It’s a time honored Mormon tradition (well, it’s been a thing the last 20 years or so) to share a bad analogy from the pulpit that somehow, sometimes inexplicably, gave the speaker some sort of personal insight or wisdom they simply have to pass on. You know what I’m talking about, right? You want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you struggle to understand what they’re talking about and when you do, you kind of wonder why they thought it was such special insight? Well, this post is in that tradition.
The other day I clicked on one of those feel-good stories that sometimes pop up in Facebook.
The story was about a sad woman whose husband had died, and when she and her 9-year-old son emerged grieving from the funeral, they’d found she’d gotten a parking ticket. Furious that someone could be so insensitive as to ticket people attending a funeral, she decided to argue it in court. She made an appearance, made her plea, and scheduled a date for the hearing. Coming out of the courthouse, she arrived at her car just in time to find a cop ticketing her yet again. This time, she got to express her outrage a little, but to no avail. She went home, a second ticket in hand. She returned on her hearing date and argued against her first ticket passionately, but eventually just threw up her hands and paid the fine. Without her husband’s income and with the costs of the funeral, she didn’t have much money and didn’t know what she was going to do. After paying the fine, she only had $15 left. She was very frustrated, and to make matters worse, when she came out of the courthouse, what did she discover? Yep, you guessed it! She’d been ticketed yet again. Helpless and in despair, she decided to console herself and her son by taking him to Denny’s for breakfast with her last $15.
As they were waiting for their order, they noticed a police officer eating breakfast a couple tables over — the same one who’d written the tickets. How would they react? The boy, who’d always wanted to be a policeman when he grew up but was also very shy, consulted his mom who then asked the wait staff for a pencil and paper. The boy wrote a note, handed it to the cop, and hastily returned to his seat. He’d written “I want to be you when I grow up — thank you for your service” The wait staff had given him the policeman’s tab, and he’d spent his birthday money buying the cop breakfast. The cop was so touched that he not only came over to have his picture taken with the boy, but he even discretely called his supervisor and arranged to have the remaining two parking tickets “taken care of”.
Isn’t that the most wonderful story? The woman transcended her anger and allowed for a greater good, and everybody was blessed for it!
Oh, how I hated that story. It was wrong on so many levels. To start with, what the heck is wrong with that woman that she cannot park her car legally? I mean, I can kinda sorta see it at the funeral, and then maybe the signs at the courthouse were confusing, but the third time? Come on, woman. And why in the world if you only have $15 left for the week would you blow it all in one sitting at Denny’s? Furthermore, I understand that police officers have and need discretion in enforcing laws, but retroactively pulling issued and recorded tickets? That’s got to be illegal. The whole story struck me as the most white trash thing I’d seen on Facebook since the video of that woman jumping out of her wheelchair and throwing punches at another woman in the shampoo aisle of Walmart [1].
But I’m kind of a negative guy by nature. I know that, and I’ve been training myself my whole life to question my initial negative reactions. First, I reminded myself the story was pretty incomplete so my judgments might not be justly based. Second, the story was told by a third party of unknown relationship to the protagonists, so even if the idea was to tell a heartwarming story, it’s hard to know what was omitted or added to the story. For example, maybe that cop really was out to get her and she wasn’t just being an idiot [2]. Third, I’d read the story through that annoying format where you have to keep clicking NEXT to get the next two lines of text, along with a picture and a kazillion ads (it’s amazing how drawn out and irritating the process becomes just from the momentary lag of loading all those ads), and that must have affected my mood. Fourth, I reminded myself that you can still have inspiring messages and examples even from imperfect people. The very fact that they are so imperfect can actually magnify the significance of their good choices. I mean, as dysfunctional as I found that woman, the fact that she didn’t poison her son against the cop she’d felt had wronged her is really rather big of her, right?
Well, maybe… but I still wasn’t all that impressed with her. And that cop wasn’t worth admiring, because either he shouldn’t have written the tickets in the first place, or he was breaking the law getting them revoked, and either way wasn’t somebody to look up to.
In that state of mind, I decided to move on to other things and found myself on a Mormon-themed blog, reading yet another post complaining over aspect of the church I love or picking at the words of one of the leaders I respect. And I had a bit of an “ah-ha” moment. Normally in that state of mind, I just become irritable and quit reading. It isn’t that I necessarily disagree with the authors’ points entirely, it’s just that I feel frustrated they can’t see the forest for the trees. They’re so focussed on what seems imperfect to them around the edges that they can’t be inspired by the core [3].
But that wasn’t my reaction. It was actually kind of the opposite: I had a little more sympathy than usual. Hadn’t I just been presented with a story that was supposed to be uplifting, but because there was so much in it that rankled, I just couldn’t get much good out of it? Suddenly, I had a little more sympathy for the raging [4] liberal feminist in my ward who pointedly criticizes the church on Facebook but still allows her husband to take their kids to church. She obviously finds some good in the church, just as I managed to find some in that story, but maybe she feels like there’s too much ridiculously wrong to make it worthwhile trying to appreciate what’s right.
It’s a bad analogy, and when I say it gave me an “ah-ha” moment, I don’t want to overstate it. It’s not like it taught me anything I didn’t already know — I’ve heard it from disaffected/non-attending Mormons before. It’s just that for whatever reason, I…related…more than usual. It gave me a little bit more empathy and made me a little less likely to simply dismiss her as having her political or social agenda as her real religion.
The bad analogy goes both ways, though. I can read two articles or blog posts criticizing the church for the exact same fault, and after reading one I’ll feel “yeah, that just isn’t right — we should be able to do something about that”, and after reading the other, I feel like saying “if that’s all you can see, then maybe you should find another church.” [5] The difference is usually that one is contemplative, gentle, balanced, and sometimes even loving in its criticism, whereas the other is full of frustration, cynicism, accusation, and even contempt. The frustration, cynicism, accusation, and contempt matter not one iota to whether the criticism is valid, but when those are directed at me (which is how it feels since a big part of my identity is my membership in the church), it rankles enough that I have no desire to work to find the enlightenment in it.
So there you have it, the bad analogy with the somewhat amorphous moral, in true Mormon form. But wait! There’s more! You see, it turns out that that story I read on Facebook was not true. (I know! I’m even more shocked than you are!) In trying to find it again, I found another story using the same photographs of the smiling boy and smiling cop, and of the receipt for the cop’s meal with the boy’s note written on it. In fact, I found it again. The new versions are both virtually identical with the first, except there’s no father’s death, no funeral, no parking tickets, no broken and discouraged mother, and no corrupt cop. Just a shy kid with a supportive mother who wants to be a police officer someday and appreciates them so much, he uses his birthday money to pay for one’s meal at a restaurant. So really, it’s not identical at all. It’s still a sweet story, but all the parts I didn’t like are gone. I like this version (the real one) much better. Of course, the remarkable story of a mother giving up all her negative emotions to allow her son to do good to the very man who hurt her is missing as well. Gone is the drama, gone is the stark contrast between love and contempt, gone is the pathos that opens our eyes to a greater goodness. All that’s left is just a sweet story. That’s it. Nothing more. Maybe it’ll make you want to do something nice for someone.
To me, this extends the analogy in a completely different direction — to cover those who’ve decided a great deal about the church is simply not true as claimed. It’s not just that there’s things about the church that rankle, there’s sufficient evidence in their minds that they’ve decided the majority of “truth claims” are false. They still see good in the church (service, good values, community ethos, etc.), but there’s no need to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the exclusivity of the priesthood restoration, or anything miraculous or truly revelatory in the church’s foundation. It’s a great perspective in a way, because then the church isn’t a whole lot different from a giant PTA or some other civic service organization, and it’s guiding policies can simply be re-arranged by popular opinion. There’s no need to abandon it — just disavow the roots and change the antiquated practices. But from my perspective, viewing the church that way reduces it to the equivalent of a feel-good story —maybe it’ll make you want to be a better person. The truly great has been reduced to the simply good, and the loss is profound. The tie to Divinity is broken, and its real power to place the souls of mankind in the perspectives of the eternities is gone.
So there you have it — my not-particularly-remarkable insight as explained by a bad analogy [6]. What say ye?
Photos from Lakeland PD Facebook page
[1] Nope. No link. We have standards, people.
[2] I got towed from a nearly empty “guest lot” at an apartment complex once while visiting a new member of the ward. There was a sign that said I needed to display a guest pass from the person I was visiting, so you might say I got what I deserved. But the light over the sign had burned out and I didn’t see it in the dark. $370 ransom to get my car back. You can bet I felt unjustly done by.
[3] At least, from my point of view. And I realize that some feel the core is corrupt, but l don’t relate.
[4] To be fair, her passion’s also got her involved in a host of good causes in the community, and there aren’t many kids who’ve been exposed to more service opportunities than hers.
[5] Feel it. Never say it. Good Mormons would never say such a thing…
[6] And just to make it explicit, I consider the analogy bad at least partly because, unlike the Facebook story, I don’t believe the church’s truth claims are demonstrably false. Also unlike the the Facebook story, I do not believe the motivation behind the church’s creation was to make money, such as by driving ad revenue.
Wheat & Tares 
At the end of the day I ask whether a bad analogy does any harm in its wake. Heard a visiting authority talk where he compared a gospel principle to the life of Anakin Skywalker. (Whom he misidentified as “Adrian Skywalker” at first.”) It was a terribly executed analogy, but hey, don’t think it hardened any hearts or reinforced unChristian behavior.
On the other hand I’ll be the first one in any class to rail against garbage like the “Eye of the Needle Gate” legend, or to point out when a well-meaning anecdote in the manual has been used to justify negative behavior.
Retroactively pulling issued and recorded tickets is not illegal. I was ticketed for a non-functioning headlight even when I explained that I had been with my son recovering from surgery. Three days later, I took the hospital receipt to the police station and the officer voided the ticket.
I wasn’t aware that the bad analogy had a racial designation; so why is the insulting term “white trash” used?
I was really wondering where that meandering, overly complex story was going. But then it all made sense when you said it was one of those next next next things. Hah. I actually laughed out loud on that. Reminds me of our last home evening when wife wanted to share an inspiring youtube video with the kids. They questioned her on the veracity until one of them accused her. MOM GOT CLICKBAITED.
My mother would say, “In matters of taste there can be no dispute.” I think this is a re-skinning of the age-old debate about whether art (I’m including story-telling here) is purely subjective or whether there are objective criteria, AND whether those objective criteria really factor into how much we enjoy a certain story. We all bring so much personal context to our perception of life/art, that it’s worth remembering that, even if you can point out objectively bad things about a story, there’s going to be just as many people who can’t notice those and feel uplifted by the story. Then there are stories of readers “finding” themes in stories where the author explicitly states that those themes were not intentional. Then there’s the connection between our personal contexts and levels of education and the potential for judging people who “don’t get” some art or find certain jokes hilarious…
…It’s complicated, my personal exercise when I encounter something “bad” is to try and understand what others found “good” in it. Which is of course just, like, my opinion man.
“The truly great has been reduced to the simply good, and the loss is profound. The tie to Divinity is broken, and its real power to place the souls of mankind in the perspectives of the eternities is gone.” This is the part I don’t know how to get over. I want the tie to Divinity but I can no longer find it and to make it worse there are lots of places to find the “simply good” not just the LDS. When I figure it out I’ll let you know.
The church is full of bad analogies. Many of them having to do with the law of chastity.
Wow, I had a real WTF moment when you said that story wasn’t…even…true! That was quite a surprise twist. I grant you that it really seemed like a terrible story (she sure couldn’t park!) as you first heard it, aside from the way her son acted. It was just so weird and contradictory.
I think the worst story I’ve heard in general conference, which was a story and not an analogy, what from Christofferson’s talk about his mother being in extreme pain, crying out from it, whenever she had to iron his dad’s and all 5 boys’ shirts, so his dad made the “great sacrifice” of skipping lunches for a year to pay for an ironing machine. The majority of women I know who heard that talk were completely flummoxed at the ridiculousness of that solution. She has to continue in pain for a year so he can surprise her with his generosity of buying her the machine rather than any one of these men/boys even considering the possibility that they can iron their own clothes since she’s in excruciating pain when she does it. That is a terrible, terrible story. The talk is titled “Let Us Be Men,” a title which I can say sarcastically because only a man (and probably not even most of them) would fail to see that it’s a terrible solution.
Another thoughtful post, Martin.
While reading your narrative today, I felt compelled to ask myself “Why am I sometimes so angry at the organizational LDS Church; and I suppose maybe even mad at God?”. The partial answer which crept into my conciousness this afternoon was (in the most unlikely way) tied to experiences and training which I’ve received in the professional business world over the past 30 years. I’ll never forget a valued mentor once saying to me “one of the worst things you can possibly do in your business life is to create a high level of expectation – within the mind of a customer or business partner – and then NOT PERFORM to that level of expectation”. Or, as I’ve heard others say “under commit and over perform” (I like this particular one much less!).
In the spirit of fairness to “the Church” and the BOM, I was raised with a high level of expectation about what this belief system and series of “to do’s” would do for me and my life. While young, this was kinda/sorta okay – but as I began to experience the full effect of an adult life, with a family and major challenges and fears along the way, I’ve learned that miracles don’t come as often or as easy (or most times not at all) as compared to what I was taught 40 years ago. Prayers can, and do, go unanswered. The riches of heaven are not (in reality) forthcoming on this earth; despite how devout one might be. And, God may not be involved in “every little thing” to do with our lives. So, I’ve come to the conclusion that my expectations for “the Church”, it’s scriptures, it’s leaders and the doctrine’s promised blessings have always been too high; and on the “other side of the fence”….all of these things have unfortunately under-performed for me; and have generally provided more burden than lift.
But, ironically….I still believe in the divinity of creation, of human beings and our place in the universe.
Warmest regards to all of you – my friends.
That’s a horribly sexist comment, hawkhrl, but one that only a female would think is funny… And think that sharing it is funny.
Angela C, I remember when that story was told. I felt as if the body of the church gave a collective squirm.
I do remember hearing more context to the story so that it made more sense, but I don’t remember what it was. I must not have found it adequately redemptive, or I’d probably remember.
Second worst story/analogy in my recollection, after that mentioned by Angela and the man who failed to recognize his wife’s pain as told by Elder Christofferson, was Elder Ballard’s “Stay in the Boat” analogy which he used in a talk in October 2014. While he mentioned that the boat he was talking about was in a river he also mentioned that Brigham Young used the same boating analogy except his boat was at sea.
My issue with this analogy can be summed up in this question. Who in their right mind thinks that jumping out of a boat at sea or in dangerous rapids is a good idea? I’m sure that anyone who is leaving the church or has left doesn’t think that they are an idiot for doing so. Yet that is exactly what this analogy says.
My next question is who thinks that insulting the people who you are trying to rescue is a good idea? I can only think that Elder Ballard’s intended audience wasn’t those considering leaving but rather it was those stalwart members who sat in self-congratulatory glory thinking how smart they were for not jumping out of the boat.
These two examples illustrate the key problems I have with most analogies used in the Church. The first problem is that they are often used to illustrate a concept that doesn’t need explaining. I’m not sure how Elder Ballard’s analogy explains why people leave the Church. As well I can’t count the number of times I have heard people tell a story but fail to remember the moral imperative behind the story. I have even done this myself.
The second problem I have with using a story/analogy is what happens subsequently when we discuss the concept in Sunday school or PH/RS and we spend most of our time trying to understand the story/analogy and not the concept behind the story/analogy.
One final note, while I’m the world’s best critic I would be somewhat amiss if I didn’t offer an alternative boating analogy. To me the Church is like a convoy of ships at sea during war. Safety is found in staying close to each other but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t opportunities for some to speed ahead of the pack. It also means that the convoy can only go as fast as the slowest ship. Something for us who are prone to fell frustrated by the slow rate of change in the Church to keep in mind.
Martin, I loved this post. I hope you write more. I was particularly drawn to your comments about how the political left are so fixed on their political views that it completely dominates their thinking. I have seen this play out a thousand times. I too am put off by the leftist name calling.of the General leadership of the church. “reprehensible, homophobic, sexist, anti-woman.” I have wondered if I am being to sensitive but as I think about it, I can’t imagine myself writing in such ways about the Pope on a primarily catholic web site. I may disagree with the Pope and his policies but I think I would have the good sense and good manners to be sensitive to those who believe strongly in the Catholic church. It has now come to the point that when certain authors names come up I just won’t read the post. I am sure that some would say I can’t take the heat but I see it as trying to communicate with your feminist neighbor. I don’t think she wants a dialogue, I think she just wants to shout down the opposition.
Shannon: I don’t think it’s fair to say that criticisms such as those you list are “leftist,” as if leaning left politically is the cause of such slurs. Most Mormons I know who vote Democrat don’t vilify church leaders with terms like “reprehensible.” Yes, some of our policies and some quotes are homophobic or sexist, and it’s hard not to see many things in the church as coming from a pro-male if not anti-woman perspective. But again, why call someone’s anger “leftist”? The church should be politically neutral, not affiliated with any political party. The fact that it’s not diverse enough shows its human weakness as an institution. The only other thing I will add is that when the person who is saying something is anti-their-group, there’s reason to listen. They perceive that they are being excluded. While I agree that “reprehensible” is pretty nasty and goes maybe too far, if you listen for the content rather than the tone, you might learn why the angry person feels as she does. Mormons are so gosh-darn nice (and passive aggressive) that we are expert tone-policers. We avoid conflict and claim that contention is of the devil without listening to others or being self-critical enough to improve.
Angela; When someone writes “Of the triad of evil, I like Oaks the best , over the reprehensible Nelson and Bednar. Clayton is a disaster waiting to happen, but probably no worse than your average sycophant.” Is that tone or content? Here is why the persons anger is completely driven by a leftist world view. Is the problem with the Evil triad and the entire Q15 their personal behavior?, The way they treat their families? The way the deal with individual members of the church? Their rude speech? Their work ethic? Any other of a host of issues. Or does it only center on what any rational person would consider hot button extreme political left issues? When are gays going to be sealed in the Temple, when is a woman going to be the next president of the church or when is any abortion going to be considered just a woman’s choice? ( I can hear the screaming ) I am trying to be realistic here. Where do you think all of the issues are going to end up? I know some people who would say I am just trying to be extreme and a fear monger-er but who is kidding who? There are elements within in the Mormon gay community that will not stop until Mormon doctrine is turned on is head and gay couples will be sealed in the temple. That may not be the professed goal within the activist community now and some parts may not have that as a goal but I can give those moderate elements a piece of advise. When you get in the way of the more extreme elements they will push you aside as just another speed bump in their path. Think about what all this will mean , not in the short term, but in the long term. 50, 75, 100 years from now. Will the Mormon church still exist? Or will it have become just another non-denominational christian church that has no need to exist since there are dozens just like it. One only needs to look at the Community of Christ (RLDS) . What is its long term trajectory? They believe in Joseph Smith, they believe in the Book of Mormon. They have the same foundation story. The reality is they are shrinking every year, and will bottom out eventually. I am not talking about the individual members but the institution as a whole. I know many members and they are fine people. You mentioned that it is a fact that the church is not diverse enough. You need to get out more. Do you know what the church looks like worldwide? I know you lived in Singapore so I must conclude that more diverse is only your kind of diverse. If your kind of diverse is loosing any kind of doctrinal standard, turning the church into some kind of kumbaya club where you can believe anything you want and do anything you want. That is not a church, its just a feel good club. Given those choices, I will stick with the leadership.