This post is spawned by an interesting post from Mette Harrison on her suggestions for improvements for the Mormon church. https://religionnews.com/2018/10/15/10-ways-to-imagine-a-new-mormonism/
These posts come around from time to time, and it’s interesting to theorize what kind of changes we’d like to see. When I see lists like this, sometimes I come away with greater appreciation for my church. The list of what I like about my church is much longer than what I’d like to see change. Here’s my shot at the list. I’m taking this more at a theoretical and conceptional level than a list of specific, practical changes. Those would come naturally out of this kind of change.
- Letting go of certainty and embracing ambiguity. Instead of talking about our scriptures, doctrine, and church history founding events as certain, it would be nice to talk about them as things we hope for, or this is our best attempt at understanding God, but no one knows for sure. As we do this, we can open up space for Neo-Apologist views like BOM non-historicity, First Vision as the 1832 account not 1838 account, polygamy and/or some other problematic issues being viewed as mistakes without needing to explain them faithfully.
- Shift in how we view exclusivity claims. Instead of talking about ourselves as the only true church, I’d like to see us as truth seekers, who think we have a great religion, but we don’t claim exclusive truth or exclusive access to God’s priesthood power and authority. Truth and priesthood power are things we as a religion and a human family can seek and tap into by following universal principles.
- Shift in the value proposition. The value proposition of Mormonism needs to shift, if we admit less certainty about our doctrine. The value proposition now becomes the joy, peace, fulfillment, meaning, and support we experience in our daily lives as we engage Mormonism with faith and commitment.
- Shift in what makes us special or unique. Richard Bushman calls us the “do-gooders”. Or as the Book of Mormon Musical says ridiculously but powerfully our reputation is to be “really ****ing nice to everyone.” This is a great reputation we’ve developed. Let’s embrace it. Let’s shift our missions to be more service oriented (maybe 50-50 service to proselyting). Let’s keep doing our Christmas #lighttheworld. Let’s further develop our reputation for being very serious about following Jesus Christ in serving and loving our neighbors, creating Zion a Heaven on Earth, and making the world a better place.
- As we encourage less certainty about our scriptures, our doctrines, our past revelatory events, and our ability to channel perfectly the mind and will of God, we will naturally become more focused on scientific and human understanding. Out of this will come faster progress on important social issues like LGBT+ doctrines and policies, female equality, racism, etc.
- Balance of grace and works and dealing with guilt. I almost skipped this, because I personally think we do pretty well on this but included because the experience people have in the church seems to be varied on this point. We need to develop better how to teach standards, teach the importance to make a difference in the world, teach our kids to get straight A’s, emphasize the importance of education and career, how to succeed and get ahead, how to be (and prepare to be) faithful to our spouses, how to have high integrity and morals, yet also not develop guilt complexes or suicidal thoughts or deep dissatisfaction when we feel like we haven’t done enough. Aim for the stars but be gentle with ourselves when we only hit the moon. I think we’re getting a lot better on this, but we have more to go.
What’s perhaps more important is what we have right already that doesn’t need to change.
Book of Mormon, other scriptures, the hymns, retain the Sunday meetings, the sacrament, Primary, youth programs, missions, temple weddings, temple ordinances, seminary and institute, general conference, moral and ethical standards that are higher than the world at large, standards related to sexual purity, emphasis on families, eternal progression, Heavenly Mother doctrine, Family Home Evening, doctrine that I am a Child of God, pioneer stories, feeling of being a tribe or a uniquely bonded people, family history, and just about everything else.
Wheat & Tares 
Presently the LDS leadership sees more and more individuals in the Church sliding from certainty to doubt, and from exclusive truth claims to a more general Christian view. The last thing they are going to do is decide to move LDS discourse and rhetoric in lessons and Conference more in that direction. No — they want to reverse the trend, so they are going to talk more and more about testimony as certainty, about knowledge rather than mere faith, about avoiding outside sources of information, and so forth. That’s exactly what we’re seeing. They are doubling down on retrenchment. It’s retrenchment with a vengeance.
Church, if we let go of exclusivity, I’m having a hard time understanding the point of temples. In fact, Mormonism as I know it seems to hinge on exclusivity and I think the pews would have tumbleweeds folling in between them within ten years of such a change.
I agree with NaC, mormonism (is it ok to say that if I don’t capitalize?) has always had two claims, exclusivity and community. We are God’s chosen people who are building Zion and the kingdom of God on earth. I think the two hour block, which I’m looking forward to, may have the unintended consequence of further undermining community. I think your suggestions would destroy the exclusivity. Without those two things I don’t see why anyone wouldn’t say, “Why am I doing this? The other guys don’t have tithing, can wear casual clothes to church, have better music, can go to Starbucks and join friends with a beer or wine and they pay people to give the talks and manage everything that we have to do. I’m just going to join THEM.”
NAC. These changes can take slowly over many years. I think they seem drastic, because we think exclusivity and literalism is the only thing that’s important. But I’ve been through my transition for many years now, and for me, church is just as meaningful. I think it can be just as meaningful for most people. The temple, for example. Do you enjoy going to the temple, or do you know someone who does? If I asked that person, what do you enjoy about going to the temple, I doubt their first answer would be related to something regarding exclusivity. It would probably be something related to the spirit, the serenity, the connection to God, the ability to leave worldly cares behind for short time to enter sacred space, to have time to think about loved ones and evaluate their lives at a deeper level. None of those have anything to do with exclusivity. I think we can break down everything we do as Mormons and get similar kind of results.
Church, I understand the thought, but I don’t see the enjoyment people get from the temple or any other unique facet of Mormonism being sufficient to keep the rank-and-file attending once you remove the “only true and living” moniker. People attend and believe and teach/encourage/support/coerce/shame family and ward members into believing exactly because we proclaim that we have “the words of life.” If being a Mormon doesn’t get you into heaven (or is only one of many paths), IMO those who have been enduring to the end amd toeing the line probably won’t see the point and be quite disillusioned.
“this is our best attempt at understanding God, but no one knows for sure.”
Well, I do, so there goes your logic right down the drain.
“problematic issues being viewed as mistakes without needing to explain them faithfully.”
You can do that right now.
“Shift in how we view exclusivity claims.”
There is no “we”. You can shift your views any time you wish without waiting for someone else.
“we don’t claim exclusive truth or exclusive access to God’s priesthood power and authority.”
Some do, some don’t. You seem to think there’s only one God; there may be many, each of whom authorizes human persons in whatever way he, she or it deems appropriate. As for myself, I accept that the principle of “agent” requires that the bestower of the agency has made that choice. it is like a Power of Attorney; I cannot just decide to be someone’s agent and start conducting their business.
I believe you have a worthy list; find the church that matches it and participate in that church rather than trying to change the views of 16 million people to what you think they ought to be.
Church – I love the idea of change in the church. And God knows it needs a lot of it.
I’ve read lots of articles like this and the changes seem to fall into two main categories.
1. Social and policy based changes – like modesty stuff, grace and works stuff like you mentioned, and
2. Fundamental doctrinal changes – like lessening the exclusivity talk and less “certainty about our doctrine”.
Whilst I think all your proposals are worthwhile, those that fall into the second category seem almost ridiculous. I get why you (and others) propose them – I really do. But they are inherently inconsistent with the core values and underpinnings of Mormonism.
You can’t have a central tenant of the church being the restoration of the priesthood, the establishment of specific elements of a church and belief in temple rituals that proport to only allow those who participate to enter heaven and then soften belief in all those things to make peoples experience in the church more palatable.
I’m trying really hard here not to dichotomise this argument, but it is the church that presents these pretty firm positions – and it is us that are trying to make them work in terms of logic and people’s experience in the church.
I agree completely with LDS_Aussie.
I’m with Not a Cougar on this one.
Except I don’t believe in exclusivity. In fact I just wish my church was decent, better than average, not embarrassing when I bring non-LDS friends and now Non-LDS DW and SIL to visit. There are weeks when my DW just can’t stand another minute of the barf we call church and flees for the door.
As to #4 above about do-gooders, my impression- we do as little good as possible for as much PR bang as we can get. But your mileage may vary. Any good we do is on the right track and should be appreciated.
A protestant minister was bemoaning the bad reputation evangelicals have been given recently. Judgmental, shrill, ignorant. arrogant, Trump-ish. He suggested we get back to the basics of the gospel and be known as those who serve; who are Good Samaritans, who find and feed lost sheep.Lift burdens, go the extra mile, turn the other cheek.
Feed the hungry (obesity epidemic), cloth the naked (immodest movie/pop stars), give water to the thirsty (hurricane victims), visit those in prison (violence and opiate epidemic) and heal the sick (skyrocketing health care costs). I think we all understand the meaning of what a true Christian does in relationships with his neighbors.
Michael 2.:I get a kick out of your comments, (16 million my ass). But in the case of the one above, if you were to follow your own advice in the last paragraph, applied to blogs instead of churches, you would find another blog. And leave the trolling to me around here. But like I said at first, I do like your comments.So don’t follow your advice and keep the sour comments coming. You are our brother after all.
Yeah, I prefer Mike1’s trolling as well. 🙂
God grant that we started actually worrying about being known as Christians in deed rather than in name.
The Other Mike writes “But in the case of the one above, if you were to follow your own advice in the last paragraph, applied to blogs instead of churches, you would find another blog. And leave the trolling to me around here.”
I’ve tried! Not very hard perhaps but there’s no point in participating on a blog where everyone agrees but you know or suspect that it’s a white-wash and not that many people could possibly agree on everything. People might be sincere, but they adopt “church-speak” to the extent I have a doubt they have had an original thought in 17 years.
While I know some things for sure, I surely don’t know a great many other things and the place to go is where people are asking questions and occasionally offering or receiving answers.
For a time it seemed that FARMS pursued some hard questions from a point of view that “lets hope that what we find is not damaging to our beliefs”, in other words, they weren’t looking for warts but for confirming evidence. If a thing is true there ought to be confirming evidence and no dis-confirming evidence. On the other hand, where strong forces are involved it will be a battle to plant confirming evidence and disconfirming evidence and so the value of “evidence” has to be cautiously doubted.
On this page, I am not challenging a person’s views, but rather the expectation that everyone else (16 million is a WAG) can or ought to shift their views according to his formula. I suppose it is a way to suggest that he will need to be a lot more persuasive if he wants me to shift my views because I know a few things for sure and it is almost comical to have some stranger tell me that I don’t know what in fact I DO know.
What I’d like to see change in the church is a much stronger emphasis on humility. You might think that lines up well with the OP’s desire for less certainty, but it doesn’t. Certainty is exactly what we’re striving for and absolutely shouldn’t be abandoned. The problem is that you can be certain about a finite number of points and interpolate (or extrapolate) different constructs from those points that don’t approximate reality particularly well. The solution, if possible, is to gather more data points about which one can be certain, and construct better approximations that become closer and closer to what’s true.
Personally, there are a number of things for which I want more light and knowledge, and LBGT issues are just a subset. While I realize that studying these things out in one’s mind is necessary, I will not be completely satisfied short of revelation. I want knowledge from God, not just the best wisdom of people locked in pathos (“you’re hurting people!!”) or fury (“it’s an outrage!!”). I don’t believe revelation will come unless we have a -certainty- that it can and will become available to us, and the -humility- to want it enough to truly seek it. I don’t see this many places in the church, either from the leaders defending the status quo or from those who know how it should be changed. Consequently, the church becomes a battleground in the culture wars with the apostates dropping out and the rigidly orthodox inhibiting its mission.
In the beginning, faith may have no foundation but hope. But eventually, if it’s to strengthen, it must be founded on some accepted certainties, usually in the form of personal and institutional revelation. I want more of those revelations, especially institutional revelations, and we’re clearly not a humble enough people to receive them.
On my wish list of things to change would be talking down other churches/denominations, suggesting that one can’t have “real” or “correct” spiritual confirmations/experiences associated with other religions.
I want Coffee.
The WoW should be changed to allow coffee and tea but not opioids.
Or, just emphasize “moderation in all things.”
Fred, I have coffee. I just drink it iced, because then it isn’t a hot drink.
Iced coffee is extremely popular in our Ward. I was shocked when all 3 of my visiting teaching sisters ordered it at a brunch a couple of years ago. I’m not going to judge, but it seems that taking out coffee and tea would be a good change to the WoW.
OftenPerplexed writes “Iced coffee is extremely popular in our Ward.”
It is not a “hot drink”.
Lois writes “…spiritual confirmations/experiences associated with other religions.”
Joseph Smith acknowledges spiritual feelings and experiences by anyone at any time, but says that such experiences tend to draw people to the church. It is clear to me that angels and spirits exist in large number and influence mortals and have done so through all generations of humankind.
Talking “down” to others is a human trait that cannot be corrected merely by wishing it or even making it church policy, which it already is, just another policy to ignore.
On this blog the “thumbs down” button would never be used.
“11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
“On this blog the “thumbs down” button would never be used.”
Except on my posts, of course 🙂 Seems to be some sort of record, 31 downvotes for suggesting each person should follow his conscience, choose his path through life and not try to impose that choice on others. An organization has already chosen a path and the job of its leaders is to maintain that path.
Its like steering a ship. Can you imagine what would happen if on a cruise ship the passengers daily voted on what direction the ship should go? If there were activists that decided it should go on a course 27 degrees? But the conservatives preferred 57 degrees, at least for now; on a Great Circle route the compass heading gradually changes in most real world scenarios.
Your liberty is to choose which cruise ship to board, or make your own, or choose none. But once you have made that choice, unless you are the captain of that ship, you no longer have much say in where it goes.
Michael 2, how many posts can you write complaining about the downvotes? I bet you’d get less if you didn’t act so worried about such things while simultaneously telling everyone else how to live their lives.
I would like to see more emphasis on hope instead of know. That allows ambiguity and struggle over doctrine and practices.
I remember years back in a class guest taught by Huston Smith. As a person embedded in the interfaith world, our professor asked his thoughts on a common interfaith worship we were working on. Smith’s answer has always stuck with me. Basically, he said interfaith efforts at building a “common faith” were futile. He said, “religion, by it’s very nature, is exclusive.” Every group, whether conservative or liberal, put rules on who belongs. If you are open and welcoming, those who are not are excluded and vice versa, Since then, I have better understood the one true church claims of the CoJCoLDS. Like all religions, it has its rules of belonging, but just states them loud and proud.
Michael2, your ship analogy is sort of a strange critique, given how many variously democratic institutions exist and thrive in the world we live in. A religion is not a cruise ship, and a community developing its understanding of God by various forms of consensus is actually more normal than not. I know the idea is frequently derided among Latter-day Saints, but there’s something to the idea of trusting the community of believers to get it right more often than not. And it’s not an alien idea within Mormonism. Something about common consent, I think…
Kullervo, At least some LDS leaders have trusted the community to eventually get it right:
J. Reuben Clark “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” Address given to seminary and institute teachers, at BYU, on July 7, 1954, published in Church News (July 31, 1954): 9–10; reprinted in Dialogue 12 (Summer 1979), 68–80.
“There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet….This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost. How shall the Church know when [they] have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest..”
Not sure what Clark meant by “rare,” but given a lot of the Journal of Discourses and a number of subsequent conflicts of thought among LDS leaders, I suspect it was a politically-correct choice of adjective..
KullervoKullervo writes “but there’s something to the idea of trusting the community of believers to get it right more often than not.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations (communities of believers getting it right)
Suppose in berth 1 you have an authoritarian cruise ship. Its captain and navigator have been chosen, its destination scheduled. All you need to is pay the fee and hop on board. There may be some passenger requirements and your quarters can vary (POSH: Port Out, Starboard Home).
But it’s not the only ship. There be many ships in other berths. Some have captains and crew, some do not and expect the passengers to do everything including figuring out where to go and how to get there. Such ships are wonderfully democratic and might some day leave harbor under their own power.
That level of free choice doesn’t really exist for people born on that ship at sea who may not know any other ship exists nor is there an easy way to get on one of them. These are the passengers most likely to try to change the course of the ship rather than just choosing one that is already going where they want to go.
For better or for worse I think it is unwise to choose a ship and then decide I made a mistake, and choose another, perhaps to repeat the process. But so far its only my choice and the consequences of my indecision are mine to bear.
But if I mutiny, and by persuading others to also mutiny, change the course of the ship, now I am imposing my will on other people who have not chosen my path. This I believe to be morally wrong. Occasionally it may be more or less right (Mutiny on the Bounty) but don’t be too proud of it.
I suppose if I think the captain is sleeping I would be derelict to not try to wake him up and advise of danger of icebergs for instance, but there’s an order to such things, and we have excellent examples where the Chain of Command leads to doom (the Titanic).
Suppose there was a mutiny on the Titanic, and disaster averted. Now you have a problem; proof of mutiny but not proof of having averted disaster. There are religious implications and parallels. Real heroes are probably punished fairly often.
KullervoKullervo writes “A religion is not a cruise ship”
Neither is such a thing democratically created bubbling up out of a seething mass of humanity. The closest I can find to such an invention is “Humanism”.
http://corkhumanists.weebly.com/what-is-humanism.html
It subscribes to The Amsterdam Declaration 2002. The Amsterdam Declaration 2002 is a statement of the fundamental principles of modern Humanism passed unanimously by the General Assembly of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) at the 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress in 2002. According to the IHEU, the declaration “is the official statement of World Humanism.”
Unanimously? Fundamental principles? Good grief, it’s an invention!
From my perspective, the following represent “the pebbles in my shoes” as relating to the institutional church:
1. Worship and endless adulation of Joseph Smith. Man oh man, have I ever had a belly-full of this.
2. Worship of General Authorities. They’re people just like everyone else. They are not some kind of “higher beings”, deserving of adulation. The only difference between “us and them” is that they are being paid (quite handsomely) through a stipend and other church provided- lifetime benefits; which the common lay member will never see.
3. Either we’re a church of Christ or we’re the Church of Joseph Smith. Personally, I want no part of the latter.
4.Meetings, Meetings, Meetings. For the love of Heaven, if this is a mirror image of the Celestial Kingdom – I’d “rather be with the sinner’s than the saints”.
5.I will never again clean buildings owned by the LDS Corporation. This practice DOES NOT represent service; but servitude. The LDS Corporation has plenty of money and resources to have their buildings professionally cleaned. If necessary, they can certainly pull monies from their Real Estate division. I will simply focus on being a good neighbor and friend.
6. Any talk, lesson, article or commentary which attempts to cover up, whitewash, sweeten, or obfuscate the remarkably messy (and sometimes ugly and cruel) true Mormon history – I’m walking away from; even if this kind of “pretty little lie” comes from our rock stars in SLC.
So, I suppose to underscore the point in a closing summary – I really don’t need the LDS Corporate Church in my ongoing worship of Christ. As for the “saving ordinances of the Temple….I’ve started to ask myself “Is the great creator of heaven and the earth REALLY going to ask us to use some ancient, “secret” Masonic handshakes in order to be embraced by him?” The thought of this truly “makes reason stare”! (Especially when you find out where these ceremonies come from. If you’ve never read “Illustrations of Masonry”, by Captain William Morgan, published in 1826 – you’re doing yourself a disservice)
Brian asks “how many posts can you write complaining about the downvotes?”
There is no fixed quota. The comment is oriented toward a recommendation that Mormons stop speaking down to others. Closely related to that concept is also not downvoting others. It is a human trait, not distinctly a Mormon trait, and it is a social control mechanism, a natural pecking order or pack hierarchy establishing thing.
As has been argued on this page there’s a thing called “community of believers” that somehow collectively arrive at something through statements which are upvoted or downvoted. Eventually this community arrives at consensus. The consensus compels belief and belief compels consensus in a self-reinforcing cycle.
So how does it start? There has to be a “seed” to get it started, something to complain about (frequently) or attracted to (rare). Joseph Smith started out with a complaint about the churches of his day. The attraction part came later! Something to run FROM and something to run TO.
This blog for the most part is still in its discovery phase, choosing what is safe to complain about. It does not yet have much of a “to” phase but that will come once it is settled who’s in and who’s out. In my opinion that’s where blogs fade away. The number of complaints is infinite but the number of attractors is few and there’s not a lot to discuss.
Water is wet, spring is wonderful, I love the mountains. I’ll save a few attractors for tomorrow!
Michael 2, Strange how you can suggest others find some other organization to participate in because they shouldn’t rock the boat, but you can’t follow your own advice. You claim to know quite a bit about this blog, it’s direction (or lack thereof), and the people who comment here. Could it be that (gasp) you are doing the same thing you accuse others of? Look, most people here are very tolerant of other views. But less so of arrogance quasi-disguised as learning or pity-partying (both of which you do an awful lot of). Others have pointed out the hypocrisy in your call for others to leave and then you instance on asking people to accommodate you on this blog. I’m not the first, but would hope to be the last. Maybe something can change in how you barrel in with your aggressive and dismissive comments? The downvotes are trying to tell you something. Great over yourself and try talking to people instead of at them. Read your first comment. It’s that of an arrogant troll.
Brian writes “Strange how you can suggest others find some other organization to participate in because they shouldn’t rock the boat”
Let me try another approach. Which is more “moral”:
1. Board a boat filled with like-minded people and which is going more or less where one wants to go OR
2. Board a boat then rock it so everyone not securely fastened is dumped overboard. When enough people have been dumped overboard the boat goes where the boat-rocker wants it to go. This strategy suffers from the possibility that many people are rocking the boat with different destinations in mind.
We have had stories about the Bickerton group that illustrates this. If enough people rock a boat, the captain can be the one dumped overboard and the boat goes zooming off in some other direction. That’s good for those that wanted to go some other direction, bad for those happy with its original course.
You accuse me of arrogance; but how arrogant is it to decide for millions of other people, happy with the boat they are on, for you to come along and change its course because you think it is a better course? It may even BE better, but you are choosing for other people.
The Mormon boat was never a democracy, was never a community developed thing. Joseph Smith started it with six people. It was a small boat but it had a captain, a course and a destination. Now its a big boat and might have passed its destination (Millenium? What millenium?) but it is still more like a ship than a community social club.
My involvement is because I happen to like this Mormon boat even though I don’t have a particularly good seat on it. Quite frankly I’d like for there to be less boat rocking and more boat finding (or making).
Brian, I have done as you suggested and re-read my first comment on this topic. I see nothing to change. The recommendations are that everyone else in the church ought to start saying that this or that policy was a mistake.
But what is the inevitable consequence? Any policy you make now becomes tomorrow’s “mistake”!
One of my pet peeves is “we”. People use “we” as if spokesperson for some unspecified but presumably very large group of people. “WE” need to do this, “WE” need to stop doing that. Who is we? Once everyone is thinking exactly the same way, the Borg Collective, then there’s a “we”. Not there yet.
No limit exists on your own personal freedom. YOU can decide, right now, what policies were mistakes and are still mistakes. Some people will join you, some will not. Once you have decided which policies are mistakes, then your next freedom kicks in — what are you going to do about it?
Hooray for free agency. Best thing since Ben and Jerry’s Cherry Garcia.
The “people who don’t like the church should leave it” notion depends on an extremely narrow assumptions about why someone might be a member of a church or otherwise associate with a particular religious identity. Frustrated Mormons who want the church to be better are just as much “real Mormons” as happy Mormons who think everything is fine.
Kullervo, thank you for helping me grasp the extent to which born-and-raised members of the church see it very differently than I see it. For me it is just a choice, one that I review fairly regularly. I’m the only Mormon in my direct ancestor tree and I have to go to about fifth cousin twice removed to find another. To understand the wrestle of a person born and raised Mormon, but struggling with some of its beliefs or practices, well that’s one reason I am here.
I sometimes feel guilty about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Why should I feel guilty? Most of my ancestors weren’t yet in the United States! I’m the very first Mormon in my lineage. No stain of guilt is on me, and yet I feel the gravity of it as if I were also guilty, and many people assume I am guilty. How I wish I could roll the clock back and stop it and I also wonder whether I would have been so righteous and holy as it is easy to say but hard to do; would I have taken up arms against the Fancher party? I don’t know; but how different was my military career? Just following orders.
By undertstanding you I start to understand myself.