Understanding Godly Love and Leadership

I cannot help but observe that LDS Church President Nelson's leadership style is dramatically different from his predecessors.  As I see it, not since Joseph and Brigham have we seen a leader who is willing to decisively declare that he is receiving revelation.  And in all three cases, I find that many of these “revelations” are in fact, things they made up.

On November 1st, President Nelson tweeted: "We are witnesses to the process of restoration.  If you think the Church is fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning.  There's much more to come.  Wait until next year, and the next year.  Eat your vitamins, get your rest.  It's going to be exciting!"

I am not sure I know how to process this. Or maybe, I'm quite sure I don't want to process this. Something seems amiss here, because if we are talking about a "restoration" to what Jesus actually established among his disciples as his Way, the past ten months have moved radically away from that.

When Jesus was in the upper room with his disciples, he demonstrated a different kind of leadership than the world had ever seen before. They considered him their Lord and Master, but to make a very important point, he removed his clothes, wrapped a towel around his waist, and washed their feet -- something that the lowest of all slaves would do, for to touch people's feet was to remove the excrement and filth that had gathered there.

This was not a sacred ritual, washing their feet from the blood and sins of this generation; as I understand the foot-washing ritual is in the second anointing of our Church and culture.  No.  This was an object lesson in divine, inspired leadership: the leader is not at the top of a hierarchy, but rather, at the bottom.  A leader serves.  A leader empowers.  

Lao Tzu said, "The highest form of leader is the one people barely know about.... When such a leader does his work, and success is accomplished, the people all say, 'we did it by ourselves!' "

In one of Joseph Smith's most inspired moments while suffering in Liberty Jail, he contemplated the difference between being "called" to leadership, versus being "chosen" as a truly inspired leader. I sense that this was a time of self-reflection, for he had just experienced two years when his leadership style had become ruthlessly authoritarian. The result was that most of his original fellow Saints left the church, and both the Kirtland and Missouri communities had failed under Joseph’s authoritarianism.

In his letter from Liberty Jail (D&C sections 121-123), Joseph highlighted how it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise "unrighteous dominion".  Dominion is a kind of leadership: the one where one holds power over others.  Joseph then explained ten reasons why such dominating leadership often fails:

1. Heart set upon things of the world

2. Aspire to the honors of men

3. Covering of sins

4. Gratifying pride

5. Ambition

6. Control

7. Dominion

8. Compulsion

9. Hypocrisy

10. Guile

There is bitter irony here.  Joseph had just twice attempted to establish an order where the Church took over all aspects of community life -- the things of the world in a very controlled, dominating structure.  A group of Danites formed to control, dominate, and compel Church members to conform or leave town. Olivery Cowdery and others pointed out Joseph's hypocrisy in the wake of the Fanny Alger affair.  And a pattern of dissembling began to take hold -- guile -- attempting to cover the sins of this emerging practice of spiritual wifery.

Indeed, when we read this very long letter from Liberty Jail, Joseph is complaining about injustice, seeking revenge on his enemies, while the Lord is attempting to bring his mind and soul into peace. Joseph even wrote that a committee should be established to gather the writings of suspected enemies in order to cleans the church -- the origin of the "Strengthening Church Members Committee" of which Russel M Nelson was a founding member in our modern times.  It's almost as if this letter is a dialog between Joseph Smith the man seeking power and revenge, versus a God who seeks to teach what love and leadership should be.  

Somehow, in this amazing and troubling letter, the voice of God emerges, when Joseph writes: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood."  

How can this make any sense in the modern LDS church?  Priesthood authority was the key innovation introduced by Sidney Rigdon, and became the very reason that Kirtland and Missouri failed.  "The Priesthood", as in the authority to engage in plural marriages, was the reason that Nauvoo failed, and Joseph was killed.  And as "The Priesthood" became the literally dominating power in Utah under Brigham Young and his immediate successors, it also became the reason the Church was disenfranchised in 1889.  

It would seem like they didn't pay attention to this phrase: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood". 

Then, God speaks what the qualities of divine leadership should be, giving ten inspired leadership qualities:

1. Persuasion

2. Long-suffering

3. Gentleness

4. Meekness

5. Love unfeigned

6. Kindness

7. Pure Knowledge

8. Faithfulness

9. Charity towards all

10. Virtue 

When I compare these two lists of ten bad or good leadership qualities, when I look to my top LDS leaders, what do I see? 

It's not good.  Not good at all.  I see almost none of the qualities of divine leadership, and lots of control, dominion, and compulsion.  “It’s not negotiable” is the complete opposite of persuasion, gentleness, and meekness.  By Wendy Watson Nelson's own admission, Russell Nelson is now unrestrained by anyone now that he is President of the Church: he can do what he always wanted to do, but couldn't.  It’s as if we are seeing a fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s warning  “As soon as they get a little authority”.

But now, as I find myself reacting to this behavior, my soul is troubled.  Who gives me the right to judge?  Why should I even care?  If I judge my leaders for their failings in leadership, am I not also guilty of the same things?  Paul puts it, "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

Maybe I need to look at it differently.  Confucius said that we can find our teacher anywhere: even among bad examples, for therein we learn what not to do.  

So I'm thinking about this, and realize that our current leadership in its authoritarian excess is an example of the male ego gone awry, and I often do the same.  

But what is the answer?  

As I look at the ten good and bad leadership qualities, I find a strong correlation between another list: the qualities of godly love Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Love is not:

1. Envious

2. Boastful (vautteth not itself)

3. Proud (puffed up)

4. Mean-spirited (behaves unseemly)

5. Self-seeking

6. easily provoked/reactive

7. scheming (thinketh no evil)

8. rejoicing in iniquity (inequality)

Love is:

1. Long Suffering,

2. Kind

3. Rejoicing in Truth

4. Always protecting (stegei - does no harm)

5. Always faithful

6. Always hopeful

7. Always endures

8. Always wins (never fails)

It seems to me that the correlation between good and bad love and leadership is nearly one to one in these attributes.  Godly Leadership is Godly Love.  Anything less than that is not love, nor is it godly.

I have a choice today.  For me, the right choice is to observe that we now have a leader of our church who has taught that God's love is conditional, and has taught for revealed doctrine the commandments of men.  

And in observing what kind of leadership we have, I also have a choice as to what do do with this observation.  I could, and often do, let it bother me -- but this is to judge, and to get upset about that which I cannot control.

I can also ignore the situation -- and try to embrace the idea that the prophet can never lead us astray -- but I can no longer walk this path.  To follow in the Prophet's footsteps is to practice the opposite of Godly love and divine leadership. 

Instead, I choose to follow Confucius advice: learn from the example, even if it is a bad one.  

I find myself realizing that divine, inspired leadership is entirely about love, and as such, I need to find in my heart the way that I can live in this culture according to God's way of doing things: through long-suffering, kindness, pure knowledge, and love unfeigned.  

Every attribute of divine love and leadership applies to how I must address my involvement with this church.  

1. To be "long suffering", in the original meaning, meant being enduringly compassionate and slow to passion; this, I need to remain engaged and not react to that which causes us anger.

2.  To be "kind", in the original meaning, meant to be Christlike in giving a hand to others: it's true empathy, especially to those who don't seem to deserve kindness.  Lao Tzu said, 

To the Kind I am Kind.

To the Unkind, I am also Kind.

Our kindness, like our love, must be unconditional.

3.  To rejoice in truth, is to embrace truth from wherever it may come, and never cover our sins.  It means speaking truth to power, lovingly, respectfully, but completely honestly.

4.  To always protect -- to "bear all things", means that I will stand and protect the vulnerable who are adversely affected by this church and its heinous policies toward some.  

5.  And I will be faithful -- always faithful -- or as the marines say "Semper Fidelis".  I will stand by my brothers and sisters in this marvelous journey of A Thoughtful Faith.

I can do more.  I can love.  And I can love in the way God loves: unconditionally.  

And you know?  right now that's really hard.

How Man Creates God in his Own Image

"In the beginning, man created god in his own image, in the image of man, created he him.  Father and Son, created he them."
(Genesis 1:27, "translated" by my seer stone).

If I were to quote this in a church meeting, or with any Christian, Muslim, or Jew, I might as well be (seer) stoned indeed, either literally, figuratively, or otherwise.

Such blasphemy. Or is it?

Does the idea really seem strange that mankind created a definition of god that looks suspiciously like what mankind thinks is a powerful being?  Mankind deferred to kings and despots, so the old testament definition of god is despotic.  Mankind saw that kings and despots conduct genocide, so their god condoned genocide, slavery, polygamy, and all sorts of pretty awful things.

Observe, for a moment, how in the LDS Church, we have a real person, Joseph Smith, who did a number of things, both good and bad.  Yet, when Mormons sing, "Praise to the Man", we have an image of Joseph Smith that hardly corresponds to the reality of the man.  He has become mythologized, to something beyond anything he actually was.  "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."

Our LDS family and friends revere Thomas S. Monson as the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and in recent weeks, the announcement that he is no longer actively involved in church leadership has been met with sadness for how much we will miss his leadership.  I'm sorry, but I don't see it: within months of him taking charge of the Church, he triggered the Proposition 8 campaign, and since then, has done nothing but pursue one ill-conceived political escapade against marriage equality after another.

Yet my point isn't to criticize either Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson.  The reality is that they are human, no more and no less, yet in our culture, we make them more than they really are.

Is it so surprising, then, that we would create god in our own image?

Let's suggest a hypothesis: there is a god.  How would we know this?  How could we be sure that whatever we think is god, who revealed himself to ancient prophets who then attempted to kill their son, or conduct genocide, or who called for the sun to stop moving around the earth so that the israelites could slaughter their enemies -- all that -- how would we know that this "god" is the real "god" and not some demiurge -- a subordinate god who has taken over the earth?  How would we know what God's actual attributes are?  That this same demiurge told us so?

You see the problem here.  Human nature creates explanations to fill in the gaps of understanding. We mythologize historical figures to make them heros -- more than they really were.  We create an image of god in the place of what was a real person, perhaps.

Take Jesus Christ.  Another hypothesis: he was a real person who may have taught that he was the Son of God.  Again, not something I can ever prove -- but I think it's a good working hypothesis.

What on earth did Jesus mean?  What if Jesus, being somehow taught by "wise men from the east", came to a realization that God was not a being "out there", but as many Zoroastrians, Taoists, and Hindus believe, is a real presence within us all?  Jesus did live, after all, in a town that likely was a way station along the Silk Road of his time, where such travelers would have been common.

What if the real teaching Jesus taught was that (1) God is far more real and present than our idolatrous image of god in scripture can ever be, and (2) that mankind indeed shares a common heritage with god?

What if the real teaching from Joseph Smith is (1) God of the creeds -- that of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent being -- is a logical impossibility and an abomination, and those who profess such nonsense are indeed corrupted by a false idea of god, and (2) Mankind indeed shares a common heritage with god?

I note that Jesus condemned Pharisees in the way they had created in the Law something that wasn't there -- the rabbinical/Talmudic interpretation of the Torah was so expanded, distorted, and changed from the original message of godly love that it became an idol to worship.  The rabbis had created a law -- and a god -- in their own idolatrous image.

I note how Mormon culture, cultivated by our idolatrous worship of leaders, has created a culture of obedience to every word uttered by the anointed general authorities.  We worship an idol -- and call that idol Christ.

This leads me to realize, that not only "in the beginning" did man create god, but even today, we continue to create god in our own hateful, despotic image.

Yet in spite of this, I see hope.  Deeply spiritual hope.  Woven in our scriptures and narrative are principles that can transform our dialog and remove the sin of idolatry from us.

• We can anchor to the singular idea that our spiritual intelligence is co-eternal with god
• We can realize that god is not "out there" as a distinct kind of being, but rather, that God is exalted humanity.
• We can embrace that eternal life is not some future state, but rather, as Dieter Uchtdorf has taught, we are in the glorious middle of our eternal lives -- eternity is always found in the Middle.
• We can realize that our faith is made real by practicing love -- unconditional, abiding, perfect love, one for another.

While I no longer believe in the God of creedal Christianity, that of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being who exists outside of being -- to me it this being is a logical impossibility and a monster in the presence of random evil.  I have come to know, personally, a god within me, who weeps with me, and listens to me as I struggle through this existence.  And I have seen how this same presence is expressed when we are exalted humans -- able to love and serve one another here, now, in this life, in love.

And when I embrace this god, i start to realize that my image transforms, god creates me in his or her own image, and as i peer into the eyes and soul of my brothers and sisters, i see the very image -- the face -- of god.