Hey America, Grow Up! (Bednar Quoted In New York Times)

[Analytics]

In case you missed it, the centrist New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an editorial yesterday called "Hey, America, Grow Up!" The main thesis is that Americans (on both sides of the aisle) have become fragile narcissists. I'm not sure if there is a paywall (I'm a proud Times subscriber) Here are some quotes that give the idea.

Quote

If I were asked to trace the decline of the American psyche, I suppose I would go to a set of cultural changes that started directly after World War II and built over the next few decades, when writers as diverse as Philip Rieff, Christopher Lasch and Tom Wolfe noticed the emergence of what came to be known as the therapeutic culture.

In earlier cultural epochs, many people derived their self-worth from their relationship with God, or from their ability to be a winner in the commercial marketplace. But in a therapeutic culture people’s sense of self-worth depends on their subjective feelings about themselves. Do I feel good about myself? Do I like me?

...

Before long, safetyism was on the march. This is the assumption that people are so fragile they need to be protected from social harm. Slate magazine proclaimed 2013 “the year of the trigger warning.” Concepts like “microaggression” and “safe spaces” couldn’t have lagged far behind....

The counterreaction to the coddlers came from what you might call the anti-fragile coalition. This was led by Jordan Peterson and thousands of his lesser imitators — from Senator Josh Hawley to an army of masculinist influencers. This coalition seemed at first like a bunch of rugged individualists telling the snowflakes of the world to toughen up and stop whining. But you didn’t have to hang around this world long to see that they merely represented the flip side of the fragile victim mind-set.

The right-wing victimologists feel beset by hidden forces trying to oppress them, by a culture that conspires to unman them, dark shadowy conspiracies all around. Donald Trump sets the world record for whining about how unfair the world is to him.

The antithesis of all of this is what David Brooks calls "a non therapeutic ethos", or simply "maturity." He says:

Quote

Maturity in this alternative ethos is achieved by getting out of your own selfish point of view and developing the ability to absorb, understand and inhabit the views of others.

Mature people are calm amid the storm because their perception lets them see the present challenges from a long-term vantage. They know that feeling crappy about yourself sometimes is a normal part of life. They are considerate to and gracious toward others because they can see situations from multiple perspectives. They can withstand the setbacks because they have pointed their life toward some concrete moral goal.

And what authority does David Brooks turn to in describing maturity? He goes on to say....

Quote

David A. Bednar, a leader in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, once observed that “one of the greatest indicators of our own spiritual maturity is revealed in how we respond to the weaknesses, the inexperience and the potentially offensive actions of others.”

In other words, a sign of maturity is the ability to respond with understanding when other people have done something stupid and given you the opportunity to feel superior.

Entirely good press on the views of a Mormon apostle. In the New York Times. 

Just thought you might be interested.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Analytics

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In case you missed it, the centrist New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an editorial yesterday called "Hey, America, Grow Up!" The main thesis is that Americans (on both sides of the aisle) have become fragile narcissists. I'm not sure if there is a paywall (I'm a proud Times subscriber) Here are some quotes that give the idea.

The antithesis of all of this is what David Brooks calls "a non therapeutic ethos", or simply "maturity." He says:

And what authority does David Brooks turn to in describing maturity? He goes on to say....

Entirely good press on the views of a Mormon apostle. In the New York Times. 

Just thought you might be interested.

That's really cool.  We so rarely get to bask in good press.

[CV75]

Does anyone have references on the topic of how people can attain spiritual maturity, particularly from Elder Bednar? On vacation, hard to look these up. Thank you,

[CV75]

Here's the talk (2006) and he does provide some guidance on how to do that: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng

[Emily]

That's an excellent article. And "grow up" seems to be an increasing war cry in the centrist movement.  I'm so tired of the both the right and left tantrums, I feel like saying it myself an awful lot lately. 

Lots of quotables in there, but I liked this one in particular. 

"In a nontherapeutic ethos, people don’t build secure identities on their own. They weave their stable selves out of their commitments to and attachments with others. Their identities are forged as they fulfill their responsibilities as friends, family members, employees, neighbors and citizens. The process is social and other-absorbed; not therapeutic."

Funny how Christ was saying the same thing over 2000 years ago. If you want to find yourself, lose yourself in service to others.

We are social animals, both in body and apparently in spirit as well, if you believe Joseph Smith when he says the same sociality that exists here also exists in the celestial kingdom.  So might as well get used to the idea that being a useful cog in a machine is actually the only option for a happy life. It's probably a good idea to pick the right machine though. You don't want to stick yourself into one that is going places you don't want to be.

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just thought you might be interested.

I think I like the general idea here, but I am not in-line with this statement and specific critique of therapeutic culture: 

Quote

In earlier cultural epochs, many people derived their self-worth from their relationship with God, or from their ability to be a winner in the commercial marketplace. But in a therapeutic culture people’s sense of self-worth depends on their subjective feelings about themselves. Do I feel good about myself? Do I like me?

He seems to be juxtaposing these two positions, with the presumption that the former is superior to the latter.  Here is my problem with that.  I really, really hate the idea of deriving self-worth from how well we compete with others in the marketplace, or anywhere else.  In that worldview, the only way we can have self-worth is by depriving others of self-worth through beating them in competition.  It is the whole keeping up with the Joneses mentality that I hate!  That is a really unhealthy way to derive self-worth.   The potential problem with deriving self-worth from God, is that some people have extremely unhealthy views and relationships with their version of God.  And some don't believe in a God all together.  Should they be doomed to live in a life of zero self-worth?  I think not. 

He seems to suggest that deriving self-worth from our subjective feelings is somehow a bad idea.  Where else can self-worth come from except from how we perceive ourselves???  It is called "self"-worth for a reason.  It is how we esteem ourselves. That is a subjective measure.  I hope our self-worth is strong enough to endure failure in the market-place or being mediocre, rather than being derived from those things.  I hope it can endure being different from others and is not entirely dependent upon others acceptance for our self-worth.   How we feel about ourselves is critically important.  I would hesitate to call nurturing that self-relationship immature.      Of course, outside influences can affect how we feel about ourselves and healthy social bonds are really important in developing self-worth, I think it is reckless to suggest that we should throw self-care, or caring how we feel about ourselves, to the wayside. 

The second greatest commandment requires that we love ourselves, after all: "Love your neighbor as yourself."  The love we have for ourselves is the foundational bedrock from which we can love others.  It is the measure of how we should love others.  If one does not even like themselves let alone love themselves, then what kind of pitiful love will we offer others when we love them "as" we love ourselves? 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by pogi

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

The second greatest commandment requires that we love ourselves, after all: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 

I think it recognizes that we naturally love ourselves and put our own needs first, and then challenges us to place others in the forefront.

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think it recognizes that we naturally love ourselves and put our own needs first, and then challenges us to place others in the forefront.

With all due respect, I believe that to always put the needs of others first is spiritual and emotional suicide.  It is an outdated teaching in our church that needs to go away...and it slowly is.  That is not what the Lord expects of us.  If we neglect our own spiritual, emotional, physical needs in the care of others, we will eventually not have the capacity to effectively care for others.   It is the same concept of putting your own oxygen mask on first in an airplane emergency, then help those around you. 

The word "love" in Matthew 22:39 is from the Greek "agape".  That is not the selfish love you are talking about, rather it is rather based in the pure love of Christ - charity.     That is the type of love that we are commanded and MUST have for ourselves and is the base/foundation of our love for others.    I have seen too many emotionally and spiritually destitute Latter-day saint women/mothers who were deceived in believing that they need to give everything to everyone else before caring for themselves.   They are depressed.  They are desolate in so many ways.  They end up becoming emotionally and spiritually draining to be around.   Then I have seen those who put their own spiritual, emotional, and physical needs equal with those around them.  These are the ones that have enough to feed others emotionally, spiritually, and physically.  They are full of light.  They are not depressed.  They are happy, confident, and giving and are a source of light and a joy to be around.  They are healthy. 

I agree with these Bible commentaries:

Quote

 

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:

The love of God is the first and great commandment, and the sum of all the commands of the first table. Our love of God must be sincere, not in word and tongue only. All our love is too little to bestow upon him, therefore all the powers of the soul must be engaged for him, and carried out toward him. To love our neighbour as ourselves, is the second great commandment. There is a self-love which is corrupt, and the root of the greatest sins, and it must be put off and mortified; but there is a self-love which is the rule of the greatest duty: we must have a due concern for the welfare of our own souls and bodies. And we must love our neighbour as truly and sincerely as we love ourselves

 

Quote

 

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

This law supposes, that men should love themselves, or otherwise they cannot love their neighbour; not in a sinful way, by indulging themselves in carnal lusts and pleasures; some are lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; but in a natural way, so as to be careful of their bodies, families, and estates; and in a spiritual way, so as to be concerned for their souls, and the everlasting happiness of them: and in like manner should men love their neighbours, in things temporal do them all the good they can, and do no injury to their persons or property; and in things spiritual pray for them, instruct them, and advise as they would their own souls, or their nearest and dearest relations.

 

Quote

 

Benfel's Gnomen:

Self-love needs not to be enjoined separately. He who loves God will love himself in a proper degree without selfishness. God loves me as He does thee; and thee as He does me: therefore I ought to love thee, my neighbour, as myself; and thou me as thyself: for our love to each other ought to correspond to God’s love towards us both.

 

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/22-39.htm

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

With all due respect, I believe that to always put the needs of others first is spiritual and emotional suicide.  It is an outdated teaching in our church that needs to go away...and it slowly is.  That is not what the Lord expects of us.  If we neglect our own spiritual, emotional, physical needs in the care of others, we will eventually not have the capacity to effectively care for others.   It is the same concept of putting your own oxygen mask on first in an airplane emergency, then help those around you. 

The word "love" in Matthew 22:39 is from the Greek "agape".  That is not the selfish love you are talking about, rather it is rather based in the pure love of Christ - charity.     That is the type of love that we are commanded and MUST have for ourselves and is the base/foundation of our love for others.    I have seen too many emotionally and spiritually destitute Latter-day saint women/mothers who were deceived in believing that they need to give everything to everyone else before caring for themselves.   They are depressed.  They are desolate in so many ways.  They end up becoming emotionally and spiritually draining to be around.   Then I have seen those who put their own spiritual, emotional, and physical needs equal with those around them.  These are the ones that have enough to feed others emotionally, spiritually, and physically.  They are full of light.  They are not depressed.  They are happy, confident, and giving and are a source of light and a joy to be around.  They are healthy. 

I agree with these Bible commentaries:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/22-39.htm

 

Can you clarify?  Are you saying that loving others as we love ourselves is an outdated teaching?

Since that’s all that kfisher said in his post, I’m not sure how to interpret your response to him accurately. 

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you clarify?  Are you saying that loving others as we love ourselves is an outdated teaching?

Since that’s all that kfisher said in his post, I’m not sure how to interpret your response to him accurately. 

No, I'm suggesting that a certain interpretation of that passage is outdated.

I guess we can revisit what kfisher said and he can clarify as needed:

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I think it recognizes that we naturally love ourselves and put our own needs first, and then challenges us to place others in the forefront.

Unless I am misunderstanding him, it appears that he was challenging my interpretation of loving others as we love ourselves and was instead suggesting that the passage is actually challenging the idea of placing our own needs first and is instead encouraging us to place the needs of others in the "forefront" and before our own needs.   That is an interpretation that has long been taught in the church (I am seeing signs of change though) that I simply cannot accept.  

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

No, I'm suggesting that a certain interpretation of that passage is outdated.

I guess we can revisit what kfisher said and he can clarify as needed:

Unless I am misunderstanding him, it appears that he was challenging my interpretation of loving others as we love ourselves and was instead suggesting that the passage is actually challenging the idea of placing our own needs first and is instead encouraging us to place the needs of others in the "forefront" and before our own needs.   That is an interpretation that has long been taught in the church (I am seeing signs of change though) that I simply cannot accept.  

I'm not suggesting that we don't care for ourselves.  There are limits to what we as mortals can do and even Christ, at times, took time from his ministry to be by himself.  There is a balance to be found between service to others and taking care of ones self.  I do believe that as we learn to act more and more in a Christ like manner that our ability and desire to serve others will be increased.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not suggesting that we don't care for ourselves.  There are limits to what we as mortals can do and even Christ, at times, took time from his ministry to be by himself.  There is a balance to be found between service to others and taking care of ones self.  I do believe that as we learn to act more and more in a Christ like manner that our ability and desire to serve others will be increased.

I don't disagree with any of this.  However, I firmly believe that our ability and desire to serve others is only increased where our own needs are being met.   

It is the teaching that we should put the needs of others in the forefront and before our own- full stop - that I have a problem with.  I also disagree with the teachings that putting others first (full stop) will bring happiness.  There is no balance in that idea.  I know too many victims of that teaching.  It is really sad.  The promised fruits never appeared.  

Edited August 11, 2023 by pogi

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

The promised fruits never appeared.  

Never?  Never is a long, long time.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Never?  Never is a long, long time.

Again, this is based on the teaching that we should place the needs of others before our own and that putting others before ourselves is the greatest source of happiness.   If one was to follow that to a T, without deviation or balance, the resulting consequence is devastating.  I have witnessed it in my own personal life.  I have tasted of the fruits of both approaches to this passage.  There is no comparison in which fruit tastes better and brings greater joy.  Counterintuitively, when I started caring for my own needs before others (creating healthy boundaries), I was able to give more of myself to others and grow stronger bonds - fulfilling their needs more.    I have several other people in my life who exemplify this teaching well and who are all suffering terribly.  I attribute it to this faulty philosophy and hurtful teaching.  Of course, everyone experiences happiness from time to time, but I don't think that chronic severe depression accompanied with anxiety and almost non-existent self-esteem are what our leaders had in mind as fruits, but those are guaranteed fruits of that philosophy when taken as an absolute rule. 

Is the greatest path to happiness is putting the needs of others before our own?  Where is the balance in that teaching? With what strength and emotional energy does one meet their own needs after attending to everyone else first? Ain't nobody got time for that!  It simply doesn't work for a healthy thriving spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being.   

Putting the needs of other in the forefront and before one's own needs, when taken as an absolute rule, creates imbalance and leaves ZERO time for oneself if one is 100% diligent in that teaching.  Loving others as one loves themselves (their agape love and care for themselves being the foundation for strength, energy, and agape love for others) creates a greater balance and sustainable rounded sense of well-being, and yes...happiness.  Serving other's becomes more enjoyable when our needs are met. Attending to others needs is a blessing when balanced with attending to our needs.  Compassion is easier when we have emotional reserves because our needs are getting met. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by pogi