex” and “gender” separate beyond just height or genitalia, including many aspects of the structures and functioning of our brains - memory, boldness, awareness of sound, sexual attraction. If "sex" refers to these biological differences which influence our personalities and preferences and all kinds of behaviors, then at what point do we separate them from “gender”? And does this assignation somehow limit our freedom?

There is a better framework. Through modern revelation, we know that gender is an eternal part of our identity. I am, have been, and always will be, a woman. But instead of trying to define that identity in vague terms or superficial characteristics, it’s clear from the Proclamation on the Family that the purpose of gender identity is to fulfill family roles. 

In other words, being a woman isn’t about liking shoes or being deferential or weak or sexy, it’s about our ability to be a wife and a mother – as Eve was identified by her power to be the “mother of all living”, before she ever actually had children. And being a man isn’t about guns, trucks or video games; it’s about being a husband and a father. The ROLE is what’s key. When we get hung up on trying to measure or characterize our genders by how we are similar or different, we miss the point: our gender is meant to help us fulfill a role. 

Just as the size of an eye versus a hand is a functionally worthless statistic, whether boys or girls prefer playing with trucks doesn’t tell us anything we actually need to know. The question should be, are we helping boys become men who can become husbands and fathers? And are we helping girls become women who are ready to be awesome mothers and wives? 

Viewing gender in terms of our family roles also helps with people who don’t feel like they “fit” (sociologists coined this ambiguous state “cisgender” – which apparently means that you “feel” like a man or a woman, whatever that means). Instead of deciding whether you have more in common with Barbie or Ken, let’s look at roles. What does it mean to be a father? The Proclamation on the Family says it’s about protecting and providing for your family. Can you do that as a strong and tough father? A funny father? A caring and sensitive father? YES! You can be any of the above! Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. But what does nurturing look like? Can it involve taking your children on fishing trips? Taking a belly dancing class together? Are you a mother who likes snuggling, or a mother who tells stories? Yes! That is womanhood too. 

We are born with a body that physically contains our potential for either fatherhood or motherhood. But things become problematic when we try to define gender outside the context of family and responsibilities. If it’s not about family… what ELSE does it mean to be a man? Um…Probably something that is not actually true of all men, or something that can describe many women as well. 

If the purpose of men and women, to fulfill sacred family roles, is removed, then what does it mean to be a man? Again, the average man and average woman engage in many of the same activities, and have many of the same traits. Does it mean to be willing to take risks? You can always find some woman who is more willing to take risks than some man. Taller? There is a woman somewhere who is taller than him. Does that make him less of a man? Does that make HER more of a man?  Look at this graph again: 

When we define manhood or womanhood based on characteristics instead of roles, the significant overlap between the two makes things very difficult. We often end up focusing on the sliver of extremes on the right or the left side of the bell curve that tend to be purely characteristic of one gender. (ie. manhood becomes whatever women are not.) When the definition of masculinity is whatever has been stripped from anything that women do or possess, it becomes "toxic masculinity" indeed. 

Outside the context of family, both gender and sex become much more flexible – and confusing. If your perception of a “cisgender” man doesn’t match your perception of yourself, society suggests that we come up with more categories. Are you a man, but not attracted to women like most other men? Are you a woman who likes men, but also likes to dress up as a man? Clearly, there must be yet another category you fit into. There is no end to the number of sexual and gender identities that people have and will adopt – homosexual, bisexual, pan sexual, queer, polyamorous, transsexual, etc. These identities aren’t problematic because they are untrue, they are problematic because they are unhelpful.

There are helpful reasons to categorize people – when we can diagnose and treat mental illness for example, by categorizing symptoms, or understanding how men vs. women view criminal trial proceedings, or how their bodies respond differently to medication, or how boys and girls tend to learn, can provide information that can better inform our teaching, parenting, jury picking, etc. 

But categorizing individuals when it comes to relationships is a problem because we don't marry a category. We marry an individual. It doesn’t really matter whether you’re attracted to MOST women. Or whether you’ve had many previous relationships or none. Or whether you are a practical or passionate partner. The only person that matters is that person, and the only relationship that matters is that one relationship. 

Categorizing may be helpful in some situations, but not in marriage relationships, because EVERY MARRIAGE IS DIFFERENT. Those differences are important, not incidental. When the goal is unity with each other, not conformity to others, couples can build solid family structures that may look similar or dramatically different from one relationship to the next (see The Good Marriage by Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee). All we are required to do is keep the commandments.

The problem is that, the more we have created alternative categories for people who do not fit a “cisgender” identity, the smaller each category becomes, until no one but Barbie fits the description of “woman”. And the more diverse people’s sexual interests become (and which may be exacerbated by pornography and other social influences), the less we believe that our sexual desires and needs could be contained within a single, monogamous, heterosexual, married relationship. 

As with gender roles, if sex isn’t about family, why would it need to be monogamous? Or covenanted? Or heterosexual? God has told us that sex must only happen within marriage, and that marriage must be between a man and a woman. But we also know that God wants us to find happiness. So how do people with sexually deviant appetites reconcile these two things? This is a difficult question for many people. Perhaps the answer has been staring us in the face this whole time: We need to start seeing people as individuals and not as categories. And we need to see marriage as an institution broad enough to be right  for every person. 

Yes, to fulfill our incredible, eternally progressing family roles, men and women are the positive and negative magnet ends that are divinely and necessarily created to go together. God said “neither the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man”. He also said “It is not good for us to be alone”. We were meant to be together. But like two matching puzzle pieces, the connection between any given husband and wife does not have to look like anyone else’s connection. To use another analogy, stilettos go with a ballgown and a swimsuit goes with sandals – at the end of the day, as long they have the keys, their unique “outfit” will be of their own making, that will work for them, and it isn’t particularly helpful to describe (or worse, PRESCRIBE) their relationship as belonging to some other type of category. 

We are sexual beings, and our sexual relationships with our husband or wife is important and good – and, like the overlapping bell curves of our heights and level of affinity for the color pink, it may be similar or different than others. The stereotype of a man who takes charge in the bedroom is common, but a woman who likes being assertive in bed may have a wonderful sex life with a husband who likes playing a more submissive role during intimacy. But even that sounds too much like a category – because those preferences or roles may change! It doesn’t necessitate a new partner or a foray into adultery or pornography – it simply requires more creativity - and love. When individuals are convinced that who they are or what they want can’t fit into some socially-determined category, they are discouraged from forming their own unique, wonderful, DYNAMIC relationship that grows and evolves over time. 

Perhaps the problem is apparent to others: there will never be enough categories to capture all of us. There will never be enough categories to capture all of the beautiful, God-given nuance that is our individual identity and our marriage relationship. Our attempts to classify ourselves beyond “man” and “woman” that is our physical and spiritual inheritance undermines the individuality that God intends to exist within each of these categories. You don’t have to be something other than a man – you can be any kind of man you want. No surgery or hormones needed. 

God wants us to be happy. He invented sex! He invented our bodies! He wants us to love our bodies and have incredible, mind-blowing pleasure and joy with our spouse and their body. Some may feel discouraged because they think that God is restraining our potential through his commandments, when in fact just the opposite is true. He knows all we are capable of and it is SO MUCH BIGGER than we realize. We need to see the enormous possibilities that exist within the framework God has given us. I feel this way about people who say they don't like to read. I say, clearly you haven't found the type of book you're interested in yet.

We are sexual beings, and the things that arouse us will differ from person to person and from time to time. “Incontinence” is a word that Paul uses to describe people in the last days who suffer from a lack of self-control – funny because it also calls to mind people who have trouble knowing when and where it’s appropriate to relieve themselves. Expecting people to have self-control when it comes to any kind of appetite is how we maintain sustainable societies - by protecting families. What arouses us doesn't have to define us, and it doesn't have to determine our destiny. Our primary identity should be that we are children of God. As such, we have the potential to become gods and create eternal families and worlds without end. Men and women were designed like puzzle pieces to fit together, both physically and spiritually, in order to accomplish this purpose. But whether she has long hair or whether he orgasms once or five times a week is as frustratingly irrelevant to examine as the head sizes of criminals. 

If our modern concept of “man” and “woman” seems stifling, expand the two categories, don't create more of them! Are you a “masculine” woman? Redefine it! Are you a woman who isn’t into shopping or watching The Bachelor? That’s fine! That doesn’t make you more of a man or a “trans-man” – that just makes you a different kind of woman (a different kind of mother/wife). 

Are you a “feminine” man? Redefine it! “Feminine” is a social creation that’s sneaky and distracting. You are no more a woman than any other man with a “Y” chromosome. You are simply a different kind of man (and husband/father). And the woman you marry may be different than most other women. 

Having faith in Jesus Christ and his desire for us to become the best versions of ourselves, I believe that God has unique roles for each of us to play in his kingdom, and most of them will have overlapping characteristics: we all need to develop charity and faith, we all need to be more like Christ. Our unique personal expression of “man” and “woman” and our unique efforts to become protectors/providers or nurturers are welcome and needed, as are our own unique marriage relationships. 

If you are not married, or feeling trapped and hopeless because of the identity/category that you feel has been handed to you, remember that the vision God has for who you are and who you can become is BIGGER than you realize. Believe that his hopes for your marriage are too. He has someone in mind for you – not a category, but an individual - who you can find joy and unity with – in a relationship that may look completely different from anyone else’s. Trust the Lord, keep the commandments, and have faith in something that doesn't make sense right now. There is happiness for you and for all of us. God knows the bigger picture and someday we will too.

A New Framework for Understanding the Poor

Sydney Poitier was a pioneer black protagonist in films from the 1960s (Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, To Sir with Love). In an era of gross underrepresentation of people of color, Sydney Poitier became more than just a token black person and became an icon and a hero for many black Americans. However, even though I love his films, it’s always bothered me a little that he always plays a doctor, a professor - always kind, professional, well-dressed - as if, in order to be acceptable to white movie-going audiences in the 1960s, his “blackness” needed to be consistently offset by wholesome, pro-social behavior and credentials.

Black people, I often say, do not deserve equal rights because they are good; they deserve equal rights because they are people. We make no claim as to anyone’s “goodness” or “badness” because that’s frankly irrelevant to how we should treat one another, both legally and interpersonally.

I think we sometimes suffer from the same misunderstanding with those who are poor. As with Sydney Poitier and the movie commentary on race, when we portray the poor as Will Smith does in “The Pursuit of Happyness”, in some ways we actually make the problem worse. 

Our society tends to fall into one of two false beliefs about the poor. Some people want to cast the poor as lazy, immoral, irresponsible - “undeserving”, while the other group in society sometimes pretend that everyone who is poor is merely “down on their luck” or simply suffering from “oppression” or “institutional racism” - all things that are beyond their control. Both groups are wrong.

When we moved to Detroit, I was definitely in the second group. I assumed that the only reason the poor struggled was because of factors outside their control, and I was angry at people in group 1 who seemed full of judgment and blame - probably because they couldn’t see all of those obstacles. If we could only fix the environment - provide jobs, shelters, financial resources, education, housing, bring food to “food deserts” - then the poor would spring into the middle class and fulfill the American dream. 

Hollywood backed me up. In “The Pursuit of Happyness”, Will Smith emulates this ideal. He plays a good, loving, hardworking, scrappy father who does everything he can to help his son and just finds doors of opportunity shutting around him, unfairly. Once he breaks through those walls and is given the chance to succeed, he does! And they live happily ever after (and again, I feel the need to say I actually really loved the movie). 

There was a general understanding throughout much of history that the poor were poor because they deserved to be. Most were by nature “improvident, reckless and intemperate, and with habitual avidity for sensual gratification.” Speaking of the Irish, Friedrich Engels wrote “The facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkenness.” In this framework, there’s not much to be done for the poor - both because they don’t deserve it - pearls before swine etc - and because it probably wouldn’t help much anyway. John Snow “almost uniquely among medical authorities (in the mid 1800’s) he did not blame the poor for their own diseases, but saw that their conditions of living left them vulnerable to influences beyond their control.” (428)

There certainly are obstacles in the lives of the poor that are outside their control. There are many things that we as fellow citizens, local and federal governments, and other institutions and agencies can do to change - unfair laws, inefficient justice and immigration systems, poor schools, gang- and drug- promoting media, lack of childcare options, exorbitant healthcare costs - it’s a huge list. It’s so huge, in fact, that it’s tempting to take away any responsibility from the poor at all, and consider them innocent victims of a society that has done them wrong.

The downside of this more charitable approach is that it may have unintended consequences. That is, we Hollywood-and-college-educated folks may find that when we interact personally with these people, a lot of the stereotypes we have carefully avoided turn out to be true.

When we lived in Detroit, we saw a lot of ugly stereotypes being fulfilled. There was a lot of sexual promiscuity among teenagers. A lot of lower class friends of ours made really stupid financial decisions.

We became close friends with three young single mothers (Hispanic, white, and black, ironically) who received many of the resources designed to remove society’s obstacles. One of them for example got a huge tax return every year, a free therapist who traveled to her home for appointments, donations of clothing and furniture, food stamps, rental assistance, job training, free college tuition, subsidized daycare, and church assistance with meals and other necessities. As a high schooler she had had some of the best-paid teachers in the state, with field trips to inspiring museums and performances. She had access to free public transportation and medical care.

On the one hand, it was nice to see so many things working in their favor. Many wonderful people have found ways to meet the needs of people like our friends, and it’s incredibly encouraging to see. 

On the other hand - their situations over the years has remained virtually unchanged.

The uncomfortable realization I had was seeing the ways in which their situations were perpetuated by their actions. They choose to remain with an abusive boyfriend. They choose to beat their child with a hanger/belt/shoe instead of using time out. They choose to stay near family instead of moving to a safer neighborhood. They choose to start a fist fight with a coworker and therefore loses her job. They choose to buy frozen pizza bites instead of apples. They chooses to put their children in front of the TV all day instead of reading books with them. They choose not to take birth control. 

Again - it is possible that poor people are arrested more often because police are biased against them, or because of horrible treatment based solely on skin color (I have seen this happen personally). It is crucial that we don’t pretend these events are imaginary. 

But what is uglier is the terrible conclusions we come to when we are taught that poor people are all victims and as pure as the driven snow, and then our experience teaches us differently. I look around and see that the black kids in my classroom are the most disorderly and get the worst grades - no one is telling me this, I’m just drawing my own teenager conclusions. I am robbed at gunpoint on my driveway in a neighborhood that was “pretty safe” but definitely lower income. Without providing context, especially for children, we fail to show how a history of bad TREATMENT by society can result in bad CULTURAL changes that result in bad ACTIONS. Instead, kids will think - well, maybe there IS something wrong with that group of people.

Some people deflect even at this point, wanting to say that whether an action is “good” or “bad” is itself a value-laden or even a racist statement. But this isn’t unusual. Our society regularly promotes certain actions and discourages others - We promote quality teachers in schools because we believe that learning effectively is “good”. We create Child Protective Service because we believe that scalding children is “bad”. We fund campaigns for fruits and vegetables because we think eating fruits and vegetables is “good”. Frankly, if we can’t judge actions as good or bad, it’s hard to judge any changes as good or bad either.

I think it is fair to say that, generally, actions that lead to financial self-sufficiency, strong relationships, public safety, healthy bodies and minds and interconnected communities are good. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, I’m comfortable listing a whole host of things that are bad (or we may say “wicked”): Addiction is bad. Stealing is bad. Lying and cheating are bad. Killing and hurting are bad. Ignorance is bad. Laziness, gluttony, fornication, adultery, and anarchy are bad. They are bad because they destroy individuals, families, and communities, harm bodies and minds, threaten safety and every kind of well-being.

So, recognizing my bias in this regard, I will identify the framework that makes more sense when understanding the plight of the poor: it is both institutions and personal actions (impacted by said institutions) that lead to the suffering of the poor.

There is a name for this combination of effects in the Book of Mormon. It is called the "wicked traditions of fathers"

There are extensive references to one group of people, the Lamanites, who are considered a “filthy, loathsome people”, full of “violence”, stealing, “idleness” and “idolatry” (Again - taking into account potential bias - the record was kept by a different group of people). Even former Lamanites themselves acknowledged the need to leave behind the negative traits they have inherited from their culture.

“Wicked traditions of fathers” are the negative cultural traits that we unwittingly adopt from our parents and culture and pass on to the next generation because we were taught that they are good, or that they don’t matter. Sometimes we adopt these traits simply because we have never been presented with another option

One prophet, Jacob, tells the Nephites - I know you think you are better than them (because they steal and kill each other and you don’t), but “a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.”

My Detroit friend grew up in a society where she was never taught the importance of being financially honest, paying bills on time, or having sexual restraint. No one ever mentioned what a credit score was, or set the expectation that doing well in school was important. Getting off Medicaid and food stamps was never treated as a goal or even seen as something desirable. On a visit to our house she gasped as she had never seen someone jogging. She didn’t know anyone who was actually married. She owned several cars before learning that she needed to get the oil changed occasionally. She had no clue how to vote, budget, write a resume, cook vegetables or use time-out with her kids. 

Most of this is due to what she learned from her parents. Her dad was a nonexistent presence in her life and her mom abandoned her at the hospital when she was born. My friend's mom didn’t graduate from high school, had no assets or even a bank account and spent much of my friend's childhood “squatting” in abandoned houses and stealing electricity from neighbors. Her mom either ignored them or beat them when they misbehaved, so there was not a lot of direction or support in many ways. My friend's mom had a reputation in the neighborhood for her promiscuity and neglectful of her children. My friend remembers being hungry enough once that she and her sister ate toothpaste. 

This wasn’t from a lack of resources - her mother had food stamps, but she sold them for cigarettes or used them to buy nice food for her boyfriends. She had medicaid but her lifestyle was so unhealthy she developed diabetes and had to have several fingers and toes amputated. TJ’s mom had free transportation and probably similar supports to TJ, but her actions often sabotaged the intent behind these supports and didn’t improve her life.

I don’t know where these “wicked traditions” came from, but I’m guessing many of them were handed down in a similar way, from the previous generations. And where did they originate? We don’t know exactly how certain traditions came to be, whether they were CAUSED by external factors or by “wicked fathers”, but I don’t actually think it matters.

In conclusion, this girl is poor for many reasons, a lot of them are not her fault, some of them are, but the things that are her fault are still in large part due to the “wicked traditions” of her parents. Frankly, whether they are issues of morality or social responsibility or even just living a self-reliant lifestyle - my Detroit friend is impoverished. She needs both institutional change and the personal relationships and mentoring that can help her succeed.

Gaza, Racism, etc.: How to Change the Blame Game

Why do we get so upset when told that a situation is "complicated"? I saw one protestor today in Israel with a sign that said "It's NOT complicated. It's Ethnic Cleansing!" Israeli missiles have killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians. Bad guys, right? Well...the Palestinians have been firing thousands of rockets at Israel too. Okay...so they're bad guys too? Well no - because only a few Israelis have actually died. So...Israel is mostly the bad guy, and Palestine is mostly the good guy?

It sounds kind of silly. And yet we do this all the time.

Saying a situation is "complicated" sounds like we're trying to appease everyone by not assigning ANYONE as the bad guy. Well, how would we feel about someone responding that way to...

Rape? “It’s complicated”

Slavery? “It’s complicated”

That feels insulting, doesn’t it? Fundamentally though, it points to the fact that we don’t deal well with nuance. We assume that the word "complicated" removes responsibility from the "bad guys", or somehow downplays the awfulness of the situation. Or, worse - "complicated" means that we think some blame should go to the victim.

Are these the only two options?

When thinking about various social evils, most of us come from a perspective grounded in conflict theory - the belief that society is fundamentally us-vs-them. Who are the good guys and bad guys in this situation? Who is fundamentally the victim and the oppressor? Seeing society as a series of dichotomies makes us feel better. It makes for a nice narrative (and great for fundraisers, headlines and tweets), when a situation can somehow to boiled down to the forces of good and evil pitted against each other. 

But assigning roles like oppressor and victim doesn’t actually solve problems. Like, ever. It just makes everyone angry and unwilling to listen to each other. The one who gets to be the “victim” is given free license to unbridled indignation, the “oppressor” is resentful for being misunderstood and feels unfairly demonized.

The song "Officer Krupke" from West Side Story makes light of this. Who’s fault is it that this kid is messed up? Why, it’s his parents! No, it’s his society! No, it’s biology! No, it’s just bad luck! - There’s no solution in the song, but as the baton of blame is passed around, it’s apparent that playing the blame game is about as silly as it sounds.

Even making this point will anger some people - again, because the assumption then is victim-blaming and victim-shaming, which are the last thing we want to do.  THE PROBLEM IS that this assumption still fits into the same mindset - conflict theory demands we assign blame, so if it’s not going to the oppressor, it must go back to the victim (or, Officer Krupke, we’ll have to find some other designee).

How can we let go of blame? How can we drop our moral obligation to be offended on behalf of "marginalized groups"? Doesn’t this minimize the problem being discussed? How is it possible that saying “It’s complicated” doesn’t diminish the trauma, the horror, the social destruction that occurs because of these horrendous actions? Doesn't it let the bad guys off the hook?

I’m so glad you asked. Not at all.

The trick is to reject the entire paradigm. Replace it. 

Good heavens Kindra - with what?

A paradigm of social UNITY.

Choose to see a problem - whether it is war, rape, slavery, racism, domestic violence, child abuse, homelessness or whatever (regardless of how clear the issue is to assign blame) - with a paradigm founded in social unity instead of division.

If we believe society is like a soccer game with two opposing sides, then even if we play fairly, only one side ever really gets to win. It’s a permanent zero-sum game. But if we really believe the soccer game is ALL OF US against PROBLEMS and SITUATIONS, then suddenly we all get to work together to solve the problem.  What if we talked about working together against racism like we need to work together against cancer? Does that minimize or downplay the problem at all? 

It doesn't matter whether one party clearly seems to bear the brunt of responsibility (like slavery) or the responsibility may fall on multiple sides (like political polarization). Frankly, if our goal is solutions instead of blame, we will empower EVERYONE to help understand the nature of the problem and solve it, which of course includes individuals taking responsibility for whatever role they play, as well as identifying other contributing factors. By discarding our narrow blinders of blame, we will be better able to see larger social forces, institutions, norms and social patterns that play a significant role in creating social problems. It’s harder to bash social norms on Twitter than it is to bash some guy, and maybe not as satisfying, but the approach is a whole lot more effective.

For example: during the 90’s, child abusers were talked about like serial killers. Child “predators” were treated as unspeakable monsters of unknown origin who roamed the streets, looking to inflict harm on any child in their path. Watch out for those people, we used to say.  Then, in the 2000’s, we looked at the data and started to shift and think about child abuse as a social problem that was potentially influenced by lots of different factors. People who hurt children (usually their parents) are often frustrated and stressed out - they are often struggling with legal, health, relationship, and financial problems. Maybe, we thought, if we focused on solving child ABUSE instead of removing child ABUSERS, we would widen our scope of inquiry and improve our solutions. Should child abusers still go to jail? Um, heck yes. But is jailing child abusers the sum of the solution? Not even close.

I don’t think this approach minimizes the seriousness of child abuse at all, but even if it did, I would frankly rather enjoy the awesomeness of solving abuse than magnifying its horrible-ness. Wouldn’t you?

Gaza is no different. Is it more important to us to point fingers or solve problems? Are we willing to let go of the us-vs-them paradigm so that we can effectively work together to end war and suffering? Can we sacrifice some of our anger so that our desire for unity overcomes our desire to be the “more righteous” person? I hope so. Then, instead of accusatorially insisting "You are the problem" we can ask "How can you and I solve this problem?" And just maybe...if we adopt this mindset ourselves, we can encourage others to do so as well. 

Sexual "Orientation" Is Too Simple

 I've been slogging my way through Herbert Blumer's classical treatise on Symbolic Interactionism. Important - not exactly a page turner. He explains the assumptions of symbolic interactionism (basically, that we create society from moment to moment through our interactions with each other, and that we act based on a shared sense of meaning of objects and situations and perceptions). He also dives into research methodology, and condemns his contemporary peers for scientific studies that fail to incorporate real observations and experiences and analyses of "the empirical world" as he calls it. In other words, we can't start hypothesizing or designing surveys or drawing conclusions about an aspect of society if we have not established the validity of our mental images or theoretical frameworks about that topic. "The predominant procedure," he asserts, "is to take for granted one's premises about the nature of the empirical world and not to examine those premises; to take one's problems as valid because they sound good, to regard as empirically valid the data one chooses because such data fit one's conception of the problem; to be satisfied with the empirical relevance of one's concepts because they have a nice connotative ring or because they are current intellectual coins of the realm" (pg. 33). We are far more likely to allow our theories and concepts to "coerce the research" to suit one's form. "In this sense, much current scientific inquiry in the social sciences is actually social philosophizing" (p. 34).

Whenever we study an area of society, we come to it with unconscious stereotypes and biases, assumptions that we make, a picture we have created based on our previous experiences. Blumer argues that we cannot solve that problem by diving into a scientific study - in fact, that will likely worsen the problem because then we feel SURE that we KNOW something, when in fact we have only found ways to validate our preexisting notions.

There are so many good examples. Blumer points out the popularity of intelligence tests, and how merely operationalizing the concept of intelligence (so we can measure it!) doesn't actually mean we're measuring what we claim to measure. Anyone who knows a good military strategist, or a slum survivor, or a brilliant poet, or an ingenious business developer recognizes that the type of competence measured by intelligence tests captures only a small fragment of what may be characterized as intelligence.

Another example: Good research in the 1930's hypothesized that the facial or cranial features of an individual were related to their criminal conduct. "Negroid" features in particular were characteristic of all kinds of negative social behaviors. This research was usually done correctly - they asked the research question, they may have had a good sample size, their statistical analysis was probably spot on, and the resulting data proved that black people were more likely to be socially inferior, as demonstrated by their clearly inferior physical makeup. The research validated all of the racist dogmas and policies of the time. Just because a hypothesis was tested, however, does not mean truth was discovered. At no point was there a practical exploration of the premises of the study, or whether the concepts made sense, or whether the methodology truly captured what was going on, or whether the conclusions were actually borne out. Truth can only come from a "direct examination of the empirical world."

In modern terms, Blumer emphasizes the critical first component of the scientific method, which is observation. A theoretical framework can't "talk back" to us the way empirical reality can. Empirical reality comes from firsthand acquaintance with the sphere of life - "free exploration in the area, getting close to the people involved in it, seeing it in a variety of situations they meet, noting their problems and observing how they handle them, being party to their conversations, and watching their life as it flows along."

Furthermore, "the scholar who lacks that firsthand familiarity is highly unlikely to recognize that he is missing anything" (p. 37). Our focus on correct scientific protocol "becomes the unwitting substitute for a direct examination of the empirical social world."

This direct examination requires flexibility, doing whatever is ethically allowable to get a clearer picture of what is going on. he should "cultivate assiduously a readiness to view his area of study in new ways...to ask all kinds of questions, even seemingly ludicrous questions...to sensitize the observer to different and new perspectives...to record all observations that challenge one's working conceptions as well as any observation that is odd and interesting even though its relevance is not immediately clear." Darwin was the master of this strategy of exploration, asking new and different questions, writing down observations that later became "the pivots for a fruitful redirection of (his) perspective." Better description alone often answers questions without having to evoke a fancy, complicated theoretical scheme.

I hope no one has fallen asleep yet. This is what I read for fun.

Now let's talk about LESBIANS...

A friend commented on the statistic that most lesbians first sexual experiences were rape or some other kind of sexual assault. How do we interpret this? Well, there are many ways - some would say that rape causes one's orientation to change, some might claim that orientation can't change and therefore lesbian girls are more likely to find themselves in precarious situations, some would say it doesn't matter, orientation is as important as yogurt preference...there are many ways to interpret this fact. Normally, I would jump to theorizing as well. But in the spirit of Herbert Blumer, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves...

How many of us who are jumping to conclusions about this topic have significant personal experience with the world of middle and high school girls and their sexual feelings, attitudes and experiences? (Having been a teenage girl at one point doesn't count) If we don't, we may not realize that we are missing something...we may not realize that the very picture from which we are arguing is flawed. The concepts themselves may be misleading. Our premises may be totally missing the mark. Without a doubt, our conceptualization of the issue is far less complete and complex than the reality we claim to be discussing. We may actually be debating a cartoon version of empirical reality.

Without claiming to have conducted significant ethnographic research in this particular area, let me throw out a guess. I would guess, that if we were to interview hundreds of teenage girls about their sexual feelings, attitudes and experiences, we would find that they are rarely simple, linear, or naturally prone to be categorized. I would guess that what girls and women find arousing is more than just about sex but also body types and parts, external vs. internal characteristics, experiences, time, moods, and social climate. 

Maybe trying to decide whether someone is "lesbian" or "gay" or even softening the line with "bisexual" assumes a picture of sexuality that is far too simplistic. If we followed Blumer's cue and acquainted ourselves with this area of research WITHOUT prematurely attaching labels to our findings and concepts, without theorizing what we will find in advance and then devising methods to validate it, our experience with reality - the "reality of the empirical world" - might actually lead us to some interesting discoveries. My guess is, those discoveries would encourage us to shy away from any kind of sexual labels and instead teach us something really remarkable about ourselves. 

My Experience As a Woman in the Church

I had a friend recently share a post from an ex-Mormon about the things she didn't like about the church. Among other things, she claimed that the church is inherently sexist.

I was hurt, of course. And I’m always surprised to see comments like that. To contrast her claim, my 36 years of experience in the church has been virtually the opposite of sexism. For most of my life, the church has been the only entity that empowered me as a young woman to study my "Individual Worth" and "Divine Nature", to develop my talents, to be a force for good in the world, to recognize the sacredness of womanhood and to see motherhood as a divine gift and responsibility instead of a nuisance. My experience in the church has always featured male and female leaders with enormous respect for each other. Sheri Dew, Linda K. Burton, Elaine Dalton, Eliza R. Snow, Emma Smith – these are my role models and some of the best women I know: women with integrity, grace, beauty and strength that they have developed because of, not in spite of, the teachings of the church. 

Certainly enough has been written about the topic of women in the church that my voice may not delineate anything new. But as someone who has personally experienced the power that comes from the church’s teachings and practices around gender and womanhood, I feel the need to add my small teaspoon of testimony into the ocean of evidence that this church is truly being led by God.

In the 1800s, at a time when American women were denied the right to vote, enter most universities, or manage property, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was paying for women to go to schools in the East and obtain medical degrees. In fact, the church covered the cost of their books and tuition and travel and their wards took care of their families while they were gone. The church helped women start their own businesses. Utah was the second state to allow women to right to vote. While most of the country still believed that women served little purpose other than to bear children, Joseph Smith told the women in 1842, “The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized." In fact, when the idea of a women’s organization was initially proposed - to fundraise and gather clothing for the temple builders – Joseph Smith rejected the tiny scope of their mission and instead declared that the Lord "has something better for them than a written Constitution." He expressed his love and appreciation for the women of the church and gave them great promises. "If this Society listen to the counsel of the Almighty, they shall have power to command queens in their midst.” And “If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates." Emma Smith affirmed in that first meeting that "We are going to do something extraordinary," and we certainly have, from then on. Because of the organization of the Relief Society, the Lord affirmed a special role for women, rejecting the socially accepted premise that women were the “weaker sex”, and that the characteristics of women were actually divine gifts to help them fulfill a critical role in God’s work.

Since the ERA movement of the 1970s, the pendulum of Western thought has swung from denigrating womanhood to valuing the masculine attributes within women. This has led to more opportunities for women, which is wonderful, but also created social expectations that a woman’s value is measured by the extent to which she embodies characteristics typical of men: physical strength, assertiveness, power and position, sexual liberation. And yet the majority of women still fail to see how physical vulnerability, weakness, beauty, and sensitivity are in fact sources of power that enable us to influence others and promote social change.

Both swings of the gender pendulum have missed the mark. Both continue to undermine the importance of womanhood. The reason we haven’t seen similar great shifts in the church is because the teachings of church leaders since the very beginning have laid out a vision for womanhood that is already both defining and empowering. Because of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, I am able to see how both historic views of women are flawed, and how God's view of women not only liberates us from the host of social expectations that has produced such staggeringly high rates of anxiety and depression among women, but it makes sacred the things I already am, the things I already love. It brings the natural role of motherhood into the realm of divinity. It strengthens and enables my desires to serve, to build my community, to save souls, to develop my talents. Without it, women are pressured to prioritize careers over family, trivialize homemaking, and derive their sense of self-worth from how they measure up to men and the values of men. Even as I write this, I still find in myself a struggle to let go of the need to assess my value by how well I fit these parameters; by how much I’m paid and what kind of worldly recognition I receive. 

If I didn't have the church, I wouldn't know who I was and how special God made me. If we as women don’t think we’re anything special, then there isn’t anything special we have to do. In fact, we have a mission that is so much more important than the size of our salary or the credentials on our resume. I am not just a homo sapiens - I am a daughter of God. And because of that, my life has meaning, purpose, and direction. This is not what I learn in biology, or history, or even sociology. This is what I learned in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

We have a special identity, and therefore a special purpose. I once made this comment in a Relief Society meeting, and had a women approach me afterward. “What do you mean? Like, I know this sounds dumb but what IS so special about being a woman?” I have since heard similar frustrations echoed in other settings. One possible reason we struggle to understand the importance of our identity as women in Western society is because, other than our reproductive capabilities, we don't have a really good idea of what sets us apart. This is not by accident. For the last fifty years, social scientists like me have made consistent, calculated efforts to downplay and undermine studies demonstrating differences between men and women. There’s a good reason for this, in their eyes. In a feminist framework (which is based on conflict theory), acknowledging any differences between two groups creates inequality, and therefore an imbalance of power. If we acknowledge statistical differences between men and women, we promote sexism. “Oh, you need a negotiator? Well we’d better hire a woman because women are statistically better at negotiating.” Nobody wants that.

Once again, the paradigm of competition makes it impossible to view differences as anything other than quantitative. In Leonard Hayes book The Importance of Gender, he highlights some of the following scientific findings:

- Men and women's eyes are constructed differently at every layer. Our rods and cones are connected to nerve cells in such a way that men are more likely to notice movement, spatial orientation, and women's eyes focus more on color, texture and detail.

- Men and women react differently to different dosages of medication - as well as drugs and alcohol

- Men process more information longitudinally through the hemispheres of the brain, women process more information laterally across the hemispheres

- Men and women experience different hormonal reactions to emotions like fear and anger. 

- Men and women experience the desire for sex in completely different parts of the brain, one that controls appetite and one that focuses on decision-making and judgment

- Male and female day-old infants spend different amounts of time gazing at a smiling face (girls more) verses a spinning mobile (boys more)

This is just a small sampling. Dr. Leonard’s goal is to push back against the idea that differences in gender are all socially determined, and to help us identify more effective approaches in parenting and teaching boys and girls. How can we prevent sexism if we acknowledge these things? We promote opportunities, without forcing expectations. Boys can play with trucks and dinosaurs if they want to, and we make other toys available if they change their mind. Girls can take piano and dance lessons, but there is also a girls' soccer team available. Boys are free to become nurses and elementary school teachers, but we don't shame them if they choose to pursue MBAs or politics instead. The natural result of these relaxed expectations is that men and women, boys and girls, will often make decisions that are influenced by their gender. And that’s okay. Pretending the differences don’t exist is not the answer, and it actually creates many more problems.

The point is this, these are studies that have been conceived of and carried out by scientists – and even these are barely understood or acknowledged by women today. How many other things does our Heavenly Father see in the identity of manhood and womanhood that we are still unaware of? What other sources of strength and power are we completely unaware of?

On a side note: One thing I have been curious about is the claim of trans-gendered individuals that they feel stuck in the wrong body, or that they "feel" like they are the other gender. With just a cursory look at the list above, I would ask, how could they possibly know? They may feel different, sure, and they may see characteristics in themselves that are more typical of one gender than the other, but if we sort through all of these thousands of studies, the differences between men and women are often subtle but incredibly profound, and so fundamentally related to our perception and processing of the world around us, I would counter there is literally no way a man could truly understand what it means to be a woman, and vice versa. Being allowed to simply decide one's gender completely ignores the multitude of differences that make people so uniquely, and so entirely, male or female. Changing one's clothing or even genitals to be accepted into that category is just as superfluous as me putting on black face and claiming to be African American.

Gender is not an accident, and it's not superfluous - it is an eternal part of our identity. It's not a limiting identity - There are all kinds of men, and all kinds of women, just as there are all kinds of twenty year-olds and sixty year-olds, and all kinds of Mexicans and Koreans. Our identity is important, and wonderful, and I learned this from being in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Important issues can rarely be captured in a single Tweet or meme, and the same thing is true with gender. For those who look at the church from the perspective of conflict theory or feminism, they will see inequality and oppression, no doubt. In this church, we hold different positions; we play different roles; we interact and are sometimes even treated differently (in General Conference, men are more often chastised, and women more often are reassured). If your definition of inequality is simply acknowledging differences, then you’ll find ample evidence. But who is more important in creating life, a mother or father? Neither - for every child is an equal combination of the two. I believe this particular example is God's way of letting us see how two very different creatures, with very different roles in the creation and protection of life, are still equal in God's eyes.

If we can begin to see ourselves as men and women the way God does, and let go of our philosophical need to view the world in terms of competition and oppression and fairness, I believe gender will simultaneously become more meaningful and also less of a big deal. Understanding and appreciating this one aspect of our identity will give us greater peace, greater joy, greater freedom, greater appreciation for the gifts and talents of ourselves and others, and greater direction for the mission that He has for each of us. It will allow us to focus on becoming great women and men without comparing ourselves to each other. I know this is true. I’m so grateful to be a woman, and have the sacred privilege of being a wife and mother. I’m so happy to know who I am, and that God loves me just the way I am. Most of all, I’m grateful for the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - the prophets, bishops, Relief Society presidents and Young Women teachers that have brought me closer to Christ, who is the source of all wisdom.

Which Theory is TRUE??: A New Proposal

Conflict theory, functionalism, feminism, exchange theory, social learning theory...with all of the frameworks that govern people's view of society, one might wonder in a Joseph Smith sort of way which of all of these frameworks is true?

First of all, theory does not need to be "true" to be "useful" - there is not, for example, an actual giant invisible hand that governs and balances the forces in a free market economy - it's just a shortcut, a framework to explain how things work and to predict what will happen to the economy. It's a useful metaphor.

Similarly, there is no actual Maslow pyramid of needs inside of every person, there is no male-led war against women, there is no giant functional organism into which every member of society fits together, and Piaget did not build any actual concrete stages that children grow into or from. These are different theoretical paradigms that help us make sense of the world and answer questions and figure out what to do. All of these theories, like metaphors used to illustrate a point, have strengths and weaknesses, making some more helpful than others. More importantly, the implications for those who use these lenses are real and measurable.

For example: Functionalism - believing that everything has a purpose and that everyone has a place can discourage change and justify horrible inequality and social conditions. Exchange theory supports self-centeredness through the acceptance that everyone is entirely motivated by self interest. Conflict theory assumes oppression and discrimination in every social interaction and leads to war and demonization of other groups. Eugenics was about seeing all behavior as a product of one's genes and led directly to the Holocaust. So how you interpret the world leads to certain actions, and it also dictates what behavior you see as good, bad, necessary or foolish.

Bad theoretical frameworks may be to blame for much of the evil in the world. In fact, as my husband has coined "White Hat syndrome" or what I call "Darth Vaderism", we sometimes forget that real life "bad guys" usually don't realize they're bad! They act out of a mental framework that makes their behavior seem righteous or at least justifiable (Hitler: wiping out members of "inferior races" might seem like the right thing to do if you believe "racial impurity" is causing all of society's ills). When frameworks affect groups, they are called culture. This probably explains why missionaries have more success in Peru than in Greece: every culture includes assumptions and values about God, individual privacy, Christianity, America, etc that make the individuals in that society more or less receptive to the Gospel.

So paradigms are clearly important! And until we know all things, God recognizes that we will make mistaken assumptions (like the Brother of Jared, assuming that God did not have a body, or Mary, assuming that she couldn't have a baby). But while we struggle through our inevitable mortal misunderstandings, is there a BEST paradigm? One that is CLOSEST to God's? I've been railing against conflict theory and encouraging symbolic interactionism for a long time, because of the pros and cons I perceive in those - but is symbolic interactionism the best way to view society? Which theories are the MOST useful, in God's eyes? Or should we be looking for something different altogether?

If our goal is to organize truth in a way that is similar to God's, the first glaring error we should acknowledge is that none of these social theories acknowledge a higher power, eternal existence, or any kind of overarching plan. They merely seek to describe and explain what is going on the visible world, right now, between individuals and in the world around us. But without the overarching truth of God's plan, we are easily "tossed to and fro" and "carried about by every wind of doctrine", or whichever philosophy of men "seems right". This week I even had my diet app describe different theories around eating - vegan, keto, intermittent fasting - list the pros and cons of each, and suggest that we pick whichever one worked best for us. Works best? Seems right? Is that the strongest argument we can hang our mental hats on?

You see, the problem with the philosophies of men is that because they do not include God in their framework, they are all flawed. There will always be elements of the human experience that they can't explain, or that they get wrong, and therefore they include implications and recommendations that are also wrong (wrong as in, untrue, and wrong as in, wicked).

How do we build a more relevant, useful, true framework that helps more accurately answer questions about individuals and society by also including the role of God and His plan? Or in other words, what is the pair of lenses that God wants us to be looking through? What glasses should we wear in order to see things how God sees them? Here are some experiences that led to my epiphany this morning:

As a new mom, I worked part time as a research consultant for the American Families of Faith project at BYU. We were studying interfaith couples - couples that come from different religious backgrounds - and how they form strong families. We interviewed lots of couples and I read lots of books about how these couples raise their children. They are generally introduce their children to both religions, often encourage them to try both and see which one works for them (again with the "seems right" approach). But the overarching unspoken assumption of these families which is never mentioned is this: In order to be satisfied with this approach, you must assume that there is no way to come to know actual truth; that once again, God is not part of the equation; that religion, for the most part, is a lifestyle choice, like a diet, that we choose because it makes sense to us and therefore works for us - to give us guidance about how to behave, to provide explanations and answer about life's tough questions.

The minute you decide (consciously or not) that religion is something created and executed by men, you've written God out of the universe. When your church is something that needs your criticism, or even your critical analysis, your insights - when you feel the need to correct church leaders or contextualize and downplay their direction, you have decided that you are the grownup in the room, and not God. In other words, you view yourself in the role of an adult, not as a child.

Story number two: My sister-in-law, who teaches first grade, once had a student raise her hand in the middle of an unrelated class activity and say "I have an important question for the whole class!" - when allowed to speak, she said with sincere, tender anxiety, "What if Chewy eats BB8??!!" 

The question was irrelevant and funny, but the intention behind it was not. No amount of grownup comforting could help. She was genuinely concerned for BB8's welfare (I can't believe I just used a possessive apostrophe for a number). My brother, on retelling the story, commented that sometimes our very heartfelt questions to the Lord may sound like this little kid's question did to her teacher. When we see the big picture, some of our concerns we will see were simply irrelevant!

This story provided a helpful metaphor to explain our relationship to God, and to truth. Both of these stories use a framework to illustrate the importance of viewing ourselves as children, rather than adults, when understanding the workings of God. Metaphor, paradigm, framework...hmm...

What if we created a "Child of God" theory?

What if we used a lens through which we viewed individuals and society was not about consumers, or power players, or communicators, but as children? Children of God, specifically?

While this may not answer every question about society or how to solve many of the pressing social problems we have, choosing a theoretical framework that frames people in terms of children of God includes a number of helpful assumptions:

First of all, it assumes our need to take an appropriately subservient role to the One who is all-knowing and all-powerful - He gets it, and He's got this. This aligns with Jesus' and King Benjamin's counsel to "become as little children." We acknowledge that there are many things that we don't know, and that answers will eventually be given and all injustices will be righted. Our subservient role allows us to take prophetic direction without needing to see "where it leads", and without stressing about why it was given. We assume that all direction is given because we are children of God - and that a God who loves us always acts in a way that will promote our happiness and eternal progression.

Secondly, the lens of children of God assume individual divine nature and worth, focuses on our eternal identity and our important responsibilities in this life. This identity encourages loving and responsible action.

Finally, this perspective reminds us that the people around us are similarly divine, and therefore deserving of our respect and support. We don't need the framework of feminism (which establishes equality as a balance of power) in order to establish equality - if we are all children of God then we are equal by nature. If we are children of God, then everyone has something important to contribute, a voice to be heard, and needs that we need to address - as James Farrell puts it in the Anatomy of Peace, needs that are not above or below our own but equal in reality and validity. 

By adopting this framework, we are given a measuring stick against which to compare other theories and frameworks. We could ask ourselves: do the assumptions of _____ theory align with the truth that I am a child of God? That we are children of God? For every theory - the problems it focuses on, the solutions it points to - does it align with God's laws and the truth He has revealed? We may have to reject some theories in order to prioritize this truth. Europeans who chose to hide Jews from the Nazis may have also been raised to seen the world through the lens of eugenics and racial superiority, but they chose to put FIRST their framework of others as children of God, and consequently put first their first responsibility to love and protect everyone. Similarly, whatever justifications were used for slavery may have been very persuasive, but Quakers and other abolitionists rejected whatever arguments may have kept them from viewing and treating others as children of God. 

I hope that promoting "Children of God" theory as a social framework as well as a spiritual one will provide important perspective for Christian social scientists as well as consumers of science. How we view society impacts our thoughts and actions - and if we begin with this framework (or, as Elder Hafen called it, the "eternal perspective" or Elder Anderson the "eye of faith"), the issues we care about will have new meaning, problems will have new context, and solutions will be clearer. We will be able to throw away things that are of no use to us and imagine new ways of addressing society's ills. Furthermore, as I said earlier, social scientists who are not of our faith can test and adopt this framework as helpful without necessarily worrying about whether or not it is true. I encourage everyone to do so, knowing personally that someday the assumptions of this theory will be known as truth.