Women in the Workplace – One Man’s Perspective

Why is it that we value differences in personality types in the workplace, but when it comes to the sexes, the perception at least, is that we want them equalized?

Note: I attempted to pack too much into one article when I originally published this piece. Breaking this post up into several separate posts would have made it more coherent. As it stands, it has served as an excellent reference tool for me to come back to as a resource for this subject matter, but reading it now feels too disjointed to be taken as a well written article on its own. Jay Ball – 27/Mar/2023

Early last year, the women’s network at the company where I work held a lunch meeting and “TED Talk Panel Discussion”. I wasn’t sure what that was, but I was tempted by the offer for a free lunch, so I attended.

At first I hesitated because, well, what reason did I have to attend a women’s networking meeting where all they were going to do is talk about women in the workplace, how to recognize signs of discrimination, raise awareness of harmful stereotypes, and listen to women talk about their need to be treated fairly, etc.

I admit I am surprised at what I picked up in that meeting. More on that in a minute.

Women’s Networking Meeting

The meeting opened with lunch while we watched a TED Talk video, Start with Why – how great leaders inspire action by Simon Sinek. This was followed by a panel discussion with some of the leadership. Finally, in the last 15-20 minutes there was a panel of four men who shared what they recently learned from attending a company sponsored training workshop called MARC (Men Advocating Real Change).

Simon Sinek’s TED talk and the discussion that followed was informative. Enlightening. I took notes. I won’t take the space here to share all the points of Simon’s speech. You can go watch it (14 minutes) here, but the key points of his speech that relate to my thoughts here, were about how the human brain has three parts that align with what he diagrammed as “the golden circle”.

“None of what I’m telling you is my opinion,” Simon told us. “It’s all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology.”

He explained, “Our newest brain, our homo sapien brain, our neocortex… is responsible for all our rational and analytical thought and language.

“The middle sections make up our limbic brains and are responsible for all our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It’s also responsible for all human behavior, all decision making, and it has no capacity for language.

“When we communicate from the inside out, we’re talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior. Then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from.”

War of Sexes

Then the atmosphere seemed to shift when the panel of four men came forward to share their experience from the MARC training they attended. I say I felt a shift, but this is possibly only my experience. I really can’t speak for anyone else. My preconceived ideas about this part of the meeting shaped how I processed the information that was presented. I perceived them as whimpering dogs with a tail between their legs as they were beaten into submission under the hands of the parent organization, Catalyst, whose mission is to “help build workplaces that work for women”. I wanted to return from the meeting and tell my fellow male co-workers that the reason I went was because I consider myself a real man and I mistook the name for “Real Men Advocating for Change”. In the end I’m happy to say that I have had a humbling shift in my attitude, but not how you might think. I will explain later. But here let me clarify why it is that I feel so uneasy confronting this subject.

My biggest discomfort arises from the many accusations from parties on both sides in a war of the sexes. It disturbs me to realize how easy it could be for a simple accusation from the wrong woman in an inopportune circumstance to destroy an undeserving man’s career. On the other hand, it is heartbreaking to hear of sexual harassment that many women endure at the hands of brutish men who feel it their privilege to treat a woman with disrespect as if she weren’t even human. When the cries of injustice and accusations escalate the battleground fills with more appalling stories that the other side uses to justify even greater extremes. Who will win and where will it end? Not unlike the fields of war this bloody battleground will continue until it is filled with rotting carcasses of the dead and wounded where there are no winners and we all come out losers.

At the heart of this division is an attitude of accusation and fear. What I’m hoping to explore in this article is where do we find harmony and balance? Is it really necessary to point out the wrongs of the other party before we can find virtue in both?

There is little comfort for me in the promises of those promoting a doctrine of diversity and inclusion using flowery language like this taken from GlobalDiversityPractice.com:
“Diversity allows for the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It means understanding one another by surpassing simple tolerance to ensure people truly value their differences.”

Being a peacemaker at heart, it may sound illogical for me to take issue with such a peacefully worded statement. But the statement left me to wonder why we are so quick to assume that exploring differences in “a safe, positive, and nurturing environment” means a guarantee that someone’s feelings won’t get hurt. My experience is that the greatest moments of awakening and realization happened for me because someone had the courage to challenge my thinking without fear of hurting my feelings.

Let me back up for a minute. It may not be evident where the statement says anything about hurt feelings, so I want to ask, what does “surpassing simple tolerance” look like? Could it look like an effort to temper disagreements? If tolerance requires disagreement (because insisting on agreement is not tolerance, but it’s opposite), then how does one, in an environment of differences, achieve a state that “surpasses simple tolerance”?

I don’t want it to appear that I’m getting off topic, but it’s important to establish that to implement diversity and inclusion in the workplace, any suppression of speech in the name of “surpassing simple tolerance” will be counterintuitive to the very objectives we are trying to promote. As President Obama said, “efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities… the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech.” [1]

In other words, in an effort to create a peaceful environment, it’s possible that an attempt to suppress conflict can engender a climate where people feel unsafe, rather than feeling safe in expressing their views. The best way to ensure the exploration of differences in “a safe, positive, and nurturing environment”, is to allow for the expression of tolerant views, even if those views may offend or give insult to others. [2]

Take, for example, an experience Eldra Jackson shares at TEDWomen 2018. In his speech, Eldra attributes “24 years of a life sentence in prison for kidnapping, robbery, and attempted murder” on “a disease that has come to be known as toxic masculinity.” [3]

He found a cure through Inside Circle, an organization founded by Patrick Nolan to combat gang violence in the prison yard. Through an exercise called Circle Time — “men sitting with men and cutting through the bullshit and challenging structural ways of thinking” — Jackson learned that “characteristics usually defined as weaknesses are parts of the whole, healthy man.” It is because men can share candidly and openly without worrying if their words might offend that the program is able to make such impact in these men’s lives.

There is another reason I bring up Eldra’s story. He introduces the subject of toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity refers to certain norms of masculine behavior that are associated with harm to society and to men themselves. In the panel discussion that I attended, one of the men related an example given in the MARC training that made me stop and think. On the playground, when boys want to insult one another they will call the other a “sissy” or “girl”. Think about how it would make you feel if the object of insult among your peers was to call someone “insert your name here”.

There is a consensus that as a society we need to stop this kind of behavior. We need to nip this in the bud and stop tolerating such abusive or stereotypically negative language used by our children. For me it begged the question, why is it an insult to manhood to be considered feminine? I’m going to borrow from Simon Sinek and suggest that it has to do with biology, not psychology. I will explore this in a moment, but there was another question that arose in my mind that also created some tension for me. Why is it that we value differences in personality types in the workplace, but when it comes to the sexes, the perception at least, is that we want them equalized? [4]

Personality Types and The Sexes

According to the personality profile assessment from a training I attended at work several years ago, I am primarily Analytical with strong undertones of Amiable. The four types from this particular profile classify personality types into four categories; Driver, Analytical, Amiable and Expressive. Other popular personality assessment tools include Myers-Briggs (MBTI®), the DiSC profile, published by Wiley, and Taylor Hartman’s The Color Code. Employers often use personality assessment tools in trainings or workshops to help employees identify and relate to each other in healthy ways. Organizations conduct such trainings because they understand how it helps to improve communication, avoid and resolve conflicts and improves professional relationships.

When it comes to personality types, we appreciate and even try to capitalize on the differences. Why don’t we try to do the same when it comes to the sexes? [5]

Characteristics of Masculine and Feminine

Above, I suggested the idea that name calling on the playground could relate to something in our biology, but I confess this is mostly my assumption. My purpose here is to focus on differences between masculine and feminine attributes over differences between the sexes. [6] I would use the word biology only in the sense that generally men are more likely to be dominant in masculine characteristics and women more dominant in the feminine. It is important to recognize that both men and women exhibit characteristics of both feminine and masculine attributes. In other words, we do see cases of men who are dominant with feminine characteristics and vice versa, but we all share moments where we step into one or the other of the two roles. For the purposes of this discussion, I want to disassociate gender from the discussion and focus on traits of the masculine and feminine. For this reason I will use the pronoun “he” to describe one who is dominant in the masculine traits, and “she” for one who is dominant in her feminine, regardless of gender.

Recall that in his TED talk, Simon Sinek spoke about a part of the brain that has no capacity for language.
“Sometimes you can give someone all the facts and figures and they may say, ‘it just doesn’t feel right’. Why would you use that verb, it doesn’t ‘feel’ right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn’t control language. And the best we can muster is ‘it just doesn’t feel right’. Or sometimes you say you’re leading with your heart, or you’re leading with your soul.”

Much of what I am about to say comes from a sense of what “feels right” to me. Language may be a hindrance to me here. What I am attempting to communicate are concepts and ideas without getting too hung up on the words.

Rather than begin by simply making a list of feminine and masculine attributes, I would like to approach this from a different perspective.

If I were to try to paint a picture with words to describe what feminine is, I might use language to say she is elusive like the wind. She is the sparkle of sunlight shimmering off ripples on the surface of a lake. She is uncontained like the ocean. The masculine, on the other hand, could be likened to a ship on the ocean. It captures the wind in its sails and charts a course. It is direction and purpose. It focuses its attention and energy to the accomplishment of a goal. There is power in the feminine. Like the ocean, she has power to crush the ship to smithereens in an instant. When the two work together it becomes possible to reach the desired destination.

Different disciplines from yoga to childbirth preparation to meditation have used breathing as an aid to practicing mindfulness. Many of these practices teach how breath and breathing relates to masculine and feminine attributes. I particularly like the imagery of the breath and what meaning can be drawn from contemplating how it relates to masculine and feminine attributes.

There are a number of meditative practices where the inhalation symbolizes a feminine energy and the exhalation symbolizes a masculine energy. Inhalation signifying the feminine is apt because the very first breath a baby takes when it is born is an inhale, which represents life. The feminine yearns to take in joy and be filled with love. Masculine signified by an exhalation is apt because the very last breath of life is an exhale, representing death. The nature of the masculine wants to draw things to an end, reach a conclusion. It lives on the edge, faces risk, seeks freedom from constraints and aspires to empty itself of stress. We can see the masculine and feminine aspects embodied in the breath. Each breath we take exhibits the working together of both masculine and feminine attributes.

In many cultures, both ancient and modern, the sun and moon are symbols of masculine and feminine. The sun is an example of a warmer working energy representing the masculine. The moon represents the softer cool and refreshing energy of the feminine. From the surface of the earth they occupy equal space in the heavens. Although the circumference of the sun is approximately 400 times larger than the moon, the moon is approximately 400 times closer to the earth. As a result they are visibly equal in size and occupy the same path on the ecliptic. This is why the moon is able to eclipse the sun.

The sun, is stable, unchangeable, reliable and predictable. The sun rises every day on the horizon in the east and sets every evening on the horizon in the west. He is unvarying in his course from day to day and year to year. The feminine, represented by the moon, changes each day. She waxes and wanes. She does not just move from east to west, but the moonrise also constantly moves in the opposite direction from west to east. Every day she reappears further to the east before beginning her movement to the west. She moves approximately 50 minutes eastward each day.

Her complex movements overhead were part of the reason she was known anciently as “The Great Dancer.” Her movements display constantly changing motions, contrasting with her companion sun. This contrast between the movements of the sun and the moon brings to mind the quip by cartoonist Bob Thaves about Ginger Rogers, the dancing partner of acclaimed Fred Astair, “Sure he was great, but don’t forget that Ginger Rogers did everything he did…backwards and in high heels.”

Using some of this imagery, and without making any claim or attempt to be comprehensive, some key traits that we can associate with the masculine include courage, assertiveness, strength, boldness, and confidence. Feminine traits include sensitivity, nurturing, attentiveness, and beauty. Again, this does not suggest that women can’t be bold or men cannot be sensitive.

The epitome of masculine is war. War typifies all the elements we associate with the masculine, like taking risk, facing death, exhibiting strength, pushing past boundaries, and seeking freedom.
We can see the elements of war imagery played over into sports. Constraints are set up and a goal established. Then the players engage in a battle against the other team to take risks and push past boundaries to freedom. May the strongest and most assertive team win. Or, put another way, may the most masculine team win. You hear imagery of these masculine traits carry over into our language. A phrase like “we slaughtered them” is used to describe an impressive win in sports. Succeeding in business is expressed as “killing it”, and in wishing success in a presentation or on stage one may say, “knock em’ dead”. I would suggest that on the playground where it is an insult for boys to be called anything feminine is not as much an indication of incorrect upbringing as it is that, at its core, language is reflecting something from deeper in the brain. Remove gender from the equation, and what I am saying is that it is a legitimate insult to the masculine to be referred to as its opposite. The gift of the masculine is that its power lies in being decisive, acting tenaciously in pursuit of the goal, taking the bull by the horns and getting the job done. When the situation calls for aggression, an effeminate response is not only counterproductive, it can be outright dangerous. Does this mean there is no place for a feminine response? Absolutely not. But in the heat of the game, when the ball is on the 20 yard line, or in a case where the life or death of the business lies on having the guts to take a bold risk, these situations call for a masculine response. It is no insult to the feminine in these cases, in fact it is complimentary. More on that later.

Business as a Masculine Arena

There are countless books and articles that compare business with strategies and tactics used in war, as summed up in this statement from an article from FastCompnay, “Business in the New Economy is a civilized version of war. Companies, not countries, are battlefield rivals.” [7]

Winning in war or business involves all the elements that make up what I am calling masculine traits. I believe it is helpful to recognize that when you are talking about business, you are talking about a game that is being played in a masculine arena. This can create a certain tension for those who are dominant in feminine traits (naturally made up mostly of women), who are trying to compete in this arena. Instead of feeling weak and helpless in a situation that is beyond one’s control, seeing the reality of the picture in its true light should empower, not discourage.

In his Simploelogy training, Mark Joyner describes one of the lessons that had the most impact in his military education. When he was a US Army Officer attending the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, an influential military teacher taught one impactful lesson asking “Which one of you wannabe-officers can tell me the single essential skill of a leader?” After the young new 2nd Lieutenants fumbled around with finding an answer for about 20 minutes he finally revealed the answer:
“What defines a leader, more than anything else, is his ability to see the battlefield.” [8]

What will be most helpful for the feminine (as well as the masculine) in the business arena, is to “see the battlefield”.

In a featured MARC article Victoria Roseberry compared feminine traits such as empathy and emotional awareness with masculine traits. She observed:
“Traits traditionally associated with male gender roles, such as dominance, assertiveness, and confidence, are also those that are considered essential for leadership positions.” [9]

Consider that if you have an all-women’s basketball team, the game is still basketball. Forgive the stereotype here, but if you were to run across a men’s-only craft show, it would still be a craft show. It’s not about who the participants are, it is about what the game is. In this case, the game is business. No matter who is participating, if you are engaged in the business of doing business, it’s business. By nature, winning in this arena goes to the most masculine.

To liken this with war, imagine you are battling it out with an opponent on the battlefield. With sword in hand you approach your opponent. Losing means you will die. Winning the battle involves all the characteristics associated with masculine. It may involve strength and courage, but can also include wit and strategy. It involves all the planning and preparation that played a role before even engaging in the fight. Recall the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones came face to face with a threatening sword wielding bandit, and pulled out his gun and shot the sucker. I’m not making any argument for or against rules or what is right and wrong. I’m simply saying that everything I just described exemplifies the masculine, and can be applied to the game of business.

This discussion isn’t about the reality of the abuses on both sides that take place in the battle of the sexes. We know that sexual harassment against women in the workplace is real. When it comes to competing and winning in the business world, women deal with a higher ‘specific gravity’ that men simply don’t identify with. It’s true that men work with a tailwind pushing them forward where women must fight against a harsh headwind. That’s why organizations like Catalyst exist. They serve to educate us about these realities. Acknowledging these realities is important, just as it is important to know the nature of the arena in which you find yourself in the business world.

Does this mean there is no room for the feminine in business?

How does this fit with allowing for differences in sexes just like we appreciate differences in personality types? Does this mean that there is no room in business for feminine traits?

Just as every analytical or amiable personality type who doesn’t have a desire to work their way into supervisory roles serve happily where they do best in the workplace. Likewise, not everyone with a feminine dominant personality has a desire to battle her way into the top positions, but may happily contribute where she serves best. The workplace needs each personality contributing their best with the talents they individually bring.

If the position you seek and the role you want to play in the workplace requires ambition, drive, strategy, and courage, you may find yourself competing for that position in the same arena with others of like mind. Recall the Always ad campaign #LikeAGirl where the question is posed, “Why can’t run like a girl also mean win the race?” Running like a girl doesn’t mean you can’t run just like yourself and still win. Just realize it’s not about whether you are a boy or a girl running any more than playing and winning at basketball on an all-women’s team is about women doing the playing. It’s about basketball, and the team that wins is the one who best employed all the elements I’m trying to define here as masculine.

Cesar Millan gives a great example of what I’m talking about:
“I used this trick a few times on ‘The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan,’ but one that stands out for me is a woman who could not control her dog on the walk. This was because she was showing weak energy, so the dog was pulling her all over the place. When I asked her to think of a character who inspired calm, assertive energy, she chose Cleopatra — and once she started to carry herself like a queen, everything changed. Her dog followed her immediately, and once her dog showed calm, submissive energy, she became even more confident.” [10]

So what is the gift of the feminine?

Earlier, I related the feminine to the ocean, saying she has power to crush a ship to smithereens. But the word power, as I have used it in this article so far, is a term of strength and energy; words I have associated as masculine traits. Is there power in the feminine?
When composing my thoughts at this stage in this article, this question perplexed me. In thinking of power in terms of courage, stamina, and energy, I struggled with trying to put my finger on where is the power in the feminine.

So far I have been contrasting power to how it relates to things like war, sports, and business being played in a masculine arena. It’s a masculine game. “Game” in the masculine sense has boundaries and rules and a goal. It seeks freedom. Power (or the ability to do) in the masculine sense is the ability to accomplish the end result. Win the game, battle and conquer without dying first, succeed in business, etc.

“Game” in the feminine sense is about play and being in the moment. It is love. It’s not concerned with the boundaries, rules or goals. Power in the feminine is the ability to be in the moment. The ability to sense when others are not performing at their best in the moment. The ability to enjoy the game while you are playing it. The ability to be spontaneous as well as attentive, and to nurture. The feminine is not trying to bring things to conclusion, close the book, or end the debate. She just is.

The masculine is constancy amid change. The feminine is change. Where the masculine gets his bearings by learning from past mistakes and charting a better course going forward, the feminine lives in the present. You may be on time for every meeting consistently for 10 years. But you can be late just once for an important meeting and catch the wrath of the feminine. Your track record doesn’t matter to her. This is because the role of the feminine demands you be your best here and now.

When it comes to power in the feminine, we are talking about a different game altogether. I’m reminded of an episode of Star Trek [11] where Data is pushed to challenge the arrogant Kolrami, assuming Kolrami will be no match for Data’s android reflexes and computational ability. When the two play, however, Data is soundly beaten, causing him to become convinced he is malfunctioning. Later Data challenges Kolrami to a Strategema rematch. This time, Data is able to hold Kolrami in check; Kolrami grows more and more frustrated as the match progresses, ultimately throwing down his controls in disgust and storming off. Data explains that he altered his strategy, giving up opportunities for advancement in order to maintain a stalemate, which he believes he could have maintained indefinitely. The feminine isn’t trying to change the rules. She’s just playing a different game.

What is the ideal form of feminine?

If the epitome of the masculine is war, then what is the epitome of the feminine? I considered the metaphor of the breath, where masculine relates to death and the feminine relates to life. What more apt representation of life than the first breath taken by a newborn baby at birth? What is more completely feminine than motherhood? Then I considered that in the process of bringing life into the world, a mother faces the risk of death for both her and the unborn child. No matter how wonderfully modern technology is able to minimize that risk, the risk is always present. In a way that no man can fully appreciate, in the birth process a woman faces the key elements that I have listed as masculine – risk, strength, courage, living on the edge, facing death – how curious. What is the difference between a woman facing death while giving birth, and a soldier facing death on the battlefield? [12] The most obvious difference to me is the very real and intimate way that she risks her life to bring life into the world.

No woman ever describes birth with phrases like “killing it”, or “knockin ‘em dead”. Neither will you ever hear the insult “she gives birth like a boy”. Feminine stands in her own space apart from the masculine with a natural sense of light and joy. There is no prideful glory in motherhood. [13] The feminine steps up to her calling, faces the risk and endures it nobly.

St. John put it well:
“When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” (John 16:21)

Every infant comes into this world in profound need. The child’s existence is dependent on the nurturing care of the feminine, which care is always given at the sacrifice of other things she might be doing. In that sense it is a selfless act of kindness, because raising an infant is never convenient.

Except for what happens in the womb of the woman, everything else in our human condition is subject to entropy. Women have power to produce new life. Everything else decays and dies. Her power defies the universal effects of entropy.

I do not mean for this to sound like a Sunday Mother’s Day sermon, but I confess it is difficult for me to compose my thoughts on this topic without a sense of reverence. Many women choose not to become mothers. I want to remind the reader that I’m not talking about women, but traits of the feminine. What I am exploring here is the polar opposite of masculine death and war with feminine birth and life. I am suggesting it is in birth where we see the greatest gifts and most noble traits of the feminine.

Motherhood in the Workplace?

So if the topic of this article is dealing with women in the workplace, how does motherhood fit into the picture of the workplace? It doesn’t. Though there are women who seek for careers and who find themselves sacrificing motherhood in order to compete with men in the business world, [14] that is off topic. What I am focusing on is appreciating the differences between the masculine and feminine attributes. As it relates to this topic, motherhood only comes into the picture as it reveals the most dignified traits of the feminine, and how that helps give contrast to its relationship with the masculine.

Mothers are known to have a sense of intuition about what their children are doing in the next room. [15] This intuitive sense is more keen with experienced mothers and sometimes she is able to sense when her child is in trouble even when he is far away. This intuitive sense is also seen with experienced basketball players who can tell when an opposing player is right behind her on the court. Or with an experienced fisherman who can sense right where the fish will be biting that day. But intuition and experience are things that contribute to an even greater feminine characteristic I will call wisdom. Psychology Today gives this perspective:

“Wisdom is one of those qualities that is difficult to define—because it encompasses so much—but which people generally recognize when they encounter it. And it is encountered most obviously in the realm of decision-making. Psychologists tend to agree that wisdom involves an integration of knowledge, experience, and deep understanding that incorporates tolerance for the uncertainties of life as well as its ups and downs. There’s an awareness of how things play out over time, and it confers a sense of balance. It can be acquired only through experience, but by itself, experience does not automatically confer wisdom.”

Masculine Knowledge and Feminine Wisdom

In ancient texts wisdom is referred to as feminine:
“Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:” (Proverbs 9:1)

In Hebrew it is called chokmah [הָמְכָח] (phonetically khokmaw’), which is a feminine noun. In Greek it is sophia [σοφία] which is likewise a feminine noun. Where wisdom has been referred to as the gift of the feminine, knowledge is the gift of the masculine. Only together do they become complete.

I like this description of the difference between knowledge and wisdom from Diffen.com:
“’Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?’ —T.S. Eliot. Knowledge is gathered from learning and education, while most say that wisdom is gathered from day-to-day experiences and is a state of being wise. Knowledge is merely having clarity of facts and truths, while wisdom is the practical ability to make consistently good decisions in life.”

Francis Briers from Integration Training talks about the art of cultivating wisdom in organizations in this informative 5 minute video.

So, to wrap this up…

There may be some grey areas and overlap on some characteristics that we could classify specifically as feminine or masculine. I have made no attempt to define the separate traits comprehensively. My objective has been to acknowledge and point out differences in hope that we can appreciate the beautiful way they work together, where alone they are barren and unfruitful. Knowledge alone may provide a spark of energy, but it can be potentially dangerous if it is not wisely directed. Wisdom alone is not an agent of action. Knowledge can initiate action, but wisdom is necessary to guide and counsel.

I think the point I’m trying to make is illustrated well with this example of Alexander the Great. I love this quote from Steven Pressfield in his book, The Virtues of War, where Alexander is talking:
“How does one make decisions? By rationality? My tutor Aristotle could classify the world, but couldn’t find his way to the village square. One must dive deeper than reason. The Thracians of Bithynia trust no decision unless they make it drunk. They know something we don’t. A lion never makes a bad decision. Is he guided by reason? Is an eagle ‘rational’?… Great commanders do not temper their measures to What Is; they bring forth What May Be.” (The Virtues of War, Steven Pressfield, p. 202)

Alexander and other great leaders were able to trust in a sense of something outside of reasoning or knowledge alone. They had the boldness and courage to take actions in moments that required a split decision where the success or failure of many lives, the army, or even the nation hung in the balance. Yet they allowed this to be tempered by the intuition and experience of wisdom.

Near the beginning of this article I mentioned that my objective is to find harmony and balance. I like how Keith Merron put it:
“The degree to which the masculine and feminine qualities are represented and are utilized well is the essence of balance.” [16]

Yes, masculine and feminine are opposites, but they are meant to be complementary opposites. They each have negative and positive traits. In this article my focus has been on the positive traits. Great things can, do, and should continue to happen when we recognize and appreciate the complementary nature of the differences between the sexes.

1 President Obama’s speech to the UN general assembly – full transcript Delivered to the UN in New York on 25 September 2012 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/25/obama-un-general-assembly-transcript

2 “The clear problem with the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism is easily construed as insult by certain parties. Ridicule is easily construed as insult. Sarcasm, unfavourable comparison, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy can be interpreted as insult. And because so many things can be interpreted as insult, it is hardly surprising that so many things have been“. (New Intolerance speech, Rowan Atkinson At Reform Section 5 Parliamentary Reception, October 21, 2012,
https://lybio.net/rowan-atkinson-at-reform-section-5-parliamentary-reception/speeches/)

3 Eldra Jackson – TED Women 2018, How to break the cycle of toxic masculinity. https://www.ted.com/talks/eldra_jackson_how_to_break_the_cycle_of_toxic_masculinity#t-29433
(starting at :38 min mark.)

4 “After all, the most striking lack of knowledge about the opposite sex is how similar the two sexes really are. That may sound like a contradiction. Gender differences exist and these do contribute to the sex partition. However, biological differences aside, men and women are far more similar than they are different.” (Gender Differences at Work: We’re not that Different! Kim Elsesser, https://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/improving-employee-relations/gender-differences-at-work.aspx)
“‘The bottom line is that saying there are differences in male and female brains is just not true. There is pretty compelling evidence that any differences are tiny and are the result of environment not biology,’ said Prof Rippon.” (The Telegraph, Men and women do not have different brains, claims neuroscientist, Sarah Knapton, 8 Mar 2014, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10684179/Men-and-women-do-not-have-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html)

5 It appears there has been some notable work done on the topic of appreciating the differences in the sexes that is worth exploring:
“Other scholars believe the gender imbalance exists primarily due to innate differences in men’s and women’s perceptions, decisions, and behaviors. For example, research has found that men are more likely than women to engage in dominant or aggressive behaviors, to initiate negotiations, and to self-select into competitive environments — behaviors likely to facilitate professional advancement.” (Explaining Gender Differences at the Top by Francesca Gino and Alison Wood Brooks, Sep 23, 2015 https://hbr.org/2015/09/explaining-gender-differences-at-the-top.
See also 8 Blind Spots Between the Sexes at Work by Susan Adams, https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/04/26/8-blind-spots-between-the-sexes-at-work/#4c3d6428314d)

6 “But are these outcome differences due to biological differences? While there are (of course) biological differences between the sexes, social science has shown that men and women are more similar than different on a wide range of characteristics, from personality to ability to attitude — and that these factors have a larger effect on career outcomes than biology does.” (What the Science Actually Says About Gender Gaps in the Workplace, Harvard Business Review, Stefanie K. Johnson, Aug 17, 2017, https://hbr.org/2017/08/what-the-science-actually-says-about-gender-gaps-in-the-workplace)

7 Business As War, Oct 31, 1993, https://www.fastcompany.com/55076/business-war

8 Simpleology 102 Virtuosity manual, p. 20, 2005, Mark Joyner, Inc. http://www.simpleology.com/blog/2014/05/the-complexity-gap.html

9 How Stereotypes Impact Women (And Men) At Work by Victoria Roseberry, http://onthemarc.org/blogs/22/521#.XBmBLBNKhE5

10 Who’s your hero?, Cesar Millan, Cesar’s Way, https://www.cesarsway.com/cesar-millan/cesars-blog/Whos-your-hero

11 Episode Peak Performance of the second season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, July 10, 1989, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Performance_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

12 There is a natural and inevitable affection children hold for their mothers. That affection is close to the hearts of all dying men. There are many battlefield accounts of how dying men call out in their last breath for their mother. Roland Bartetzko, former German Army soldier, when under fire in his first combat experience uttered “Mother” when fire struck others beside him. As he reflected on why he spoke that out loud he concluded, “Our lives begin with our mothers giving birth to us and on the day when I thought that my life was over, my mind circled back to where it all had begun.”
Roland Bartetzko, former German Army, Croatian Defense Council, Kosovo Liberation Army, Dec 14, 2016, Why do some soldiers call for their mother when they are dying on the battlefield? https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-soldiers-call-for-their-mother-when-they-are-dying-on-the-battlefield?share=1
See also A Young Warrior’s Last Thought is for Mother, by Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/10/a-young-warriors-last-thought-is-for-mother/

13 I’m reminded of a comic routine by Bill Burr where motherhood is mocked in contrast to the hard working masculine. I agree with the nobility of men who risk their lives in worthy labor, but am disheartened at how this is used to belittle motherhood:
“We’re watching it the other day, you know, Oprah’s on there. She’s interviewing some client, you know. She’s giving her this big ridiculous intro, like she’s done this, she’s done that, she’s done this… and “she’s done the most difficult job on the planet, she’s a mother”… she continues on… and immediately I just look at my girlfriend like, like really!? Being a mother is “the most difficult job on the planet”? Oh yeah, all those mothers who die every year from black lung from inhaling all that coal dust… There’s just this tornado of misinformation. “I have the most difficult job on the planet”. What would you rather be doing, drilling to the center of the earth, shaking hands with the devil every time there’s a rumble in the brow, you’re waiting for the whole thing to collapse down on top of you. Yeah, so they can write that folk song about you? Would you rather be up in the sunshine, running around with a couple of toddlers that you can send to bed anytime you want on some trumped up charges. Because you want to have a drink and watch the price is right, you know what I mean? I couldn’t believe it, “it’s the most difficult job on the planet”. Oh yeah. I thought roofing in the middle of July as a redhead, I thought that was the… but these mothers are bending over at the waist, putting DVDs in the DVD player. I don’t know how they do it. I don’t know how they do it. Dude any job that you can do in your pajamas is not a difficult job. Right? Gimme a break.” (peals of laughter)
(Bill Burr on feminism, A comedian who talks about feminism. https://youtu.be/N0vZhz3sN_E)

14 See The Top 5 Sacrifices Women Make For Their Career, Bonnie Marcus, 29 Aug 2016,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2016/08/29/the-top-5-sacrifices-women-make-for-their-career/#f2617b17d75d

15 Do mothers have a sixth sense?
https://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/949721/do-mothers-have-a-sixth-sense/

16 Keith Merron, quoted in an article by By Drew Gannon, The Fiscal Times May 25, 2012, How Men and Women Differ in the Workplace. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/25/How-Men-and-Women-Differ-in-the-Workplace

Download this article in PDF format here.

Do I Belong to a Cult?

Below is the ICSA list of Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups along side comparative notes about the Mormon Church at the time of Joseph Smith.

In their book, How Wide the Divide, A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation, Steven Robinson and Craig Blomberg make the following statement,

“Many of these characteristics [of what define a ‘cult’] no longer apply to Mormonism” (p. 193)

“No longer apply”, suggests that they once did apply. Exactly what “cult-like” characteristics did at one time apply in the past that “no longer apply” now? This is the question I intend to address in this article.

The reasoning for the statement is based on a broad definition of “cult” given by Walter Martin.

“In his book The New Cults, Walter Martin defines a cult as ‘a group, religious in nature, which surrounds a leader, or a group which either denies or misinterprets essential biblical doctrines.’” (LetUsReason.org, Eight Marks of Organized Heresy Which Make a CULT)

“Unless the term ‘cult’ is to be so broad as to be meaningless (that is, equivalent to anything that is not Evangelical—including most Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and liberal Protes­tantism, not to mention entirely separate world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam), then it should be reserved for the kind of small, bizarre fringe groups sociologists more technically label as cultic (such as those led to their deaths by Jim Jones or David Koresh).” (How Wide the Divide, p. 193)

I am less interested in a definition of cult as anything that disagrees with someone’s definition of Christian teachings from the Bible, and am more concerned with the very real danger of finding myself aligned with something legitimately insidious. After all, the victims caught in the Jim Jones or David Koresh traps were, like me, innocent sincere seekers of truth. How does one remain open to truth (as scripture tells us, “like a child”), without becoming vulnerable and susceptible to the evils of someone or some institution with an agenda?

To address this I would rather trust a less biased source for information on how real cults work.

International Cultic Studies Association

“Founded in 1979, the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) is a global network of people concerned about psychological manipulation and abuse in cultic or high-demand groups, alternative movements, and other environments. ICSA is tax-exempt, supports civil liberties, and is not affiliated with any religious or commercial organizations.”

ICSA has developed a list of characteristics associated with cultic groups that can be used as a tool to evaluate an organization against a standard of what can be considered a cult.

“Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine whether there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine whether a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.” (Michael D. Langone, ICSA Today, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2015, 10.)

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups Compared with Early Mormon Church

Below is the ICSA list of Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups along side comparative notes about the Mormon* Church at the time of Joseph Smith. Nothing exhaustive is attempted here. This is a list of observations that come to mind to demonstrate cult/non-cult like behavior of the church at the time of Joseph Smith.

No attempt has been made here to compare cult-like characteristics and patterns to modern-day Mormon or LDS churches.

[OK, here is where I admit I’m too lazy to figure out how to do a table along with all the endnotes in WordPress, so to read the rest of this article you will need to view it in one of the two formats I link to below. Enjoy:]

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups in GoogleDocs format (with clickable links).

Or download as PDF document – Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups.

*  There are over 80 denominations claiming Joseph Smith as its founder. I use the term “Mormon” (instead of “LDS” or something else) to identify a common term by which most will recognize the original sect founded by Joseph Smith.

How Wide the Divide

My first reaction to the book is to applaud that this conversation takes place between anyone of differing denominations.

Book review by Jay Ball

I just finished reading “How Wide the Divide, A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation” by Steven Robinson from BYU and co-authored with a member of the Evangelical-based Denver Theological Seminary faculty, Craig Blomberg. (In the following article, page references without any other citation are to this book.)
As an LDS reader, my first reaction to the book is to applaud that this conversation takes place between anyone of differing denominations.

Like Paul in Philippians 4:2 pleading with Euodia and Syntyche to “agree with each other in the Lord” (NIV), or “be of the same mind” (KJV), I think there is value in finding common ground wherever two or more can gather in His name (see Matt 18:20).

I thought these remarks in the concluding chapter made a good summation of the book:

“As we have made clear throughout this book, we do not claim to have settled all of our differences. Neither do we believe that Mormons and Evangelicals would, or even ought to, accept one another’s baptisms. We harbor no delusions that this modest dialog will in any way diminish the extent to which LDS missionaries bear testimony to Evangelicals or to which Evangelicals witness to Mormons, nor do our respective beliefs convince us that such activity should diminish. But we can hope and pray that as sincere, spiritual men and women (who all claim the name of Christ) talk about their beliefs and life pilgrimages with each other, they might do so with considerably more accurate information about each other and in a noticeably more charitable spirit than has often been the case, after the pattern set by common intent of both ‘sides’ to confess, to worship, and to serve that Jesus Christ who is described in the New Testament as our Lord…
Might we look forward to the day when youth groups or adult Sunday-school classes from Mormon and Evangelical churches in the same neighborhoods would gather periodically to share their beliefs with each other in love and for the sake of understanding, not proselytizing?” (How Wide the Divide, p. 190-191)

As with any good discussion, there is value in what we can learn from each other in the process, particularly as it may enlighten our understanding about things that matter most. I admire how the two authors often disagreed with each other in a way that was not harsh or contentious. This I feel is a sign of a good and healthy discussion. It is with such a spirit I add my own commentary to this discussion.

As I often do, I made observations in the margins as I read. One thing I think that surprised me most is Robinson’s focus and desire that Mormons be accepted as Christian. Part of me agrees with his argument:

“If Armenian and Calvinist Evangelicals can disagree over free will, election, irresistible grace, eternal security and so on, and yet both be deemed Christians, I don’t think merely believing in a subdivided heaven or believing that Jesus can save even the dead should get the LDS thrown out of Christendom.” (Robinson, p. 154)

On the other hand, I see value in LDS just conceding the point and proudly acknowledge we are NOT part of Historic Christianity. We disagree with Historic Christianity, and at a fundamental level we denounce it as false. We claim to be a restoration of Primitive Christianity. We do not share in accepting the creeds which Christ to Joseph Smith denounced as “an abomination in His sight.” (Joseph Smith History 1:19.)

Oddly, from the LDS end, we try and avoid the argument, fit in, claim we are “good Christians too,” and part of the larger community of churches. We try to make ourselves seem more like Historic Christianity, and avoid or discard what once set us apart.

On LDS Orthodoxy

In his effort for Mormons to be accepted as Christian, Robinson makes a point to establish certain things as agreeing with (or not) to a standard Mormon orthodoxy, as if there was such a thing.

“By and large the LDS do not worry as much about orthodoxy within their own community as do Evangelicals, though there is such a thing as LDS orthodoxy. In short run, LDS orthodoxy is defined by the Standard Works of the Church (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) as interpreted by the General Authorities of the Church – the current apostles and prophets.” (p. 15)

The phrase “LDS orthodoxy” seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me. We have no ‘orthodox’ creed in Mormonism. We welcome all truth, from whatever source. We have the following statements in our scriptures:

“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.” (11th Article of Faith)

Despite this, Robinson continues to assert “official LDS teaching” in his discussion on various topics.

“The official doctrine of the Church on deification does not extend in essentials beyond what is said in the Bible, with its Doctrines and Covenants parallels.” (Robinson, p. 85)

One important LDS cannon of “official doctrine” that Robinson has missed giving any reference to is Lectures on Faith which was never “officially” removed from the cannon (i.e. it was removed from the cannon without a vote). See BYU publication by Larry E. Dahl, Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith.  Speaking about the Lectures on Faith Bruce R. McConkie said “It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the Spirit of Inspiration. It is in effect, eternal scripture. It is true.” (The Lord God of Joseph Smith, discourse delivered January 4, 1972)

Robinson states that “it is the official teaching of the LDS Church that God the Father has a physical body (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).” (p. 87) Though I don’t disagree with this as coming from an “official” LDS source, in fairness we must also recognize that “The Father is a personage of spirit, glory, and power” as taught in Lectures on Faith 6, paragraph 2.

Speaking for Latter-day Saints, Robinson says that “it irritates the LDS that some Evangelicals keep trying to add the Journal of Discourses or other examples of LDS homiletics to the canon of LDS Scripture.” (p. 73)

I have wondered if it shouldn’t be equally irritating that what is currently taught over the pulpit in General Conference is considered LDS Scripture.

Blomberg later was quick to observe:

“Robinson insists that the Adam-God theory, as proposed by the various interpreters of Brigham Young, makes no sense and was never officially endorsed. These clarifications would seem to hold the door open for significant rapprochement between Evangelicals and Mormons on these doctrine, especially if the LDS can continue to avoid using unofficial statements from their past to define present official LDS doctrine.” (P. 109, emphasis mine.)

Adam-God theory was endorsed over the pulpit by Brigham Young in general conference of the Church. Would that not make it both “official” and “endorsed”?

Brigham Young taught over the pulpit and in conference talks, Adam-God theory, polygamy as essential to salvation, and, the day we accept blacks into priesthood will be the day the Church is in apostasy. Yet today the Church denies these are doctrines.

“[W]e can’t logically assert that pronouncements made by prophets today are to be automatically accepted, without question and testing by the Spirit and other standards as the “mind and will of the Lord,” yet discount the unacceptable teachings of former prophets in this dispensation as being only personal views. The same standard must apply – how we regard the statements of prophets on doctrinal matters today is how we must regard the doctrinal statements of prophets who lived a century ago, and vice versa.” (Duane S. Crowther, Thus Saith the Lord, 1980, p 236)

I don’t point this out to be contrary or argumentative. I only want to make the point that we should not be too quick to declare what is “official LDS teaching”. As Robinson rightly observes:

“Pure LDS orthodoxy can be a moving target, depending on which Mormon one talks to.” (p. 14)

On LDS Scripture

Robinson later states:

“For Latter-day Saints, the Church’s guarantee of doctrinal correctness lies primarily in the living prophet, and only secondarily in the preservation of the written text.” (p. 57)

Personally I know of no “guarantee of doctrinal correctness” in the Church.
Church President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine… If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

On page 58, Robinson comments that one role of an apostle is: “he is necessary to authoritatively interpret [the written word of God]”. I believe an apostle/prophet’s role has more to do with crying repentance* and leading men to make their own connection with heaven than “authoritatively interpreting” scripture. The expectation that we must rely on some man with authority to interpret scripture for us misses the point of the purpose of scripture. I previously wrote about this:

“The purpose of scripture is to lead us to Christ, to have His [law] written in our hearts (Heb 10:16), and make Him alive in us (Eph 2:5). Despite the claim that the scriptures alone save, we can’t ignore the promise of scripture that God will continue to speak to man. (James 1:5-6; Joel 2:28-32) If the Bible does not ultimately lead us to Christ, what purpose does it serve? The objective is to come to Him, not the Bible (or a prophet). Scripture is a means, not an end. What difference is there between a Mormon who blindly follows a prophet that he assumes cannot lead him astray, and a Christian who blindly assumes that scripture alone can save by trusting in the word alone, without getting a witness from God Himself? The missing element in both is the personal connection with Christ. Do I turn to Him? Do I know His voice? (John 10:27)” 

In Robinson’s eagerness for Mormons to be accepted as Christian among the Evangelical community, he inadvertently reveals something about the “vanity and unbelief” of the LDS Church, for which the Lord in September of 1832 declares “the whole church under condemnation.” (See D&C 84:54-57.)

“[T]he King James Bible is the LDS Bible. No other version, not even the JST [Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible], supplants the KJV.” (Robinson, p. 59)

I agree with Robinson’s assessment but I would ask why this is so? As recent as 1993 Elder Oaks has reaffirmed that it is because of neglect and treating lightly the things given through Joseph Smith that “has continued the condemnation in our own day.” (Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Dallin H. Oaks BYU Fireside June 1993.) If the Church is under condemnation for treating lightly what was given through Joseph, why do we continue to hold the KJV in higher esteem than the JST?

“Leaders of the LDS Church from Joseph Smith to the present have tended to use the Bible even more than the Book of Mormon in their teaching and preaching.” (Robinson, p. 59)

The historical LDS neglect for the Book of Mormon is not realized by most Latter-day Saints today. For example, from the founding of Brigham Young University in 1875 until 1937, there was not a single course offered on the Book of Mormon at BYU. It was not until 1961 the Book of Mormon became a required course for all BYU freshmen.

“The first fully developed Book of Mormon class was offered in 1937 by Amos Merrill. Introduction of this course faced considerable resistance from some department administrators, remembers Hugh Nibley, and key faculty members wondered how the Book of Mormon could be taught for a whole semester.” (Reynolds, Noel B. The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon in the Twentieth Century, BYU Studies, 1999)

Working in a climate of intellectual hostility, Hugh Nibley is given credit for being responsible for much of the change in focus to taking the Book of Mormon seriously in the Church and is highly commended by Neal A. Maxwell. You can read Noel B. Reynolds complete publication here.

In their joint conclusion of Chapter 1, Blomberg and Robinson assert, “We further agree that JST variants do not necessarily imply that the KJV text is corrupt.” (p. 75) If the JST “variants” don’t imply this, the Book of Mormon certainly does. The Book of Mormon says of the Bible that many covenants have been taken away from it (1 Nephi 13:26), and that the right ways of the Lord might be perverted to blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men (v 27). Plain and precious things have been taken from it (v 28) and because of this many do stumble and Satan has great power over them (v 29).

All this aside, the Bible is still acknowledged as important scripture to Latter-day Saints.

“It is [the orthodox churches] post biblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs.” (Robinson, p. 61)

That Joseph Smith didn’t have anything but the Bible to go by when he went to the woods to pray, gives evidence that (even if you are a believing Mormon) one can find God by trusting in the word of the Bible alone.

“In the Washington lecture, Joseph underscored beliefs held in common with other Christians. ‘We teach nothing but what the Bible teaches. We believe nothing, but what is to be found in this Book.’ … Joseph insisted more than once that ‘all who would follow the precepts of the Bible, whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved.’” (Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 195)

On Salvation

In Chapter 1 on Scripture Robinson states,

“In the LDS view the fullness of the gospel is ultimately necessary to salvation, but not necessarily in this life.” (Robinson, p. 73, emphasis mine.)

I agree with Robinson that one way the term “fullness of the gospel” is used in scripture is as a way to identify Christ revealing Himself to mankind, thereby redeeming mortals from the fall, as we read in D&C 76:14. Later in this section we read how this is something intended for us to experience “in the flesh” (v 118), or in other words in this life (see Alma 34:32).

Later Robinson continues to justify the idea that we can procrastinate the day of our repentance** and still come out OK in the end:

“[W]e believe the gospel is preached to the ignorant and rebellious spirits (pneumata) in prison, that they may repent and accept Christ and live (Jn 5:25-29; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6). Like the prodigal son of the parable, they may yet reconsider, repent and be joyfully received among the mansions of the Father although perhaps not to receive all that will be inherited by the more faithful.” (p. 150)

Robinson is touching upon a topic about which Nephi could well be warning us as Latter-day Saints in 2 Nephi 28:8:

“And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.” (As an aside, reference to “Zion” in verses 21 and 24 is another indication this warning can apply to Latter-day Saints.)

“Mormons believe the saved will be divided into three broad divisions called kingdoms or glories. The lowest of these is the telestial glory.” (Robinson, p. 152)

In this view, all but those who become “sons of perdition” are “saved”. Viewed another way, however, “damnation” is to cease progressing or to regress. Anything less than the Celestial Kingdom has an end, beyond which we cannot have an increase (see D&C 131:4).

“The LDS believe there will be millions, even billions, of good souls who will come from the east and the west to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the celestial kingdom.” (Robinson, p. 153)

I frankly don’t know where Robinson gets this idea or how to reconcile it with Matt 7:14, “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

At its core, the definition of salvation is getting to know the Lord. (John 17: 3). Yet Blomberg argues:

“[S]hould we not expect an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God not to be fully comprehensible by mere mortals?” (Blomberg, p. 121, along with its footnote 31 on p. 217, which says: “Augustine once wrote, ‘If you can understand it, it’s not God'”.)

Although written by one who is now excommunicated from the LDS Church, I still like how this author poses it:

“The doctrine of the Trinity which was settled, if not created, in the Council of Nicea is an impediment, and not an advantage, to knowing God. If ‘life eternal’ is to ‘know God’ (as John declared–see John 17:3) then of what value is a doctrine that makes God ‘incomprehensible?'” (Denver Snuffer, Trinitarian Impediment)

Joseph Smith elaborates on what salvation means in Lectures on Faith. (See Lecture 7.)

“And for any portion of the human family to be assimilated into their [God the Father and the Son’s] likeness is to be saved; and to be unlike them is to be destroyed: and on this hinge turns the door of salvation.” (para 16)

Nephi adds, “He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.” (2 Nephi 31:15-16)

Robinson claims that Mormons believe, like the Evangelical, that Christ first saves us, and then transforms us to be like Him:

“Latter-day Saints believe that God intends through the gospel of Jesus Christ to transform those who are saved by Christ to be like Christ.” (Robinson, p. 80)

Later Robinson acknowledges the role grace plays in our path to salvation:

“To Latter-day Saints the glorified and resurrected Christ illustrates in his person what the saved can become through his grace.” (Robinson, p. 81)

For me, the subject of how grace relates to salvation is easier to grasp when I understand that Mormons and Evangelicals define grace differently. When I view grace as not only “unmerited favor”, but also includes the gift or power to become more like Christ (Strong’s Concordance 5485: grace as a gift or blessing, favor, kindness), then it’s easier to appreciate how the two groups treat this word differently.

Seeing grace as “an enabling power to move closer to God”, or as “an increase of light” helps explain:

“It is by grace we do the required works to be saved. As explained in Philip. 2:13: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do his good pleasure.” As Paul explained in Romans 6:1-2 concerning those who are born again through Christ: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” We must escape sin by the grace of God and then do the works that testify we are in possession of God’s grace. As James explained in James 2:17-20: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But will thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” If we are saved by the grace of God our works will testify of that grace within us. Without the works of righteousness, put within us by being born again, a new creation of Christ’s, we may claim to have been saved by grace, but it is without proof.” (Denver Snuffer, Are We Saved by Grace or Works?)

As Robinson and Blomberg jointly concluded in Chapter 4:

“If we do not demonstrate good works, some sign over time, of a changed life, our professions of faith are ultimately futile.” (p. 187)

Moving On…

I try to resist contentious debate, so there is a certain level of inner conflict I grapple with as I try to avoid being too critical. But it was difficult to resist the temptation to engage the challenge Blomberg invited with the use of phrases like “there is not a shred of historical evidence…”, “No early Christian theologian ever…”, or “all agree…”. My purpose has been to call out what I see as I read the book, so although I do not include all my observations, I’ve chosen to point out the few that stood out most.

“[A]ll these Christian concepts included in the pre-Christian stories of the Book of Mormon were supposedly known in earlier times. The trouble is that there is not a shred of historical evidence from the ancient world that the suppression of such literature ever took place. It defies imagination how every hint of the vast panorama of New Testament texts and concepts could have disappeared from both the Old Testament and other pre-Christian Jewish documents, even had a censor deliberately tried to destroy it all.” (Blomberg, p. 49)

Margaret Barker, bible scholar, author of 17 books, and Methodist preacher, provides a good amount of scholarly historical evidence of precisely the very thing that “defies [Blomberg’s] imagination”. She has written much on how “King Josiah changed the religion of Israel in 623 BC… King Josiah’s purge is usually known as the Deuteronomic reform of the temple.” (See What Did King Josiah Reform? Presented 6 May 2003 at Brigham Young University).

The topic can be debated, but to suggest there “is not a shred of historical evidence” that suppression of ancient scripture took place is simply incorrect.

On Polytheiphobia

Blomberg’s position on polytheism is understandable. This is a fundamental belief of most modern Christian religions.

“At this point we find ourselves face to face with polytheism, which the Bible defines as idolatry.” (Blomberg, p. 105)

“[T]he most crucial observation about God to be gleaned from the Old Testament is its unrelenting monotheism.” (Blomberg, p. 113)

I’m surprised, however, at Robinson’s attempts to distance himself from the negative connotation of the term polytheism:

“Thus there are three divine persons, but only one Godhead. Clearly Prof. Blomsberg feels that such a Godhead is unlikely and that defining the Godhead so runs a risk of polytheism – but that is not the LDS belief. It would horrify the Saints to hear talk of ‘polytheism.’” (Robinson, p. 132)

Many LSD scholars argue that the earliest form of Judaism was not monotheistic. The “Elohim” of the Old Testament was plural. Hence the English translation of “God” (in Hebrew “Elohim” a plural noun) saying “Let us make man in our image.” To be true to the text it was necessary to employ a plural pronoun. Therefore, right at the beginning of the scriptural text God is plural.

“Whom do we believe? Do we work with the picture of a pagan religion which the Deuteronomists reformed and brought back to pristine purity, or do we work with a picture of an ancient religion virtually stamped out by the Deuteronomists, who put in its place their own version of what Israel should believe? This question is not just academic, a fine point to be debated about the religions of the ancient Near East. Our whole view of the evolution of monotheism in Israel depends on the answer to this question, for the Deuteronomists are recognized as the source of the ‘monotheistic’ texts in the Old Testament and as the first to suppress anthropomorphism. If the Deuteronomists do not represent the mainstream of Israel’s religion (and increasingly they are being recognized as a vocal minority), was the mainstream of that religion not monotheistic and did it have anthropomorphic theophanies at its centre?” (Margaret Barker, The Great Angel, 1992, p. 14)

On Jesus as Son of God the Father

In Chapter 2 footnote 28, Blomberg writes:

“In some of the literature I read, Jesus’ references to himself as ‘Son of Man’ were used as further support for the physicality of God the Father. But this was an established Hebrew idiom, used to mean ‘human’ (see throughout the book of Ezekiel), including a quasi-messianic title for a very exalted human (in Dan 7:13-14). While a massive debate among Bible scholars of all traditions rages as to which of these backgrounds is more important for Jesus’ use of the term, all agree that it predicates nothing about the God who is Jesus’ Father.” (p. 213)

I would say not “all agree”. Quoting Margaret Barker again:

“Matthew records Jesus’s own version of the judgement theme in Matt. 25.31-46. The language is very revealing, as are the presuppositions that scholars bring to it. The Son of Man comes with his angels and takes his place on the throne as judge. He is the King acting for another whom he names as his Father (Matt. 25.34). There is no need to suggest that the ancient role of Yahweh the King has been altered and given to the Son of Man, thus causing complications and making it necessary for Matthew to alter the story so as to make a place for ‘the Father’:
‘In verse 34 [of Matt 25] the Son of Man is referred to as ‘the king’. This may be a trace of an earlier state of the parable, in which the reference was to God himself. If so, the address to those on the right hand as ‘blessed of my Father’ must be regarded as a Matthaean adjustment.’ (B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man, London 1983, p. 126)
None of this is necessary if we recognize that Yahweh was the Son of Elyon, the Man. The Son of Man as vicegerent is exactly like the role of Philo’s Logos and this is corroborated in Mark 2.10 and parallels where the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth and in John 5.27 where the Father has given authority to the Son of Man to act as judge. Mark hints at this identification of Yahweh and the Son of Man in Mark 2.28; the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (The Great Angel, 1992, p. 226)

In Chapter 3 on Christ and The Trinity, Blomberg challenges that:

“No early Christian theologian ever identified Jesus as a completely separate God from Yahweh, Lord of Israel. ‘Son of God’ in it’s Jewish context was a messianic title (see Ps 2; 89; 2 Sam 7:14) and was never taken to suggest that Jesus was the literal, biological offspring of his heavenly Father.” (p. 116)

I don’t know about early Christian theologians, but:

“Several writers of the first three Christian centuries show by their descriptions of the First and Second persons of the Trinity whence they derived these beliefs. El Elyon had become for them God the Father and Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, the Son, had been identified with Jesus.” (Margaret Barker, First sentence of Chapter 10 titled “The Evidence of the First Christians” from The Great Angel, p. 190. The entire chapter is about this subject. I would commend it to anyone who has a desire to pursue the topic further.)

To Conclude

Finally, there were several places that I underlined without commentary because I simply agreed with the text.

I thought this was a fair observation by Robinson:

“[B]ut [Joseph Smith] cannot be accused of contradicting the Bible where the Bible is silent. There are gaps. I would be quite happy to have Evangelicals say to me, ‘You Latter-day Saints have beliefs and doctrines on subjects about which the Bible is silent or ambiguous.’ That is a fair statement. However, I believe it is unfair to say, ‘Since you hold opinions where the Bible is silent, you contradict the Bible,’ or, ‘Because you contradict Nicaea and Chalcedon, you contradict the Bible.’” (p. 86)

Amen to this insightful comment by Blomberg:

“[W]e cannot claim to have really surrendered control of our lives to Jesus if we consciously refuse to obey him in certain areas of our lives. We have to be willing, at least in principle, to turn over everything to him. The paradoxical conclusion that perhaps captures the correct balance here is that ‘salvation is absolutely free, but it will cost us our very lives.’ Our old natures must be crucified with Christ regularly.” (p. 169)

One last word

This statement by Robinson & Blomberg in the Joint Conclusion of book caught my attention:

“Many of these characteristics [of what defines a ‘cult’] no longer apply to Mormonism” (p. 193)

“No longer apply”, suggesting that they once did? What characteristics did at one time apply in the past that “no longer apply” now?

I have addressed this topic in an article of its own – Do I Belong to a Cult?

*   “As I have sought direction from the Lord, I have had reaffirmed in my mind and heart the declaration of the Lord to ‘say nothing but repentance unto this generation.’ (D&C 6:9; D&C 11:9.)” (President Ezra Taft Benson, Cleansing the Inner Vessel, April General Conference, 1986)

**   “And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.” (Alma 34:33)

Download this article as PDF file

Weed Whacker Wisdom

There comes a point in every child’s life when they learn a dandelion is a weed, not a flower.

Tuesday I purchased a weed trimmer with a lawn edger attachment. Later, with shovel in hand, I was digging around where I knew the curb had last been seen, uncovering a few places in preparation to start edging the lawn. Lola, our friendly neighborhood chatterbox, wandered by and asked, “What’cha doin’?”

“I’m uncovering the edge of the lawn where it meets the sidewalk,” I told her.

“Why?” I knew the question was coming before she asked it. I paused briefly, wondering how what I was doing could make any sense to a 6-year-old.

“To make it look prettier,” I answered.

“Did Kay ask you to do this?” (The neighbor kids call my wife “Kay”. It’s easier to pronounce than Kiyoko.)

“No,” I replied absently. “I just decided to myself”. Then I asked, “Don’t you like things to look prettier?”

“I like things just the way they are,” she stated matter-of-factly. Then she hurried off.

I looked at my yard.

We live on a corner lot with lots of edges where sidewalk meets lawn. As far as I can remember, I have not edged my lawn in the 15 plus years I have lived here. No one has ever complained about the overgrowth along the curbs. Now I had just spent $200 on fancy trimming equipment and face hours of work to make it all look “pretty”, and with a single simple statement, a child has just given me pause to wonder why am I doing this.

My thoughts turned to all the time, money, and energy we spend on making our yards, our homes, and ourselves look pretty. I wondered what the rest of the world thinks of Americans. When they see our lifestyles in articles and movies, on YouTube and the internet, how does all this come across to outsiders? Do they see selfishness and conceit? Recalling the animated movie, The Breadwinner, gave perspective to my thoughts. When outsiders see our privileged lives and then witness our petty quarrels over inconsequential things, is it any wonder there is increasing anger and resentment of what some call “white privilege”?

I looked down at the grass hanging over the curb. I determined to finish the job I started, and don’t intend to feel guilty about improving the appearance of my yard. But I hope to do it with a better perspective of gratitude for my blessed circumstances. I hope that I will recognize and embrace the opportunities to serve when and where I can to contribute to making this world a better place. It needs it.

“Goodbye to the Left”?

We must allow people to say things we disapprove of, disagree with, resent and wish were never said. Tolerance has no meaning if we only permit things we like to be done, said or thought.

This is relatively old news by now, but if you are unfamiliar with Lindsay Shepherd and the episode at Wilfrid Laurier University, you may want to read up on it to better grasp the context of my remarks in this post.

She recorded an interview that went viral that you can listen to here. A few months after this Lindsay recorded this short video (below) stating “what I want to get across is that I, in no way, want to be associated with what the left has become.”

Goodbye to the Left – Lindsay Shepherd

At about the 1:22 mark she begins making a list of what defines a “Leftist”.
They are pro censorship.
They are victimhood culture.
They are all about moral righteousness.
They’re taught that claiming to be offended results in a moral victory. There’s a victimhood mentality.
They don’t believe in personal responsibility.
They are completely intolerant of diversity of thought.
They are humorless people. They want to make society boring, and they want to make it so that no one can do so much as make a joke.
If you are not on their side one hundred percent they will slander you mercilessly.

As I listened to this list I thought how each of these accusations could just as easily apply to the “Right”.

I believe the focus on “Left” or “Right” misses the real point. Labels tend to categorize and thereby create division, putting people in classes of “us” vs “them”. The polarization itself is the real enemy. When the name calling begins, no matter what side of the invisible fence you think you are sitting, intelligent and open discussion is closed.

We must allow people to say things we disapprove of, disagree with, resent and wish were never said. Tolerance has no meaning if we only permit things we like to be done, said or thought. The meaning of “tolerance” is to permit what I absolutely disagree with to be “tolerated.” I don’t have to love it, nor do I have to approve it. I only need to “tolerate” it.

I appreciate Lindsay’s remark at the 3:20 mark: “I want to talk about those ideas neutrally. I don’t have an agenda to push when it comes to that”

This, I would agree, is a healthy position to take.