Corinthians and Moroni on Charity

I wanted to do a comparison of 1 Corinthians 13 and Moroni 7 and their respective comments about charity. I'm not really commenting on this right now, mostly because it was a good bit of work to set up the table in blogger! But it's here for my reference later.

One thing I do like about this is that, it seems every row is worthy of it's own significant discussion!

1 Corinthians 13:1-8,13	Moroni 7:44-47
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,
and have not charity, I am nothing.	for if [a man] have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long,	And charity suffereth long,
and is kind;	and is kind,
charity envieth not;	and envieth not,
charity vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up,	and is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not her own,	seeketh not her own,
is not easily provoked,	is not easily provoked,
thinketh no evil;	thinketh no evil,
Rejoiceth not in iniquity,	and rejoiceth not in iniquity
but rejoiceth in the truth;	but rejoiceth in the truth,
Beareth all things,	beareth all things,
believeth all things,	believeth all things,
hopeth all things,	hopeth all things,
endureth all things.	endureth all things.
	Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing,
Charity never faileth:	for charity never faileth.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;	Wherefore, cleave unto charity,
but the greatest of these is charity.	which is the greatest of all,
	for all things must fail—But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever

 

Charity Never Faileth

In First Corinthians and in Moroni, we read similar verses about charity. Comparing them is interesting, but that will be for another post. I am interested, however, in something both of them say, particularly the phrase "charity never faileth."

This is the slogan for the Relief Society organization, the oldest and largest women's organization in the world: Charity Never Faileth.

So I would ask... charity never fails... at what?

My initial understanding is and has always been that not failing means it never goes away; it endures forever. In Paul's words: "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." (1 Cor 13:8) Despite many things that eventually will be done away, charity will never be done away. Charity endures forever.

Now that said, I do not think that this is necessarily the only meaning of the phrase charity never faileth.

This chapter begins with Paul explaining the importance of charity in our individual lives.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (1 Cor 13:1-3)

After reading these verses, I feel that Paul has impressed rather indelibly that we don't want to ignore our development of charity. While there's a lot to talk about in these verses, I would consider only a small bit. Paul says that without charity, what I say means nothing, "I am nothing" and other seemingly noble acts "profiteth me nothing."

Really? The gift of prophecy? Understanding all mysteries? Having all knowledge? Having faith to move mountains? And I am nothing?! Giving all my material things to the poor profits me nothing?! Why?! Why does a lack of charity make all of these things essentially worthless to me?

I think the reason might be that charity never faileth.

"But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure." (Moroni 7:47-48 emphasis added)

Could it be that charity -- true, pure, undefiled charity -- never faileth to bring a man (or woman, of course) back to the kingdom of God? Could it be that this love will lead us to be like Him? That our way of being toward all men will be as is our Lord and Savior's and that as such, our hearts will desire righteousness, goodness, and kindness? And if our hearts desire these things, will it not bring us to the actions, words, and thoughts that lead us unto Christ?

Charity never faileth. Yes, it endures forever, but this is not all. Charity saves us. It is the charity of Christ that brings us the offering of His Atonement, and it is His gift of charity which He "bestow[s] upon all who are true followers of [Him]" which never fails to lead us back to Him.

John said "We love [Christ], because [Christ] first loved us." (John 4:19) And I would say that I love my brother because Christ first loved me, for "he who loveth God love his brother also," (John 4:21) otherwise "he is a liar." (John 4:20)

Opposition and Agency

Not long ago I made a comment on Facebook about opposition in all things. A friend of mine took issue with my comment and gave me some intriguing feedback. This spurred me on a journey to better understand what opposition in all things really means and how it is related to agency.

Agency is a beautiful thing. It's profoundly simple, it's meaningful, it's pure, and yet it's our greatest fear and we all have it no matter what.

Before this life we lived with God as spirits. (Note, you may have a different set of religious beliefs than me, so if I state a doctrine like this and you disagree with it, pass it over. I'm not here to convince you of my religious beliefs, I am only using some of them as a backdrop for my understanding of the principles at hand.) There was a war in heaven during that time (Rev. 12:3-9) in which we were able to choose to fight on God's side or Satan's side. Actually, it says "a third part," which means maybe another choice was to sit on the sidelines, I'm not sure. At any rate, we had agency there. 

Point: agency extends beyond just this mortal sphere.

But how did we have agency? What enabled the choice? "The Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other." (2 Ne. 2:16) Could there have been any choice to make in Heaven if there was only God to choose from? Quite simply, there could not, and a third part chose to follow Satan.

Point: for our agency to take on any semblance of meaning, there had to be options -- there had to be a choice!

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so. . .righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad." (2 Ne. 2:11) "And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things." (2 Ne 2:13)

So there were opposing options first, which granted us agency. But that's not the beginning of it either! We don't know much here, but it seems we had choice even prior to that. "And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first." It sounds as though any of us could have made the choice to volunteer ourselves.

Satan had the choice to do so at any rate. It seems he chose to create another plan and present it, "saying--Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me--Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." (Moses 4:1-2)  And so there were options - to volunteer or not volunteer; to choose God's plan or present another of our own.

Point: inasmuch as there is agency, there is opposition in all things; inasmuch as agency is an eternal principle, opposition in all things is an eternal principle.

But wait, if opposition in all things is eternal, does this mean we have to continually face difficulty through the eternities? Isn't the promise of heaven that we can rest from such?! I do not believe eternal difficulties await us, and I hope to illustrate why both may coincide by the end of this post.

We live in a world today that is full of opposing choices. No matter what situation we are in, we are at choice at least to some degree. Victor Frankl said "Everything can be taken from man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." (Man's Search for Meaning)

Men and environment may conspire to limit, alter, or remove our options of choice, be it through abuse, disaster, injury, death, misunderstanding, illness, etc. These trials, as we call them, are our circumstances. For every such circumstance and experience there is also an opposite possibility: love, comfortable weather, miraculous protection, birth, understanding, health, etc. We generally call these circumstances blessings, I think because we like them.

Now here's what intrigues me about this whole thing. I do not see anything that says we have to experience one side to partake of the other. I don't believe that this is what opposition in all things means.

For example, do we have to experience a tornado to experience a sunny day? No. Do we have to experience illness to experience health? Of course not. Now, we do rightly have to experience birth before we can experience death, that's part of life's process. That said, we do not have to experience a painful death of a loved one to thus be able to experience the joy of a child's birth.

Point: opposition in all things is not about experience, it's about choice.

It seems to me that 2 Nephi 2:23 supports this. It reads (emphasis added) "wherefore [Adam and Eve] would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin." These verb choices intrigue me.

Christ "went about doing good" (Acts 10:38) and yet He never sinned. Did He know sin? Of course! He saw it all around Him! And beyond that, Satan tempted Him! (Matthew 4:3-10) Jesus was given the chance to "[be] enticed by the one or the other," and He chose righteousness.

Point: opposition in all things explains that there are different circumstances we may experience, but it does not imply that we must experience opposing circumstances.

This all leads me to an intriguing question: Do you think Christ ever labelled any of His life experiences as bad? There were evil men conspiring against Him continually, there were many who claimed to be His friends who turned away from Him, and on and on. From my perspective, it seems He had many trying experiences... but did anything bad happen to Him? (Please note that I am distinguishing bad from evil.) Perhaps the most evil act in all of mankind was His cruciferous (is that the right word?) martyrdom, but it seems to me that Christ did not look upon it as a bad experience for himself. Undesirable, unpleasant, horrible, painful, excruciating, rooted in evil, vile, unjust... yes! All of those and more! And yet it was a necessary part of His work and our salvation.

Christ's eternal life is the ultimate example of the principle that problems manifest solutions that work to our advantage. Or in the words of God Himself, "know thou, my son, that all these things shall give the experience, and shall be for thy good. The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?" (D&C 122:7,8)

Point: our experiences work for our gain. They may be heartrendingly painful or rejoice-fully blissful, but believing that all our experiences are for our good gives strength and perspective to not just endure, but endure well our trials.

I recently heard this amusing anecdote: "we call them trials because they're hard -- there's a reason we don't call it a happy!" I laughed, and then I started thinking about it. After some thought and research, I have come to believe that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Using Google, it seems the etymology of trial comes from triet or to try, i.e. the act or process of testing. Tests do not have happiness abolition as a requirement. I have taken some very fun tests! Indeed, in sports, a test that is your equal or slightly better is the most enjoyable to engage!

President Thomas S. Monson said "To live greatly, we must develop the capacity to face trouble with courage, disappointment with cheerfulness, and triumph with humility."

Point: Happiness and trials are not mutually exclusive; we can find and maintain happiness even in the midst of them.

In all this, I do not desire to make light of anyone's pain. I don't doubt the difficulty encountered nor the effort and courage mustered to face trials of enormous proportions. Healing can take time. Healing can also take effort. Yet healing does not exclude joy, happiness, or optimism, rather it encourages them from what may be tender and shallow soil.

Also, to say there is no sadness in trial is folly. Tears of sorrow are common and even welcome. I believe crying is a God-given gift to express feeling and console the soul. However, it is worth noting that sadness is not the opposite of happiness! A sense of sorrow and joy can co-exist such as when we feel the loss of a loved one who passes while also feeling the joy that s/he is rejoicing with loved ones beyond, or when a mother sees off her missionary son and feels sad to see him go, yet is overjoyed with his righteous choice. This is what mixed emotions is all about. (Mosiah 25:8-11) The opposite of happiness, then, is misery (2 Nephi 2:13). Thanks to Christ, even in the darkness of immense trial, we can learn to embrace sorrow, happiness, and other emotions while putting away the depressant misery.

Were it not for Christ, I believe misery would be unavoidable. It is only through Him that happiness, joy, hope, and peace are afforded, through Him that this "milk and honey" are available to us "without money and without price." (2 Ne. 26:25)

Point: Happiness and sadness are emotional blessings and not mutually exclusive. We can experience both simultaneously and, when in the midst of trial, we can seek these over misery. Overcoming misery requires Christ and through Him we may have peace.

Conclusion
Finally, I love the following quote by Haruki Murakami:
"And once the storm is over, you won't remember how you made it through, how you managed to survive. You won't even be sure whether the storm is really over. But one thing is certain. When you come out of the storm, you won't be the same person who walked in. That's what this storm's all about."

Opposition in all things is not referring to our circumstances but to our choices and their consequences. There are options to choose from by which we may be enticed and these options have their differing consequences. Those consequences lead to opposing circumstances, and thus opposition in all things has a relationship with circumstance, but only consequentially.

No matter our circumstance, whether our circumstances be difficult or delightful, we are at choice and we can find happiness. If we choose to view all experiences as for our good, we will have no use for the "this is a horrible experience" victim mentality. We may recognize a circumstance as horrible, yet we find no value in focusing on that. We may feel sorrow, but we can dismiss misery through Christ. What opposition in all things represents is that in a given moment, we are at choice, and our choice will determine who we become.

A Principle of Human Nature

We humans are funny. That is to say, human nature is rather illogical. That is to say, common sense is not common.

One principle of human nature is, I think, this: We want guarantees, and if we don't get one, we manufacture one.

The folly in this is that when our manufactured guarantee is not met, when reality meets our manufactured reality, our manufactured reality shatters. Human nature reacts to this with all sorts of negative feelings.

It kind of goes back to that whole agency and fear thing. We create a script for someone, they don't follow it because they have agency, and we get all worked up.

We might do better to not manufacture scripts for people. Manufacturing a guarantee to be held in the responsibility of another is having an agenda for another. It is an attempt to control another. It is an attempt to remove that agency which we so deeply fear.

Agency, Our Greatest Fear

Agency is a beautiful thing. It's profoundly simple, it's meaningful, it's pure, it's what allows us to discover and be ourselves, full of expression and love, and yet it's our greatest fear and we all have it no matter what.

Why would I say agency is our greatest fear? It seems surprising because the principle of agency is ever lauded and never or at least very rarely disparaged.

I am not disparaging agency either. If anything, I am admitting the frailties of human nature. Here's what I mean.

Would you be scared if you woke up to sounds of an intruder in your home? Would you feel fear if someone threatened you or your family? Have you ever felt the horrific fear of an abuser? Have you ever felt the fear of your agency being taken from you?

Getting a little lighter than such heavy subjects, Are you ever afraid of what someone might think of you? Do you feel fear when discussing the economy or politics? Have you ever been afraid you won't have enough money?

Have you felt the fear of failure? Have you felt the fear of success? Have you ever felt afraid that your not good enough?

In fact, is there any fear you have ever experienced that wasn't somehow close-knit with agency, be it your own or of others?

Have you ever felt the fear of your agency being taken from you, either by others or by yourself?

This is me just musing on the thought, doing a bit of a brain dump. I admit vast room for error, but share it as my initial impression that all our fears have existence due to the agency of mankind.

So am I against agency? Do I wish it would just go away? Heavens no!! Emphatically not!!

The triumphs of life are found in overcoming! Fear is overcome by love; they are opposites much like darkness and light. Fear is real just as love is real; they both exist and must exist as opposition in all things requires. Sometimes overcoming deeply ingrained fears with love takes some time. I believe that's okay. Our path and direction are more important than our location, or in other words, our heart is more important than our habits. When we let God change our hearts we are enabled, with no little effort, to thence change our habits.

Agency is a beautiful thing. It's profoundly simple, it's meaningful, it's pure, it's what allows us to discover and be ourselves, full of expression and love, and yet it's our greatest fear and we all have it no matter what.

It is truly God's gift to man.

Some initial thoughts on faith

  I've not posted here in a while! And that's as expected. In my personal study I've been focused on gaining a better understanding of faith. In my long and rambly notes from my efforts, I have begun to try to compile them in a more coherent manner. This is still a bit of a brain dump and lacks finesse, but here's my start.

Introduction
  While I was a missionary in Costa Rica, I came to realize how little I understood the core principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This invited me to see myself in somewhat of a pathetic light since I had grown up in the church. “I should understand these things!” I would tell myself.

  Over ten years since returning home, I still feel that I have but little understanding of core gospel principles, yet I no longer feel any shame in this. There’s no longer any should about it. The word “little” is a comparator with no meaning if set independent of something else. In view of the omniscience of God, “little” will always describe my understanding. In view of the understanding of others, I have nothing but intellectual blindness; that is, I have no true view of the understanding of others, only my perception. This is one of many reasons why comparing myself (my knowledge, or my understanding, or my muscle mass, or my eyebrow bushy-ness, etc.) to others is incapable of blessing my life or anyone else's.

  While I have chosen to disbelieve those beliefs which produced self-deprecating shame within me, it would be far from the truth to say I stopped caring about my level of understanding. I feel I “know no more. . .than a babe upon its mother’s lap.” That means there are some exciting things to learn!

  In the first part of 2013 I participated in a mentoring group that explored, among other things, what it means to live with faith. Exploring this core principle helped me face straight on my concerns about not understanding it. I was able to choose out of the shame and I also launched on a campaign to gain deeper understanding of this basic principle. This post is largely a result of that effort.

  I openly admit that, in writing this, I have a bit of concern. I do not wish someone to think that what I state here is absolute gospel truth. I take responsibility for what I write here inasmuch as it represents my current understanding according to my current capacity of expression. While I apologize to the reader for any errors and faults of clarity, I sincerely hope that I myself will see many of the shortcomings in this work! I would take it to mean that I have not ceased the adventure of life: learning.

  And so, here I begin to write my exploration of a singular principle of faith.


What is Faith
Definition
  Faith is the process in which an actor (or actors) act in hope of creating a specific outcome based on a belief or set of beliefs.

Faith the Process
  I believe faith is a process. Specifically, I believe faith is the process of creation.

  In Hebrews 11:1 we read “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Again in Ether 12:6, “faith is things which are hoped for and not seen.”

  Faith is hoping for something that has not yet manifested, that is, it has not yet been created. Whether it is the creation of some experience, a state of being within oneself, a lifelong dream, or a breakfast omelet, it requires hope through faith. Inasmuch as “faith without works is dead,” faith is the process of acting on that hope (or on that belief) to realize (i.e. create) some end.

  Let us consider the story of Ammon and his brethren in the Book of Mormon. They went out to teach the Lamanite people, a people described as “wild, and ferocious, and blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness. . .continually seeking to destroy [them].” And yet somehow they managed to develop a hope, a belief, that “perhaps [they] might save some few of their souls.” They exercised faith on this belief all along the way. At the beginning, they asked permission of their father (Mosiah 1:5-8). In the face of much opposition and scorn from their own people, (Alma 26:23-25) they embarked (Mosiah 1:9). They parted ways in the wilderness (Alma 17:13) and taught for 14 years (Alma 17:4)! Was it a process? Oh yes! And it wasn’t a single-act, kick-off-only process either. If they stopped acting after asking King Mosiah for permission to go, if they never went, would they have created the results they did? Of course not. It was a long process of acting on their hope day after day after day. Faith is a process; it is the process of creating what you hope for.

Faith the Instance
  In the process of faith there is an actor and an action; faith without these is meaningless. Very simply, an instance of faith is an act performed. The converse is also true, that any action whatsoever is an act of faith. Thus an act performed is an instance of faith. Indeed, no action can be performed without faith.

  Another name for actions is works. In James chapter two we read over and over that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:17) Works are the embodiment of faith. Faith is the spirit of works. Death is the separation of the body and the spirit.

  In lectures on faith, we read the following: “It is faith and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action within them; that without it both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease. . .Were [you] to. . .reflect upon the history of [your life], from the period of [your] first recollection, and ask [yourself] what principle excited [you] to action, or what gave [you] energy and activity in all [your] lawful avocations, callings, and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be. . .the assurance which [you] had of the existence of things which [you] had not seen as yet? Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion in order to obtain them?. . .In a word, is there anything that you would have done, either physical or mental, if you had not previously believed? Are not all your exertions of every kind dependent on your faith? Or. . .what have you, or what do you possess, which you have not obtained by reason of your faith? Your food, your raiment, your lodgings, are they not all by reason of your faith?. . .If [faith is] the moving cause of all action in yourselves. . .is it not [the moving cause] in all other intelligent beings?” (Lectures on Faith, Lecture First, points 10-12)

Faith, Belief, and Hope
  The central principles and foundation of faith are belief, hope, and action. An instance of faith is an act performed based on a hope of what outcome such action will achieve. Underlying this hope, and thus the instance of faith (the act), is a belief that the particular act leads to the desired result. If one has hope for something, does it not depend on a belief? Without belief there is nothing in which to hope, and without hope there is no faith and indeed there can not be, for faith is acting on hope in a belief or set of beliefs.

  In True to the Faith we read, “Whenever you work [an act] toward a worthy goal, you exercise faith. You show your hope for something that you cannot yet see.” (True to the Faith p.54) So an act of faith is a manifestation of your hope. Paul taught the Romans “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 15:13) When we place enough confidence in a belief that it brings us joy and peace, we then not only have hope, but we abound in it.

  Let’s look at a simplistic example to illustrate all of this. I would like to drink a delicious fruit smoothie. I believe that I can make one. Regardless of how many times I’ve done it in the past, I do not have the assurance of a delicious smoothie because it is not in hand, i.e. it is not “seen” as yet. It has not yet been created. I believe I can enjoy one and I hope to enjoy one! I even feel a bit excited to enjoy one and may start salivating a little. Thus I act in faith to create one. I go to work! After making it, I taste the fruit of my faith (couldn’t pass up that pun). I beheld what I had only seen through the eye of faith. I held a belief with confidence, I had hope in that belief, and I exercised faith.

  Regarding hope and faith, the converse is also true. That is, to have hope requires an exercise of faith. Your belief that you could enjoy a delicious fruit smoothie might be firm, but if there is no action (be it by you or by another), you will have no hope of obtaining one! Thus hope and faith are mutually inclusive or, as I like to call it, bidirectionally complementary.

Blaming vs Trusting God

Understanding the difference between blaming God and trusting God is as yet, for me, a rather difficult task. I can think/say the same words in my head and in one instance be trusting Him and in another instance be blaming Him. Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example from my mission.

There is a phrase that the people of Costa Rica love to use and which all missionaries detest: "si Dios quiere." Translated it means "if God wants" or "God willing." When Paul left Ephesus he told the saints there "I will return to you again, if God will." In Spanish, you can guess what that says: "si Dios quiere." Here I believe Paul was saying "I would like to come back and visit you again, but I will only do it if it is God's will." In other words, I believe when Paul said "if God will," he was expressing that his trust in God was greater than his own hopes or desires. This is not the common use of this phrase in Costa Rica!

Whenever missionaries visit a home they obtain a commitment from their investigators, be it to read in the Book of Mormon, pray about it, come to church, etc. Almost every time an investigator would commit, they would tack on the end "si Dios quiere." It was used as full licensure to excuse oneself from any commitment. This practice blatantly blames God for one's own choices. There is no trust here! None whatsoever! It is an act of trying to give our agency back to God and telling Him "here, have this, I don't want it! I have no desire for that kind of responsibility. I'd much rather blame You or others for everything." How insulting that must feel considering the price paid to provide us this gift!

So bringing it back to our culture, when something doesn't turn out how we hoped, do we sometimes think or say "well, I guess God just didn't want it that way," or "It seems God had another plan"? (I think the question mark is supposed to go on the inside of the quotes, but that's a punctuation rule I've not come to terms with yet. I also love the Oxford comma, for what it's worth. SQUIRREL!) This sounds like a virtuously motivated desire to trust God, but is it? Might it possibly be us rationalizing that we are giving up, or that we weren't as fully committed as we'd like to think we were? Such an assessment requires a strong dose of self-honesty, sincere soul searching, and often some help from heaven*. For me personally, I find that sometimes I am trusting Him, more often I'm not sure, even more often I am blaming Him, and most often I don't even notice what I'm doing at all.

Given how poorly I understand my own self in this matter, it should seem absurd that I would judge others on the same. Yep... totally absurd. I try not to, but I struggle. So in my efforts to not judge, I choose instead to project my own experience on everyone else since that's at least more subtle. (Now I will justify my choice to project -- just want to make it obvious what I'm doing here.) I don't think I am alone though in getting caught up in blaming God for the results of my own folly.

Oh, life! You present so much more opportunity to learn than I feel the capacity to hold! I hope someday I might learn to discern clearly in those moments when I seek to blame God vs trust Him.


* Wouldn't President Monson be proud!