Often it's not the exact utterance that someone speaks in church that is problematic—it's what it implies. Thinking and pondering are good, encouraged qualities. If you ponder something, you will naturally extrapolate and think of the different sides; then you will see the implications. If we want people thinking (which we should want), we have the be prepared for them to poke holes in arguments when they see the implications of said arguments.
I understand that people usually don't mean what they're implying. But the problem is that they don't say otherwise.
Let's talk examples, because I like concrete evidence. The teacher of a temple prep class, a member of the bishopric, was talking about the Law of Chastity (my favorite subject!!!!). He admitted that he thought that his wife was beautiful, but "beauty is from the shoulders up." He also said some things that were obviously outlandish and false (i.e. they completely contradicted well-known scriptures) which I won't mention here (right now), because they, not just their implications, were just plain wrong.
I talked to him after class about it, and I mentioned how what's taught about the LoC seems to teach people to hate their bodies. He angrily objected, "I never told you to hate your bodies!" I know that. He didn't say those exact words or anything like them. But everything he did say backs up that conclusion.
What I'm advocating is acknowledging the other side. You may say, "There's nothing wrong with wearing blue." But unless you mention that there's nothing wrong with wearing any other color, someone might think that you're implying that. If you say that it's dangerous to be prideful, mention that it's also not good to be down on yourself. Be more complete with explanations, please.
I understand that people usually don't mean what they're implying. But the problem is that they don't say otherwise.
Let's talk examples, because I like concrete evidence. The teacher of a temple prep class, a member of the bishopric, was talking about the Law of Chastity (my favorite subject!!!!). He admitted that he thought that his wife was beautiful, but "beauty is from the shoulders up." He also said some things that were obviously outlandish and false (i.e. they completely contradicted well-known scriptures) which I won't mention here (right now), because they, not just their implications, were just plain wrong.
I talked to him after class about it, and I mentioned how what's taught about the LoC seems to teach people to hate their bodies. He angrily objected, "I never told you to hate your bodies!" I know that. He didn't say those exact words or anything like them. But everything he did say backs up that conclusion.
What I'm advocating is acknowledging the other side. You may say, "There's nothing wrong with wearing blue." But unless you mention that there's nothing wrong with wearing any other color, someone might think that you're implying that. If you say that it's dangerous to be prideful, mention that it's also not good to be down on yourself. Be more complete with explanations, please.
I like the way you think. People ought to be more aware that what is said aloud is not always the complete message.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the world does "beauty is from the shoulders up" mean? Really? So he doesn't think the rest of his wife is beautiful? I... don't understand!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with you. I tend to get really worked up about what people say, then when I tell Ilya about it he says, "Well that isn't what they meant." I wonder how many other people get the subtle, implied message. At least you and I do, so there must be others, too.