Do People Who Can'T Overcome Doubt And Issues . . .

[rongo]

This will probably ruffle some feathers, but it’s an observation I can’t help making.

Those whose faith in the Restored Gospel and in the Church has cooled or completely tanked often bristle at the thought that their crisis is in some way related to sin. While I would not say this is always the case, sin is often involved, in my experience. Often, too, those who most bristle at the thought of the “sin factor” seem to me to resemble those who mocked Jesus for saying that they wanted to kill Him. “Thou hast a devil. Who goeth about to kill thee?” (when, in fact, that was exactly what they had in mind).

My observation is this: much more of a factor than sin is the fact that some people simply don’t want the gospel/Church to be “true” (completely independent of sin). This observation in my experience has led to passionate protests that they wanted nothing more than for the gospel/Church to be “true,” but that it simply couldn’t be made to work. The problem with this is that I have known people for whom I was a confidant, people who struggled about equally, some of whom were able to work out their issues, and some of whom could not. The determining factor seems to be whether or not they ultimately want it to work out or not (notwithstanding their protests to the contrary).

I am reminded of Richard Bushman’s observation in Dialogue in the 1970s after the Wes Walters “First Vision was completely bogus” sensation. He commented that it, and similar attacks on our faith would ultimately strengthen the Church, but that even if some fatal attack could be formulated, Mormons would “move heaven and earth” to make it work before throwing in the towel. In my experience, there are those who are willing to “move heaven and earth,” and those who aren’t. This seems to me to be at a fundamental “intelligence” level (D&C 93, not “smarts”).

Another factor along with this is the tendency for one’s “knee-jerk” reaction to be positive and trusting, or negative and suspicious. It’s like when I was a boy and struggling to judge fly balls. I would run in on them, and then find (too late) that the ball was going over my head. This happened over and over. My dad told me that regardless of how much I thought I should run in on the ball, my first step should always be back. It’s easier to run in on a ball you have to than it is to run back on one (it’s a tougher play, even for experienced ball players). Problem solved ---- stepping automatically back gives more time to accurately judge the ball and protects you in the event that you will need to run back on the ball.

In my experience, including with some posters here, there are people who chronically struggle with faith in the gospel/the Church who habitually and routinely “run in on the ball,” and get upset when they try to run back on it and it sails over their heads (sometimes far over their heads). Their instant reaction to every issue, claim, item, etc. is automatically negative, suspicious, and heartsick --- never positive, patient, and giving the Church and its claims the benefit of the doubt. Unfailingly, every single time. This seems to me to be, again, a basic part of one’s nature --- whether or not one ultimately wants the gospel/the Church to be true or not.

Here’s a positive example (I don’t want to give personal details on the negative ones as case studies). I was with my trainer on my mission for two months. Instead of being transferred by phone like usual, my mission president put his hands on my shoulders at a meeting and told me I was to pack up and take the train to a different city the next day. My companion was near going home, and I would be his first junior companion. He was 26 years old, held a degree in economics, had served jail time for skinhead violence against Turks, had changed his life enough to go on a mission, but most important, “his testimony is in shreds. Your assignment is to help him however you can.”

He was one of the best companions I ever had, and it was a very difficult time for me (I didn’t know it at the time, but my mission president sent a letter to my parents explaining my new assignment, and telling them to expect letters that were down in the dumps. He encouraged them to be positive and supportive . I spoke about two months’ worth of German, and although he spoke English well, he refused to speak English with me (except to clarify Beatles or “Mormon pop” [Michael McLaine or Jeff Goodrich] lyrics that were confusing to him). He was extremely articulate and charismatic, with phenomenal people skills, and we taught and were let in more during that time than at any other time on my mission (I think we only knocked doors in a small portion of a neighborhood in two months, because we were let in and taught so often). He was the hardest worker I ever met, but he was gripped by terrifying fears about basic testimony issues. My German soared as he hammered me (not by way of argument, but trying to pick my brains and experience) about my testimony. What do I actually mean when I say that President Hunter is a prophet? How do I know, really? What does him receiving revelation mean, what does it look like? How do I know? Do I really believe that? Rinse, repeat, and cycle for other weighty essential testimony issues. He would gently correct my grammar and vocabulary and ask follow-up questions to make sure he understood me correctly. It was at this time that I started dreaming in German, and could speak and understand automatically without translating in my head.

This was my first experience with someone who was tortured with terrifying doubt. Actual fear that the gospel/the Church might not be true, and that we might be horribly misguided and just plain wrong. We grew to respect each other ---- none of his companions had been able to handle his constant barrage of questions, and he was quite simply the best companion you could want ---- hard working, obedient, and serious (he took his one chance at being a senior companion to a green missionary very seriously). We also both appreciated each others’ senses of humor a lot.

He went home, and I filled out most of my mission. I always wondered how he did once he was home. General Conference is a huge deal in Germany ---- people converge from far away and get to see old friends. I was overjoyed to run into him at the Wartenau building in Hamburg for conference. He was great, his countenance was great, and he had continued to spiritually overcome his doubts and fears.

It struck me at this time that he always wanted the gospel/the Church to be true, and that is what enabled him to hang on and effectively work through his problems. Other people I know who equally struggle(d) with testimony doubt and fear have not been able to work it out, and it strikes me that they didn’t want it to be true, ultimately. Some seem to have a hypochondriac-like tendency to be thrown for a loop by every single new and old claim and attack, great and small, silly and formidable.

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

[Calm]

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

I think desires are so multidimensional that I am not sure one can accurately say a person "wants" or "doesn't want" something because they may want it for some reasons and not want it for others.

In the end I do believe the choice to believe or to act or anything else is based on what one values the most for that belief or act or whatever among all the values one places on those things, so in that sense one could use "want" in that way but it might be confusing because in some cases it might not be about wanting or not wanting the Church to be true itself, but something quite different that is then used to measure the truth value of the Church.

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Libs]

Yeah, I think you are on the right track, Calmoriah. For most, I would guess, it is not so simplistic as "wanting" or "not wanting" the church to be true. Or, in my case, even believing that the church is completely true or totally not true. I'm somewhere in between.

I enjoyed your story, though, Rongo, and I'm glad your friend came through his struggles to more solid ground.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Libs

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It isn't "scandalous" to suggest that people with such reactions secretly just don't want the Church to be true, since it's pretty much the standard go-to explanation. The problem is that this is still framed from within a believing paradigm, when the entire question at issue in the doubter's mind is whether or not that paradigm is true. That is, of course "sin" will be at the root of testimony issues from the believer's perspective -- the point is that the doubter is questioning whether that sin-paradigm truly exists in the first place.

Dismissing people's doubts with the accusation that they just wanted to sin all along is begging the question, since the fundamental problem is that the doubter is questioning whether homosexuality/eating shellfish/wearing linen and wool/not shaving really are evil things that produce negative consequences. If they don't, then regardless of how much a believer still characterizes such things as loathsome sins, the doubter has no reason to accept that judgement as anything but just another opinion.

Doesn't matter whether your knee-jerk reaction is to be positive and trusting, or negative and suspicious; why should someone sacrifice even a little, or remain "positive" or "patient", for what they believe is a pointless cause? Why should they "want" something to be true contrary to whatever evidence they've been able to examine if they're questioning whether it is good in the first place? If you've been told all your life that sex is an evil dirty sin and to be like God is to take part in an ascetic Virgin Priesthood, then if you start to doubt that paradigm, of course someone who still believes in it can say that you just "wanted to sin" all along and were simply unwilling to move Heaven and Earth to preserve your faith; the point is, what if it's not a sin? The whole thing is just a patronizingly simplistic "explanation" that doesn't help anything.

[Glenn101]

Doesn't matter whether your knee-jerk reaction is to be positive and trusting, or negative and suspicious; why should someone sacrifice even a little, or remain "positive" or "patient", for what they believe is a pointless cause? Why should they "want" something to be true contrary to whatever evidence they've been able to examine if they're questioning whether it is good in the first place? If you've been told all your life that sex is an evil dirty sin and to be like God is to take part in an ascetic Virgin Priesthood, then if you start to doubt that paradigm, of course someone who still believes in it can say that you just "wanted to sin" all along and were simply unwilling to move Heaven and Earth to preserve your faith; the point is, what if it's not a sin? The whole thing is just a patronizingly simplistic "explanation" that doesn't help anything.

This is actually making rongo's point. A person who is questioning the sinfulness of any of the churches teachings on sin may not want the church to be true because it requires change on their part. They would ratherthe church change.

Sin may not be at the heart of all disaffection. Some people look at some parts of Church history and see some warts or perceived warts that they struggle with. They may not want that part to be true, yet the history does not change, and they don't want the church to be true because of it.

Then there may be people who struggle with faith because of perceived "gender equality" issues. Some may want women to hold the priesthood, etc. and don't want the church to be true because women do not hold the priesthood and the apparent chances of that happening seem to be slim and none.

Not wanting something to be true is one of the reasons people do struggle with their faith. But I would submit that the search for the truth is more important than what one wishes to be true and no matter what the personal outlook, the desire to know the truth needs to become the driving force in anyone's life.

Lucy Walker was a tenage girl when Joseph Smith first broached the subject of polygamy to her. I am going to quote her own words as to her initial reaction and how she came to her decision.

"When the Prophet Joseph Smith first mentioned the principle of plural marriage to me I felt indignant and so expressed myself to him, because my feelings and education were averse to anything of that nature. But he assured me that this doctrine had been revealed to him of the Lord, and that I was entitled to receive a testimony of its divine origin for myself. He counselled me to pray to the Lord, which I did, and thereupon received from Him a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truthfulness and divinity of plural marriage, which testimony had abided with me ever since." (OATH OF LUCY WALKER SMITH, WIFE OF JOSEPH SMITH, JR.)

Lucy already had acquired a testimony of the gospel and of Joseph Smith as a prophet propr to this information from Joseph. She did not want it to be true, but instead of questioning the veracity of the church or the legitinacy of Joseph's calling as a prophet, she inquired of the Lord as to the veracity of the revelation on polygmy.

Again, the search for the truth needs to be anyone's number one priority, whether or not it coincides with any and all of our predilections.

Glenn

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

But that just sidesteps the issue. You might as well say that I "don't want the Church to be true" if it starts teaching that cannibalism is the only path to exaltation, and it would "require change" on my part to accept that as the true teaching of the Gods, going against my predilections.

Edited February 8, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[bu11fr0g]

Temptations wouldnt be temptations if there werent desire.

Everyone has temptations of different types.

Everyone sins.

I have known more people that left the church because they were offended than any other reason.

I have known several people that temained very active after being excommunicated or disfellowshipped.

I think it is much harder to follow church standards that you dont have a specific independent belief in when you doubt the church. I dont see many disaffected mormons stealing or murdering.

I also dont see people leaving the church because they want to shop on Sunday.

But sometimes, loss of belief in the church can result in complete loss of someones moral framework.

[DBMormon]

It struck me at this time that he always wanted the gospel/the Church to be true, and that is what enabled him to hang on and effectively work through his problems. Other people I know who equally struggle(d) with testimony doubt and fear have not been able to work it out, and it strikes me that they didn’t want it to be true, ultimately. Some seem to have a hypochondriac-like tendency to be thrown for a loop by every single new and old claim and attack, great and small, silly and formidable.

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

I think there is enough evidence for one to have faith the church is true, but the issue is in the onset of discovering difficult info one can very easily become too bitter to hear the positive. They also lack many people around them who can kindly discuss it with them without the helper becoming defensive. If one sees no one with good answers and a shoulder to lean on, one assumes no one has good answers and becomes antagonisitic. I find more then looking at the struggler, it helps to look at the resources they had to get out of it and the trust they perceived was lost and how that betrayal occured. That for me, likely makes more of a difference

I will add, I wanted if there was any way to allow and choose it to be true, but so do others who come to a different conclusion. I also see some individuals who have had dramatic spiritual answers and others have gotten no answer as they have prayed and sought one. It seems every instance is different and individual

Edited February 8, 2013 by DBMormon

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Sin is a part of all of our lives. Mormon, ex-Mormon, non-Mormon. The implication that those who have doubts or leave have more sin than those who are "faithful" and stay, is a mechanism that helps "faithful" members emotionally disassociate themselves from those who have left, and dismiss out-of-hand the reasons they may have left.

In my own personal journey I wanted the truth, if that involved the LDS Church or not was not my concern, if the truth led me to stay, great. If it led me someplace else, great. I didn't not want the church to be "true". I just wanted to be where the LORD wanted me to be.

Edited February 8, 2013 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Glenn101]

But that just sidesteps the issue. You might as well say that I "don't want the Church to be true" if it starts teaching that cannibalism is the only path to exaltation, and it would "require change" on my part to accept that as the true teaching of the Gods, going against my predilections.

No, it does not side step the issue at all. It meets the isue head on, but seeks the answer from God rather than man. Surely if the church started teaching that cannabilism is the only path to salvation it would be sign that whoever out forth that doctrine was not following God. And that new "doctrine" would not be accepted by the church, by common consent. That is really a straw man there.

This quote by BookofMormonLuvr sort of restates my point: "In my own personal journey I wanted the truth, if that involved the LDS Church or not was not my concern, if the truth led me to stay, great. If it led me someplace else, great. I didn't not want the church to be "true". I just wanted to be where the LORD wanted me to be." Seeking the truth, no matter where it lies, needs to be our object.

Glenn

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

So what you're saying is that you've exercised your personal judgment and come to the conclusion that a doctrine which doesn't seem morally right to you based on your own sense of goodness must "surely" be a sign that the person who taught it is not following God. Which is exactly the point.

[CV75]

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

While this could be in some cases, I think there are so many permutations of what could be happening, as evidenced by the parable of the sower. Sometimes its a function of personality. I think it is often the case that John 9:3 is in play: “Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

[go_utes01]

It seems to me that we could expect personal revelation as to whatever principle we are discussing - even cannibalism. We shouldn't prejudge what that answer will be - that will likely make the personal revelation more difficult to receive.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We should, however, probably exercise a bit of personal discernment and responsibility, so that we're not fooling ourselves into justifying our own motives and fears by renaming them Official Revelations From The Lord Of The Universe. If I got a full-fledged capital-R Revelation from someone telling me to eat someone else, I would not refer to that particular revelator as a "God". (I apologize to all you Gentle Readers out there, by the way, for introducing the deliberately-ludicrous example of cannibalism, since I should have known someone would seriously try to run with it.)

[Duncan]

I think that if you decide that the Church isn't true or whatever certaintly sinful things can seem appealing to you, whether or not you do any of them remains to be seen. I think that stuff that is sinful is sinful not because God said so but because they are inherently bad, adultery is bad and God said so but it's bad regardless of whether or not God said so. So, I have seen over and over either in my own life or others doing bad things you tend to realize, yeah this wasn't a great idea and it could have been otherwise. I haven't thought of every sin obviously but generally speaking. I think though we need God or the Holy Ghost to tell us this isn't a good idea and it isn't a good idea on it's own merits but if you don't want to listen then whatever

[Tacenda]

I'm your case study right here. The person you describe could be me, minus the wanting to sin part. The only thing stopping my progression is similar to what Jeremy stated about the cannibalism, to me that isn't God. And God wouldn't tell Joseph to marry a young girl and take her away from her friends etc. And go behind Emma's back, that's adultery, and breaking the big 10. My gut tells me this is so. Some of you go by getting that strong impression or jolt that the church is true. That same jolt is my expereience that polygamy was wrong. Trust is another issue for me. The church needs to earn my trust back. It lied by not coming forth openly with it's history. I could probably dig up a talk or scripture that backs me up, that says a lie could be when you mislead. My testimony of the church is that of its members and what it can do now. I really don't believe God started this church, but he may have adopted us now. It might be one his favorites. Sorry, I wish my testimony was stronger than that . I still need to work on it and maybe I'll get that lighting bolt that it is. Hopefully not get kicked to the curb for not fully believing. I can verify that I've never really been offended, the only thing that could and does, is the dishonesty. You might find that alot of people that leave because they were offended didn't start out that way but became that way after their crisis.

[Stroopwafel]

Is it scandalous to suggest that a tendency towards such a hypochondriac-like reaction points to not actually wanting it to be true?

It might not be scandalous, but in my opinion may be missing certain nuances. Yet, I think you might be on to something with regards to how people ultimately make their decisions.

Let say we ask doubting members this question: "what do you really want?" Now, if I am not mistaken, you suggest that in the end, the honest final answer will either be: "I want the Church to be true" or "I do not want the Church to be true". I do think this is over-simplistic, but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit perfectly certain people. I do believe that if someone wills to hold a particular view on something, then there is not much stopping him/her to reach and/or keep that particular view. Whatever the reasons invoked to justify either position would not be relevant in this case, because the ends would justify the means. These persons would seek to reach a conclusion already established in their minds. To me, it says more about the honesty of the intellectual process than anything else. But then, let's not forget that we are indeed human beings endowed both with reason and emotional impulses, two aspects of our nature which are sometimes (often?) conflicting, and thus may make us oblivious to our own blindspots. I said you may be missing certain nuances because not everyone will fit into that framework, though your personnal experience may have often pointed towards that conclusion. I don't know if you agree, but I hope that helps your reflections.

So, summing up, it is not far-fetched to hold that some people, deep down inside, do not want to believe the Church is true, and will then act accordingly, hence the hypochondriac-like reaction. The nuance here is: some people. That means not everyone who can't "overcome" doubt and issues will fit into that framework. There are honest seekers out there who really hunger for truth and yet come to the conclusion that "the Church is not true" (whatever saying something is "true" may mean).

That being said, I would like to ask a few questions to clarify the discussion:

- What does it mean to overcome doubt and issues?

- What does it entails?

- And why is that something we should even wish for?

[DBMormon]

I'm your case study right here. The person you describe could be me, minus the wanting to sin part. The only thing stopping my progression is similar to what Jeremy stated about the cannibalism, to me that isn't God. And God wouldn't tell Joseph to marry a young girl and take her away from her friends etc. And go behind Emma's back, that's adultery, and breaking the big 10. My gut tells me this is so. Some of you go by getting that strong impression or jolt that the church is true. That same jolt is my expereience that polygamy was wrong. Trust is another issue for me. The church needs to earn my trust back. It lied by not coming forth openly with it's history. I could probably dig up a talk or scripture that backs me up, that says a lie could be when you mislead. My testimony of the church is that of its members and what it can do now. I really don't believe God started this church, but he may have adopted us now. It might be one his favorites. Sorry, I wish my testimony was stronger than that . I still need to work on it and maybe I'll get that lighting bolt that it is. Hopefully not get kicked to the curb for not fully believing. I can verify that I've never really been offended, the only thing that could and does, is the dishonesty. You might find that alot of people that leave because they were offended didn't start out that way but became that way after their crisis.

What if it could be shown that 14 yr old Sis. Kimball was only sealed to him to unite their families and nothing beyond the sealing occurred between the two of them?

Also do you think dishonesty is always wrong?

[DBMormon]

That being said, I would like to ask a few questions to clarify the discussion:

- What does it mean to overcome doubt and issues?

- What does it entails?

- And why is that something we should even wish for?

I only want to answer the last at the moment. Faith crisis hurts, it is a anguishing place to be. It is stressful and full of emotional conflict. For that reason alone it is good that one not spend too long here and overcome this "heightened" doubt, though some doubt will always exist for most. Therefore I wish others to pass through it more easily.

[Calm]

And God wouldn't tell Joseph to marry a young girl and take her away from her friends etc.

What are you referring to when you say Joseph took "her away from her friends"? Who is she and how did Joseph do this?

[Tacenda]

What are you referring to when you say Joseph took "her away from her friends"? Who is she and how did Joseph do this?

Read Helen Mar Kimball's diary/journal where she said she wished she could go to a dance, or something of that nature, with her friends. I'll dig it up. Yes, it's wrong to lie unless your saving someone from harm. I guess the church thinks it's history is harmful?

ETA: Oops, the response about when it's okay to lie is for DBMormon, sorry. Also, I PM'd you with the Helen Mar Kimball's journal reference, so as to not derail.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Tacenda

[rpn]

One of the reasons that family and parents and foundation is so very important is that they help us learn to trust. IME, the inability to trust causes much of the disaffection. Once you have experiences that show you that what someone tells you is regularly untrue, it is hard to overcome that response in all areas of your life.

Unfortunately there are many homes in our world in which, for many reasons even that aren't wickedness, children are have too many experiences that are inconsistent with the loving and supportive family that helps shape an optimistic world view that makes belief substantially easier.

Edited February 8, 2013 by rpn

[bluebell]

That being said, I would like to ask a few questions to clarify the discussion:

- What does it mean to overcome doubt and issues?

- What does it entails?

- And why is that something we should even wish for?

In regards to your last question, Jesus commands us not to doubt, but to be believing, so that seems like a valid reason for a person to want to overcome doubt and the issues that come with it.

[Walden]

Rongo's sentiment is nothing new, and in fact is just a thinly cloaked rendition of the age old, TBM sentiment (for example) that if something as basic as Moroni's Promise did not work to make you a believer in the truhtfulness of the Book fo Mormon, then you either must be sinning, or going about your prayer, fasting, questoning/seeking in the wrong manner.

In their view, they cannot fathom that someone could come to a different answer regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, or the LDS faith, than the one that they did, and thus, it must be the fault of the seeker.

And of course, I could recount my own struggles with my disbelief, but like many good TBMs, Rongo already has a pre-determined mindset that the disbelievers struggle is just rubbish, which he describes as "passionate protests that they wanted nothing more than for the gospel/Church to be “true,” but that it simply couldn’t be made to work. The problem with this is that I have known people for whom I was a confidant, people who struggled about equally, some of whom were able to work out their issues, and some of whom could not. The determining factor seems to be whether or not they ultimately want it to work out or not (notwithstanding their protests to the contrary)."

[Calm]

Read Helen Mar Kimballs diary/journal where she said she wished she could go to a dance, or something of that nature, with her friends.

Yes, please do find the whole citation from her. You will find that Joseph tells her dad not to let her go to a set of dances being put on by Emma due to the presence of "blacklegs" being there. Her brother was supposed to be restricted as well so it could hardly be because of Helen's sealing that Joseph warned her family of the impending problem. Her brother does end up conning her dad according to Helen into letting him go because he is supposedly committed to paying for the tickets already and Helen is, IIRC, quite ticked off by this. She expresses her gratitude though afterwards because those girls who did go ended up with tarnished reputations. I believe this occurred at Christmas time and Helen had been going to dances all the time since she had been sealed to Joseph the previous 6 months or so...again IIRC as it's been years since I studied up on this.

I am not saying it wasn't wrong for Joseph and her father to place Helen in the situation of being sealed to Joseph, it is just this case of the dance itself is quite different than how it is usually presented as if Joseph was jealous of Helen or something when it was simply him protecting her and her family in a specific case.

Have some time so here is the cite: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter was on Christmas Eve. Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties to be held at the mansion once a week. My brother William put his name down before asking father's permission, and when questioned about it made him believe that he must pay the money for himself and the lady, whether he went or not, and that he could not honorably withdraw from it. He carried the day, but I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow him to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull and like a wild bird, I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.

A moral may be drawn from this truthful story. "Children obey thy parents," etc. And also, "Have regard to thy name, for that shall continue with you above a thousand great treasures of gold." "A good life hath but few days; but a good name endureth forever."

She also talks about participating in music and theatre entertainment during this time period so she doesn't seem to have been restricted in any way save for these dances that had "ones of questionable character" attending them. Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah