This post is a direct follow-up to my post from two weeks ago: “What Really Goes On In Hell.” I encourage you to read that post before diving into this one.
To summarize the previous post in a few sentences: In the afterlife, sinners who did not repent in this life are taught/punished in the next life by experiencing their sins from the victim’s point of view. They have a perfect knowledge of the suffering their actions cause. Sinners gain an understanding of their victims.
The goal of this suffering is to teach a sinner that the victim is as human as him/herself. God or Jesus insists that the sinner sits with that person’s pain until they can humanize the person who suffered. That (hopefully and eventually) leads the sinner to remorse, repentance, and genuine change.
I’m going to use the word ‘humanize’ to describe the goal of hell’s suffering. The sinner is to humanize the people who suffered due to the sinner’s actions. Similar words include empathy, compassion, respect, and human dignity. It’s partly a feeling, but mostly a decision to treat each individual as if they are as human as you are. When Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself, this is what he meant. See your neighbor’s humanity as equal to your own humanity. You are both human. The feeling is empathy; the behavioral choice is equality. You don’t have to sympathize with or excuse any actions — you just have to acknowledge that everyone is as human as you are.
Why? Why insist that individuals humanize other individuals? Why is dehumanizing individuals such a terrible sin?
An Eternal Society
I believe in an afterlife, and I believe we will continue to be individuals in the afterlife. We will live in a society. D&C 130:2 says, “And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there.” For this society to last as long as heaven lasts (forever?), this society has to be stable.
What makes a society stable?
Stability Through Conformity Doesn’t Work
For many Christians and Mormons, the stability of heaven is based on conformity. Mormonism teaches that you get to the Celestial Kingdom by conforming. Everyone in the CK has the same beliefs and follows the same rules, and that creates societal harmony. It’s conformity — ultimate and eternal voluntary confirmity. We’re taught that Satan’s plan was to force everyone to keep the commandments. God’s plan is to see who voluntarily keeps the commandments, and then gather them together into one place. Non-conforming people are banished to lower kingdoms.
The danger in basing a society on conformity is what to do when someone doesn’t want to conform. Sure, you can start out with conformity by excluding everyone who doesn’t conform. But Mormons believe in eternal increase — children. The rising generation isn’t going to conform just because their parents did, as a couple of utopias in the Book of Mormon found out.
Mosiah 26:1 “There were many of the rising generation who could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe in the tradition of their fathers.” This despite the fact that King Benjamin told his listeners to teach their children these things; see Mosiah 4:14-15. Centuries later, shortly before Christ’s appearance, when the Lamanites were more righteous than the Nephites, they had the same problem. 3 Nephi 1:30 “And thus were the Lamanites afflicted also, and began to decrease as to their faith and righteousness because of the wickedness of the rising generation.”
And what if someone changes and doesn’t want to conform anymore? Do they get thrown out?
Conformity is ultimately based on fear. “Do as you’re told or we’ll throw you out.” Fear isn’t a stabilizing emotion. Eventually, people conquer their fears. Or they fear conformity more than they fear ostracism. Or they get angry at the person whom they fear. Fear is temporary control, and therefore it is only temporary stability.
This theme comes up over and over again in history. People get sick of following rules and conforming to a society that dehumanizes them. The British colonists didn’t want to follow the rules about taxation if they weren’t allowed a voice in creating the tax laws. The USA fought a civil war to stop the dehumanization of slavery. We’re watching the unrest in Iran right now — people pushing back against authoritarianism and conformity. Europe colonized and exploited countries all over the globe, and those countries fought for independence and freedom.
Everyone, every society, eventually fights against forced conformity and dehumanization.
Societies that expect everyone to think and feel the same, to believe the same things, value the same things, don’t last. This is true whether the society is rightwing fascism or leftwing communes. The instability of rightwing fascism is pretty apparent right now. Leftist communes don’t last very long either (they never get as big as the fascism that takes over entire countries). Neither type of society has an effective way to deal with problems, friction, assaults on others, abuse of power, changes in leadership, or any issue that crops up when you put a bunch of people in one place for a long time. Rightwing conformity produces tyranny and cruelty as they try to force conformity as people rebel. Leftwing conformity falls apart when everyone wanders off because they don’t know how to work through disagreements and someone breaking the rules.
Stability Through Humanization
The other option for a long-term stable society is humanization. Imagine a society that acknowledges the basic humanity of every individual therein. Imagine an economic system that distributes resources, encourages innovation, compensates for differing abilities and disabilities, and respects the humanity of the cashier at the gas station as much as the CEO in a corner office. Pass laws that are aimed at protecting individual dignity and respect. Someone arrested for a terrible crime gets decent food, medical care, shelter, and clothing, even while being held accountable for the crime. Laws apply to everyone — a federal judge charged with DUI can’t get that charge dismissed just because he’s a federal judge. Penalties are fair — a Black man who steals $30 from a gas station cash register doesn’t spend as much time in jail as a white man who defrauds Medicaid for $30,000,000.
The USA tried this. The Declaration of Independence declared “all men are created equal” and the USA hung on long enough to expand the promise of legal equality to Black people, and eventually to women. Equality was the goal and the ideal. Now, equality has been thrown out and society is rapidly destabilizing as a result.
But picture a society built on humanization. Judges that humanize both criminals and victims. Law enforcement that humanizes the people they arrest. CEOs who humanize their employees. Politicians who humanize (rather than demonize) the people who will be affected by the laws they pass. Men who humanize women and vice versa. Parents who humanize their children. White people who humanize people of color. Straight people who humanize gay people. Teachers, nurses, doctors, bureaucrats, lawyers, tech bros, bankers, parents, preachers — everyone sees everyone else as a full human being.
This type of society has the flexibility to deal with problems, friction, assaults on others, abuse of power, changes in leadership, and other issues that crop up when humans live together. Like Michael said in The Good Place, “What matters isn’t if people are good or bad. What matters is if they’re trying to be better today than they were yesterday” (from the episode ‘A Chip Driver Mystery’). Michael also pointed out that, “People improve when they get external love and support. How can we hold it against them when they don’t?”
Living in a society is about growth and learning. It’s not a place you go once you’ve learned to follow the rules perfectly. It’s a place where you learn why rules exist, how to be better than you were yesterday, and how to give love and support so others can improve. Again from The Good Place: “Why choose to be good every day when there is no guaranteed reward now or in the afterlife… I argue that we choose to be good because of our bonds with other people and our innate desire to treat them with dignity. Simply put, we are not in this alone.”
I’ve been using the word “hell” to describe the process of learning to humanize the people a sinner hurts. But what if it’s more like The Good Place? The punishment of hell is perfectly tailored to teach sinners how to humanize others, and the suffering lasts only as long as needed to teach that lesson; the suffering never inflicts more on the sinner than what the sinner inflicted on someone else. The perfect balance of justice and mercy.
Conclusion
Stable societies are built on a level playing field. Societies built on injustice and inequality are inherently unstable. If we’re going to exist forever in a society, our best bet for stability is to humanize every person in it. And when someone dehumanizes someone else, they get to join the victim in their suffering until they agree to change.
Questions:
- Have you read novels about rules-based dystopias? A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L’Engle had Camazotz. The Uglies trilogy by Scott Westerfeld was a confirmity-based dystopia. Of course 1984 by George Orwell and Brave New World by Aldous Huxley are the most famous conformity based dystopias. A Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. I could go on. Lots of authors explore the dangers of a conformity based society. Do you agree or disagree with the general conclusion that conformity based societies are cruel and unstable?
- What do you think of the idea that a society based on humanizing everyone would be more stable?
- When I say you should humanize everyone, do you automatically object because you think I mean we would let wrongdoers off the hook? Why do you think that? Reread the post and figure out why that wouldn’t happen in a humanized society.
Wheat & Tares 
Quite an intriguing read. My compliments. One question for you: do you personally believe that there is such a thing as “Evil” in the World? Something which goes beyond just awful human behavior? Conversely, does “Good” exist – which goes beyond just positive human behavior? Thank you.
You have said quite alot in this post. I agree whole heartidly with the points being made here. I just wish more of us could/would read this post and ponder upon your thoughts.
With respect to LDS theology, I don’t think the point of hell is to suffer until you understand and change. This thwarts the basic tenet that we are allowed to choose. If the pre-existence narrative is correct, then 1/3 of everyone was allowed to choose to follow Satan. For eternity. There was no forcible understanding of basic humanity.
LDS people have a hard time letting go of the idea that others really have a chance to choose poorly. Especially family members. My idea is that people will end up where they are comfortable. You can see this in society. We tend to hang out with those who are like us. If you’re a murderer, a thief, a slacker, a grifter, or just a rule follower, you will likely be happier surrounded by those like you and you will self-choose to be with them. There are of course, people, who by circumstance, find themselves surrounded by those people, but who strive to get to a different, better place. I think that is where those people will have a better opportunity, but again by choice.
I do think that those who have sinned against another will have a perfect knowledge of how they impacted those they’ve hurt and likely suffer for it. But again, it doesn’t mean they will change. Look at Satan. Again he has the knowledge but chooses sin anyway.
Conformity only works so far. You can do the steps without believing or internalizing them. You can also conform in the ways that society expects you to, but choose not to conform in the ways you can get away with.
The eternal society is pretty much given to us as Enoch’s Zion. I guess you can sort of legislate your way to it, but it seems to me it is an internal pureness of heart that caused everyone to strive for this perfection, not commandments or laws. This is how I see “heaven.” Only those who have internalized love and selflessness, purity and meekness will make it. Following rules won’t get you there.
Since I worked as a rape survivor counselor, I saw how our justice system treats rape survivors. It is extremely dehumanizing, so I really got hung up on one sentence in your post. “Judges that humanize both criminals and victims.” The victim in our current system is nothing more than a crime scene. Her body is where the crime happened and other than that she doesn’t exist. The criminal has rights, guaranteed by our constitution. The victim really doesn’t. Well, we have passed a few laws to prevent her or his past sexual history from being used against them, but my experience was that it is not really enforced if the defense attorney can find a way to sneak it in or just make accusations. I was with some victims at the hospital while they did a rape kit, which is basically collecting evidence from the victim’s body. Some hospitals and doctors were better than others. At one, I had to argue that the victim had a legal right to have me in the room. The police didn’t want me there to support the victim and explain what was going on, hold her hand if she wanted. The police were treating a teen aged girl as if she was an object they needed to get evidence off of, and the fact that she was terrorized was unimportant. I told them they needed her consent for any medical treatment and that the doctor obviously did not have it. Once the police backed off, I got her calmed. But as far as the police were concerned, she was nothing but a crime scene. Many hospitals charge the victim for the hospital visit for the rape kit. I am sorry, but after years working with the system, the victims who quietly go home and take a long shower are better off in the long run. They are not retraumatized by our legal system reporting and then retraumatized if it goes to trial.
So, one thing our whole justice system lacks, built as it is around protecting the rights of the accused, is justice for victims of crime. Right now, society may get justice by punishing the criminal. But they leave victims of crime abandoned to pick up the pieces.
Same topic, different example. One thing one of my social work professors said that stayed with me is that abused or neglected children who stay out of the system are better off long term, say 10-20 years down the road. In other words, our efforts to protect children from harm often does more damage to the kid than abusive parents are doing. Yikes- here is a social work professor saying the whole social work system is failing. But that was my own experience. I sat in support group for sexually abused adults and heard stories of being sent to foster homes or people not believing her or her mother blaming her for destroying the family when she told. These women and some men had been more hurt by telling than I was by keeping it all hidden.
Our system fails the victims of crime.
All right, I will get off my tangent and say, Thanks for writing this. Very thought provoking. And thanks for pointing out the failures on the political left as well as the political right. Very true that attempts at communism, even freely chosen and in free societies, as well as under dictatorships always fail, because some pigs are more equal than others. I have also seen some very thoughtful write up that say capitalism also always fails and the the US is in the terminal stages.
Anna, please expand this comment into a full article. It is too important to be buried in the comments.
@bookwormandapple: what do you mean we don’t really believe people (especially family members) can really choose wrong? It’s that the point of the whole empty chairs in heaven thing?
If anything, our fear of empty chairs often means punishment and cruelty in this life as a way to save loved ones from hell in the next one. To teach them they are wrong. To save them from their own fallen ways. Maybe if we are harsh enough they will repent.
I suppose we don’t really know the details of hell, but this perspective works well and I like it. LDS scripture teaches us that hell is temporary, and that its denizens can yet be saved in a kingdom of glory, so it makes sense for hell to have a curative or redemptive purpose within its punitive purpose. We also know that God sometimes uses overly-descriptive words or imagery to “work upon the hearts of the children of men” (D&C 19:6-12).
I was in Relief Society once and a visiting member talked about one of her wayward sons and how she prayed and prayed and was given reassurance that because of her own belief her son would be saved. And she fully meant that her faith would save another regardless of his actions. I found this alarming.
The pressure to keep your family together is immense when in reality God is allowing all of us to make choices, good or bad, every day. Part of becoming like God, I believe, is to be able to let others have that freedom yet love them nonetheless. In other words, we have to let go of the outcome … hope, encourage, and love them, but the end result is theirs and theirs alone.
I don’t believe you can drag anyone to the Celestial Kingdom. If you did, they would likely not want to be there anyway.
You make a compelling case that we are currently in hell. This resonates with temple liturgy that “the lone and dreary world” is the telestial world or “the world in which we now live”, in which the adversary has extreme influence.
I agree with you that living in a society is about growth and learning. I would say this is the entirety.
It may be hellish for a sinner to humanize their victim. The torment of guilt and seeing acutely the pain that you’ve caused. Even more hellish is for a victim to humanize their perpetrator. Seeing through their eyes the pain over which you have no control. For some sins, we are our own victims, and I wonder if these may be the most hellish of all. Mercy and forgiveness create a very different cycle.
Mormonism teaches that celestiality is learning, becoming, eternal progression, adhering to your conscience, friendship, loving and forgiving through every obstacle, unity through diverse gifts, seeking every true and beautiful thing, developing agency, sacrifice, consecration and creativity. I don’t think conformity is part of it doctrinally. Keeping commandments, yes, but to me that’s different. We fail often and do have yet much to learn in creating a culture that embodies our doctrine.
bhbardo – you’re right that this world is very terrestrial and hellish. I almost ended this post with a quote from poet Ilya Kaminsky, but thought it might be too heavy-handed. Here it is:
“At the trial of God, we will ask: why did you allow all this?
And the answer will be an echo: why did you allow all this?”
Humans could make life a lot better for a lot of people, but the ones who have taken power, or been voted into power, do not have the goal of making life better. Instead, they increase suffering in pursuit of conformity. We don’t need the devil to create hell.
your comment about victims humanizing their perpetrators is thought-provoking. For me, humanizing my perp was part of the forgiveness process — not that I understood why he did what he did, but turning him over to God for justice meant seeing him as a person who was more than the worst things he’d done. Like, not excusing him or pitying him, but just seeing him as a whole person.
bookwormandapple — you’re right that not everyone will choose to change. I skim over that, and I’m glad you pointed it out. A sinner can suffer the impact of his own actions, and still want to treat people as less than human. I’m not sure I believe in physically separate kingdoms anymore. More that people who have learned to humanize everyone will be in charge, and working with people who want to learn empathy. Someone who continues to choose to hurt people would eventually be put somewhere that they couldn’t continue to hurt people. Maybe that’s Outer Darkness, the ones who refuse to repent/change, even when the chance is offered to them. I don’t really know the specifics. I know I chose to start humanizing people, and repented in this life.
Anna – I always appreciate you emphasizing the suffering our society causes victims. And it is SO TRUE that victims are dehumanized and hurt further by trials and investigations. I understand why we have to have ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as a core of the judicial system, but there has got to be a way to be fair to the accused while still giving victims dignity and power rather than traumatizing them further.
grizz – your question is another topic altogether. I’m not prepared to answer it right now and don’t want to derail this post. I’ll put it in the “idea hopper” and let it bounce around and see if it turns into a post. No promises, but thanks for the idea.
And thank you to Raymond Dunn and ji for your kind words.
One other bit that I didn’t get to use in the post, but that I think is still right on point is that this whole essay is just a retelling of the lessons taught to Ebenezer Scrooge by the Three Ghosts of Christmas in “A Christmas Carol” by Charles Dickens. Scrooge’s redemption was to learn to see others as humans, see his own humanity, and join the human race.
About victims seeing their perpetrator as human, yes! So much this! This is so much part of the healing/forgiving process. So much of my professional work was with battered women, rape victims, and child sexual abuse victims, so yup, worked with a lot of victims of crime. There are a couple of things about forgiveness that get people hung up. One is self blame. When the victim has to keep telling themselves, “it was their fault,” over and over and stay angry to keep from crashing into self blame, it makes stopping being angry hard. As soon as they forgive the perp, they blame themselves, which is worse for your soul than anger is. The other is the victim has to de-monster the perpetrator. When the perpetrator is a supper powerful monster instead of a human being, it is impossible to forgive because this monster is so terrifying, that if you let your guard down just a little, the monster will get you. Example, once in group an adult battered child was talking about her alcoholic and abusive father. Her mother had divorced him and she hadn’t seen him in 30+ years. But now he had something fatal, cancer or liver failure, and her mother was pushing her to go see her father. So, she had. And she was telling the group that she expected a monster, but she saw a pathetic, sick, old man. Huge step in healing that suddenly her perception of her abuser was that he was human and dying.
1. I read those books. I also watch Star Trek, so some small part of me is still optimistic. My spousal unit watched The Good Place, so I got roped into watching it and now own it on Blu-ray. I look forward to having Pluribus (or rather plur1bus) on 4k with lots of special features.
So back to Brave New World and skipping the quotes on stability
“All right then,” said the savage defiantly, I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”
“Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat, the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.”
There was a long silence.
“I claim them all,” said the Savage at last.”
2. To keep it to one sentence–In an ecosystem, stability depends on diversity.
So I would argue for an expansive view of what it means to be human. I’m all for growth and learning, as long as we didn’t get imperialistic over it.
3. As for letting wrongdoers off the hook, I recommend a book by Robert Sapolsky, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. What does the idea of justice mean when free will is removed from the equation. If it’s all about genetics and environment,why be punitive. (If I remember right) An example being, instead of burning people at the stake for epilepsy, society having driving restrictions.
Personally this Epsilon, when considering the shape of things to come, hopes for an egalitarian society that recognizes idiots as part of the diversity.
I was extremely disturbed several months ago when a friend forwarded me an article from either LDS living or Meridian magazine, that was in essence, pushing the importance of conformity. And responded to her that found it to be a dangerous way of thinking. But then, I have never liked being required to conform.
I found the link: https://latterdaysaintmag.com/for-misfit-members-and-those-who-love-them-exalting-community/
Hedgehog, I went into that article expecting to find an example of the worst LDS-style pablum.
Instead, I found a compelling example that aligns with and demonstrates Janey’s OP.
I’d say the article is 90% about creating community and humanizing each other through our differences and in extreme adversity, and specifically embracing diversity, individuality and unique paths.
It’s 5% objectionable smaller points and word choices, for example, perhaps replacing “intrusiveness” with “boldness”.
It’s 5% ideas against which I would push back hard and substantively, primarily the relatively few paragraphs that do celebrate conformity. I suspect the author would welcome that pushback as an example of “exalting friction”. Perhaps he is wrong, perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there is a third choice.
Having worked personally and extensively with K-12 students with severe trauma, behavioral and mental health challenges, same as people experiencing homelessness that the author works with, I can say that these fellow citizens often benefit from clear structures and systems. Participation in these structures can often be mistaken for conformity both by the teacher and the student, errant humans that we are, but they are very different things. Many of us build our own structures, together with loving parents, in stable environments. These students/citizens with special abilities are often wandering and rebuilding again and again through a tornado alley. When their abilities become apparent to us, they will re-shape our world.
If others read the whole article, I would love to hear your perception.
“Hell is other people.” Jean Paul Sartre
[There is ]”no harder hell than sin.”Julian of Norwich
“Eternity will nail him to himself.” Soren Kierkegaard
Janey—really loved where your thoughts went in these two posts. So many great lines. And honestly, whether “Hell” is a literal place or not, I’m not sure it matters.
Your reflections reminded me of something Richard Rohr wrote in Breathing Under Water: “Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell; spirituality is for people who have been there.” That line has always stuck with me.
Your piece also echoes Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov is the perfect challenge to the idea that anyone ever truly “gets away with it.” He dodges the authorities for a while, sure—but he can’t outrun the guilt, paranoia, sickness, and isolation that follow. In a way, he’s pursued more relentlessly by his conscience than by the police.
It becomes this spiritual descent into the valley of death—facing what he’s done, facing the dehumanization at the heart of it, and discovering that freedom doesn’t come from avoiding the consequences but from finally turning toward them, head-on.
Hell is just a good name for that deep, existential ache in the human psyche and spirit. You can outrun the law for a while, but it’s a lot harder to outrun your own humanity.
I read the article that Hedgehog linked, and something about it really really bothered me, even though it sounded like a great idea and a great community. Then bhbardo’s comment helped me put my finger on the issue. Bhbardo pointed out that this sort of community works well for people who are recovering from trauma. Bingo! This is like a family should be. You’re living together, telling people to clean up after themselves, being open about your vulnerabilities. That’s not the sort of relationship you have with the cashier at checkout, or the waiter, or your co-worker.
It’s also not the sort of relationship you have with the people in your ward. I don’t imagine very many people want to live that closely with others. ESPECIALLY if you don’t feel like their equal.
The author of this article makes the common Mormon mistake of equating everything. These people who have been through decades of living unhoused, being traumatized, serious mental illness, physical injury — of course they need intense therapy and rehabilitation into society. The author suggests that we’re all just like that. We’re not. And here’s where we see the author’s blind spot. He doesn’t see himself as their equal. He’s the outsider. He’s the one who founded that social experiment (which sounds awesome). AND HE’S THE ONE WHO SEES HIMSELF AS THE DEFAULT. That’s my issue with this — the author expects conformity to the standards that he lives effortlessly.
These lines made my skin crawl: “And when did conformity become a dirty word? I suspect Jesus knows His social science. … to Him there is no inherent conflict between conformity and agency.”
Sure, author of that article, you straight, white, married, educated man with leadership ability and good health who is asked to speak to large groups and write for Meridian Magazine. You’ve never had a problem with conformity because all the requirements are things you want to do anyway. I’m going to write a post about whether you get heavenly credit for being obedient to commandments you never wanted to break.
Todd S – thank you! Crime and Punishment is a good example of the ideas in this post. Themes about utopia, dystopia, what we owe each other, the consequences of harming others — they all make such powerful stories. Those themes strike a deep vein of truth in humans.
I don’t believe hell is a physical place either. I’ve been there, and it’s mostly in the heart and soul. I hadn’t heard that Richard Rohr quote before. It’s very true.
This might sound a little too “woo, woo,” but to me, “hell” represents isolation. What I mean by this is the self imposed idea that we are somehow separate from everything else in the universe. The human impulse has always been to connect, to return, to be one with God, the Universe, the collective consciousness, Nature, whatever label you want to put on it. This has been reflected in literature and religious systems (including Mormonisn) across human history. Isolation is precipitates the dehumanization required to commit atrocious acts against our fellow human beings. Isolation also very much leads to depression, anxiety, addiction, and self harm. Until we overcome isolation, we will always be in “hell.” Religious systems, in my view, can be judged by the way they either promote our combat this pervasive sense of isolation. The “Us” v “Them” impulses of Christianity are not helping.
When it comes to an afterlife that includes a system of cosmic justice that dispenses just the appropriate amount of punishment/ reconciliation/ rehabilitation/ transformation to sinners….? (insert shoulder shrug emoji here). I hope that’s the case, but it’s certainly something worth striving for while we’re alive.
Janey and Todd S: I found that Hell can be a place. It was in my marriage to my ex-wife. I thought “Eternal Marriage” was another definition of hell. But we were civil enough to get divorced without running up huge lawyer bills. We both moved on with our lives and shared in our children’s and grandchildren’s marriages, graduations, successes, and failures. Shortly after my divorce, I read a book, “Dark Nights of the Soul” by Thomas Moore, that talked about facing the dark things that happen in our lives, not running from them, and working through them until you get to the other side. It’s not an easy process. There’s still guilt and some “what ifs.” It could be described as going to hell and back. I will say that after 20 years of leaving hell, I can look back and see the spiritual growth both during and since. We can be in the same room, feel pain when the other is in pain, be joyful for each other’s success, and even forgive. Having had the experience, it gives me empathy for others facing the same thing and helps me not be judgmental of what has happened in their life.
Thanks for your take on that article Janey. Yes.
bhbardo, you seems to be reading the article as primarily about what is described as a successful programme for people in those circumstances. Even, at that level, there are the issues that Janey describes in her comment. I was reading the article as presenting an example of “conformity as a good thing”. And my question was very much one of, who gets to decide what counts as being broken and what doesn’t? Who gets to decide what interventions or treatments might be necessary? Because there’s quite a history of things going badly wrong for people. I found the example as described in the article to be relatively benign, but could envisage a great many other things that would not be. It felt like a dangerous road.
A few months later I read this BCC post which appears to give an entirely different slant on what sounds like it could be the exact same programme:
Reading that, I don’t see much accommodation for diversity going on. On the contrary. And it sounded a whole lot less benign than the Meridian magazine article.
Concentration camps as a solution to homelessnes. For which other solutions will concentration camps per a solution? Will there be signs saying “Work Will make You Free/” is the success of these solutions going to be the final solution? Asking for a friend.
Edit: Concentration camps as a solution to homelessness? If work is required, what is done to those who either can’t or won’t work? I s being forced to do unpaid work for housing in a concentration camp comparable to any other systems of forced labor? For which other problems are concentration camps the solution? Will there be signs saying “Work Will Make You Free?” Will these concentration camps be the final solution? Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island. Discuss. For extra credit explain what will be done if the unhoused person has child, or companion, or dog/
This comment is too long, but oh well.
I think the first homeless article would decry the policies described in the second homeless article. Beyond the examples related to homelessness in the first article, here are some of the major points from Grenny that I saw as supporting Janey’s OP about humanization, growth, learning and overcoming conformity. (This is taking Grenny’s expressions at face value and assuming positive intent. Is it possible he’s a conformity-prioritizing, privileged jerk? Absolutely).
“The path from stranger and foreigner to ‘fellow citizen with the saints’ is not uniformity, but conversation.”
“One friend decided to withdraw from the Church after an insensitive member asked him if he was ashamed of his face tattoo. We got weaker and he got weaker when he left. Another dropped out in loving solidarity with her transgender son. We all lost something when she left.” (It’s a mark against Grenny that he presumes the departing friends are worse for leaving, but considering this seems to be written by a TBM for TBMs, I see this more as grieving the church’s loss because of the church’s dehumanization and conformative atmosphere)
“I believe that the friction of relationships is the process through which we become like God” (with no apparent indication that becoming like God is a one-paradigm pursuit)
“No one loves a community where the norm is maintaining appearance rather than achieving growth.”
Examples of validating doubts and departures.
Examples of publicly-acknowledged shame for not standing up for or for mistreating gay members
Here’s a key paragraph from Janey’s OP:
“But picture a society built on humanization. Judges that humanize both criminals and victims. Law enforcement that humanizes the people they arrest. CEOs who humanize their employees. Politicians who humanize (rather than demonize) the people who will be affected by the laws they pass. Men who humanize women and vice versa. Parents who humanize their children. White people who humanize people of color. Straight people who humanize gay people. Teachers, nurses, doctors, bureaucrats, lawyers, tech bros, bankers, parents, preachers — everyone sees everyone else as a full human being.”
Here’s a key section from Grenny’s article:
“Jesus invites us to understand in the smallest degree by collapsing the distance between us and each other—our glorious gifts, our aching weaknesses, and our baffling differences.
-He expects a ward to figure out how to embrace both The Family Proclamation and a transgender believer
-He pleads with you to stay even when others are dismissive of your disdain with parts of Church history.
-He summons “come, follow me” especially when you feel left out.
-He’d love it if you could stay peacefully in a quorum with a brother who sued you.
-He asks you to be a relief society president in ward council with a sexist bishop.
-And He calls on that bishop to solve the mystery of why his relief society president resents him.
-He hopes wards will figure out how to honor parents’ demand for safety while ministering to a registered sex offender.”
I’m not saying any of those quotes are ideal, and I could absolutely find objectionable quotes. I’m just pointing out the alignment that might be there. And considering the presumed TBM audience, this seems to be more of a call to break down the church’s often conformative atmosphere than an attempt to get anyone to conform, notwithstanding the author’s objectionable ponderings on conformity.
TBMs already embrace the Family Proclamation. Embracing transgender people, without any mention of condition or exception or difference-minimizing or any suggestion that they need to change now or later, is a step that many people have yet to take, church or not.
bhbardo, perhaps I am not as generous a reader as you, but given the attitude on conformity, I don’t see any of those statements as existing outside a lens that expects anything other than the usual welcoming in those who don’t conform as new members of the congregation, but anticipating that they will come to conform in time, and perhaps getting irritated if they don’t begin to conform as they become a settled part of the congregation. That’s generally how things have been anyway in my experience in congregations in the uk. Maybe Utah congregations have been a harsher environment for those who don’t conform initially, but that’s outside my experience.