Competition

This post is going to be a mashup of several different threads running through my mind lately. I don’t have a very good introduction, nor do I want to spend time on one. Let’s just jump in and see if anything useful coalesces by the end.

The first topic is academia. That’s the employment sector where I work currently and where I’ve spent most of my adult life – my many years of post-secondary schooling bleeding into the indentured servitude of a post-doc, and continuing from there. As many of my colleagues would attest, academics are mainly overachievers, a lot that is seldom satisfied on any measure of performance. We are walking careers, ambly taking research from the field into the office and from there into the bathroom. In only ten minutes, we can come up with research questions that would only take ten years to address, meanwhile scribbling out lists of critically important things to do that frankly (most of the time) may only ever turn out to slightly affect about three other people on the planet.

Many academics are perfectionists. A perfectionist is seldom satisfied; s(he) is always looking ahead to what item next requires perfection. There can be a momentary flash of happiness at the crest of a long-sought accomplishment, but the joy is often short lived, because the vanquished imperfection falls into obscurity as the next goal looms disproportionately large on the horizon. Friend: “Congrats, you just published your first research paper!” Brain: “But my lab mate has already published two!”

This has all been re-circulating in my mind lately as I was promoted to a new academic position this summer. That should be great, right? While there is some level of satisfaction, I’ve noticed an increase in my anxiety over the last few months. I seem to be easily reminded of Dr. Everybody Else has clearly published more than me and in much better journals. I think about the graduate students who finished after me and yet have already leap-frogged my place on the long academic totem pole to more prestigious positions. I realize that I am not that great at grant writing, that I haven’t come up with any groundbreaking discoveries in my field, and that I’m nowhere near the top of any of the myriad metrics academics invent to vault themselves to great positions of scholarly honor.

About seven to eight years ago I came face to face with this perfectionist in me. It was interestingly about the time I came out as gay and finally decided that I had had enough of hiding and ignoring who I am. We didn’t have any sort of major battle, but rather a tousle, and though there was no vanquishment of this foe, I at least took the first significant steps of acknowledging the existence of this formidable character and determining that he wouldn’t be the only voice allowed to cast judgment on my life’s circumstances.

The lifeblood of perfectionism is competition - with onesself and with others. It is both a sustaining fuel and poisonous liquid at the same time. In the complete absence of competition, the drive to accomplish, to push, and to improve is diminished. Achievement usually requires motivation. So it serves a purpose in that regard. Yet, under hypercompetitiveness, the fuel becomes poisonous, because no accomplishment is ultimately satisfactory. In a world of 7 billion people, it is almost impossible to become number one at one thing; it is truly impossible to be number one at everything.

Competition is everywhere is American society. It is manifest in couch potatoes jumping up from the sofa when their team scores a touchdown, it is present in the pressure the high school student feels to get accepted to the best colleges, it is in first class airline seats or platinum credit cards, it is embedded in stock market indices, and mad rushes to buy the cheapest gifts on Black Fridays that have now crept into Thanksgiving Thursdays. Capitalism is competition, and America really worships not God, but capitalism.

The second thread is social media and the on-line persona. For all the good that this decade-old revolution in communication has brought to modern society, there have been generous servings of ill too. In the compression of thought requisite in a Tweet, complex ideas are reduced to imprecise strings of words bereft of context. In tailored social media profiles, digital masks are worn that give incomplete or false impressions of the personality behind the mask. Poor behavior somehow seems more justifiable on-line, as if digital distance was somehow a license to eschew social responsibility. Friendships can be easily and instantly made, but even more rapidly terminated when one party decides to “block” another. Political divisions deepen as people collect around the more flambuoyant digital voices that have mastered the posture of contrived self-importance. Misinformation is given extra buoyancy and inertia as it circles the globe via electrons, freed from the old-fashioned constraints of evidence.

For most of us, our on-line personas are self-crafted caricatures. My profile doesn’t convey all of my personality, let alone those less-than-flattering photos that get quickly deleted from my cell phone. If you carefully read through a digital feed of my life, you are less likely find mention of the many failed job applications than the job that I finally landed.

These caricatures can have a corrosive effect on a number of really important things. For instance, they can erode self esteem, as when I fail to forget that my college friends do also have unflattering photos and failed job applications that I know nothing about in addition to their advertised successes. The digital distance also has the tendency to erode intimacy, a wonderful invention of social species that most of us want in some measure in our lives. Through social media I may gain a window into what a high school aquaintance who lives across the country likes to eat for Sunday brunch, but know nothing about real thoughts, feelings, concerns, and goals that motivate and guide this individual.

Next, anxiety. Lots of us suffer from it. In fact, this recent New York Times article discusses its prevalence as a mental health concern, especially the dramatic increase in anxiety among young people. We live in a time where there is a tremendous amount to be anxious about – health, safety, job, debt, career, terrorism, family members, climate change, rejection, politics, natural disasters, poverty, rapid technological innovation. Sadly, there is even motivation for people in politics or commerce to promote our feelings of anxiety – why not if it will garner votes or lead to more sales?

Looking back it is not difficult to see periods of my life when my anxiety has been more problematic than the annoying background hum that accompanies most of us. Graduate school was a definite one. Coming out was another. These were periods when I grappled with perfectionism. I still have anxiety about such internal matters. But as a token certificate for growing up a little more, there is also now anxiety about my children and family, about where society is headed, about really daunting environmental problems like climate change.

Is it a paradox that we live more comfortable lives than any generation before us, but are so racked with anxiety?

The final thread: self-esteem in the LGBT community. Most of us would describe the process of self-awakening and coming out at cathartic. Having been imprisoned to fear or shame for years or even decades, the act of casting that aside is liberating, an intimately personal act performed on a more public stage. It is a moment of self-determination and self-affirmation. But does the luster wear off?

As a collection of sexual and romantic “misfits”, many of us in the LGBT community have endured difficult and challenging experiences growing up. These could have included harassment, physical or emotional abuse, misunderstanding, violence. We have probably all been scarred, at least a little in the process. Coming into self-awareness notwithstanding, I think many of us carry forward an additional psychological or emotional burden that developed because of those formative experiences.

After coming out, do we carry those burdens into the LGBT community in unhealthy ways? Are we quick to judge or reject others in an unfortunate reversal of the mistreatment we ourselves have received? Can we form friendships and date in healthy ways? Do we avoid the social maladies that hurt others like ghosting (an inexplicable practice of suddenly pretending a date or friend no longer exists) or expecting perfection in a partner (knowing full well of one’s own imperfections)? Will gay men see the harm in endlessly competing with each other for more perfect physical bodies, greater “masculinity” (as if somehow the goal of being a perfect gay man is to nearly emulate a straight man in everything except the gender of your sexual partner), or a meticulously manicured social life designed to induce envy in others and mask an undercurrent of loneliness?

We continue to fight for equality in employment, housing, marriage, and just general treatment by society, especially given the unfortunate political setbacks we currently face in the US. In the midst of those external challenges, are we striving to improve interactions within the LGBT community itself?

****

Where does all of this lead? Well, I think I’ve painted a picture of competition and comparison that is largely unhealthy. The excessive focus on competition and outcomes certainly can be debilitating for me. One key to any successful recipe is to keep the ingredients in balance. I wouldn’t want to trade in my ambition or motivation for laziness or ambivalence, but to paraphrase Darth Vader’s warning to the technical mastermind behind the Death Star: “Beware you don’t choke on your ambition”.

It takes a conscious effort to keep the tendency to compete to healthy levels. It takes significant mental labor to keep the unhealthy comparison to others at bay, especially when we are surrounded by messages of inadequacy from a hypercompetitive society. But it is necessary for sanity to remember that self worth isn’t measured externally (either by gay or straight people, or by friends, bosses, or peers for that matter).

On the career front, it is prudent to remember why I’m an academic. I love discovery. I love asking questions. I love thinking about how science can lead to answering such questions. I love being outside and in nature. I love seeing something in nature that perhaps no other person has ever observed. Maybe this is why my hobbies also tend towards being outdoors in my hours off work. I can be a student of biology again – hiking, exploring, photographing, and learning – with less pressure to turn academic study into some sort of business.

On the personal front, I need to remember that I am unique and (usually) likeable. I’m headed forward, and upward (whatever that means), having fun and adventures along the way. That’s enough for me.

Hummm... relationships

I've been thinking a lot about relationships lately. Some of my thoughts have centered on a few lists. By no means do I intend to reduce the complexity, rewards and challenges of relationships to a few lists, but for me, focusing on a few concepts is a valuable way to organize some of the new and confusing thoughts and feelings that I have had about relationships over the last two years.

The first list contains attributes that I look for in another person. When one forms such a list, it tends to be in terms of finding a romantic partner. However, it could also be generalized in some way to include friendships or even business and work partnerships. For me, some of the critical things on this list include compassion, honesty, hard work, attraction, intelligence, creativity and a love for learning and discovery. I cannot, for instance, imagine developing a close relationship with someone where trust was a significant problem. 

My second list is the inverse of the first. It comprises the attributes that I potentially offer to others. This is a challenging list. Even though I can enumerate some positive attributes that I think I offer to others, I know that in each of these areas I fall at least somewhat short. In self-evaluation, there is also an important balance to be achieved. On the one hand, self-confidence is attractive to others and is healthy. On the other hand, taken too far, that confidence can become arrogance which is very unattractive to others and is unhealthy. I probably struggle with both lack of self-confidence and some arrogrance from time to time (like everyone else??), but self-confidence tends to be my more frequent challenge. The other challenge with the self list is that the contents of this list may vary from person to person. My wife might value a certain set of attributes about me, but a close friend may see other things. While we may have a lot of control over the personality and behavioral attributes we work hard to cultivate in ourselves, we have no control over what others see or value in us.

Mutual attraction forms from some compatible combination of the first two lists. When we first meet someone, maybe we pick up on a few of the more outstanding attributes we see in someone else. As a relationship begins to form, we are learning a lot about the other person and (consciously or not) thinking about whether they meet some of the other attributes we look for in others. Obviously there is never any perfect match between two people since no one person can offer a complete suite of physical, personality and behavioral attributes that meets every need of another person. Even in the rare cases where two people feel that they are a near perfect match for each other, there is always the possibility that needs, attractions and personalities diverge over time.

The final list pertains to relationships themselves, not the individual involved. Once a romantic parter or friend has been found, the challenging matter of forming a mutually beneficial relationship begins (in the context of friendship I am talking about close, long-term friendships not the shorter-term, more numerous friendships and acquaintances that may come and go with life). For me, the list that describes a successful close relationship has a few critical points. First, mutual attraction needs to be present. This includes physical, sexual, emotional, social and intellectual attraction (minus the sexual and perhaps much of the physical for friendships). Romantic relationships that miss some of these elements may not work in the long-term; friendships that lack social, emotional and intellectual attraction may not really develop far in the first place. Second, close relationships require committment and trust. Third on the list is communication. We all have different styles of communicating love, discomfort and needs. But in the maturation of the relationship, the two individuals need to develop ways of communicating that are honest, respectful of each other, and that can actually lead to the resolution of challenges. My final item is symmetry. By symmetry, I think that the healthiest relationships need to be balanced. In other words, each partner should be putting in roughly equal effort and committment into the relationship. If one partner puts in much more energy, he or she may feel disappointed or unappreciated and the other partner may feel pressured or uncomfortable. Friendships often adjust fairly smoothly to a mutually-acceptable level of effort. Achieving a balance may be difficult in more intense or romantic relationships, and may be the reason many of them do not succeed.

I have been immensely blessed with a few very close relationships in my life. They continue to this day. I cherish them because of the joy they bring to me and the growth that has ensued. These relationships have taken a lot of work. If there is one thing I tend to do well in close relationships, it is to invest heavily in others and to commit to do my very best. There are many other things that I tend to not do so well, and for the forgiveness and patience of others I am grateful.

None of us is a relationship expert. But what have you learned about close relationships in life? What are the critical elements that make close friendships, family relationships and romances flourish?

Damn us

I’ve fallen in love with another male twice in my life. Nothing has quite shaken me like those experiences. There is a lot that could be said about my feelings and my growth in connection with falling in love, but the salient point here is that those experiences are the clearest indication to me of what it means to be gay. In the course of falling in love, the full suite of my attractions was engaged. I know that being in love is as much an emotional and spiritual response to another person as it is any sort of physical reaction. In fact, I might use the word visceral to describe it, not in a carnal or debased sense, but in the way that every fiber of a person’s being (to borrow a Mormon cliché) feels something deep and fundamental. The times I fell in love are an invaluable reference point from which I’m able to understand my attractions. To me then, the idea that homosexuality is merely a manifestation of unnatural sexual desire is only an illusion, an over-simplification of experiences that are profound and even sacred.

This is the context in which the orthodox Mormon position on homosexuality must really be examined. The discussion is properly about love, not about lust. It is about personal growth and fulfillment of human potential. It is about dignity and the ability of individuals to define their own identity. It is about giving of oneself and receiving of another in a relationship that is best suited for gay persons. It is not about sin. The conversation cannot merely be a version of ‘it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t act on it’. Such statements are simply platitudes repeated over and over again in LDS discussions of homosexuality.

This is the general Mormon message on homosexuality today: gays are acceptable before God, even noble, if they “struggle” with “same-gender attractions”, but they’ve crossed the line into sin if they “act” on those persuasions. Gays need to fight homosexuality because it is a temptation, a weakness, and not an integral part of their eternal being. They need to believe fundamentally in the wrongness of homosexuality. Homosexuals need to fight the “natural man”. Gays really – though the leadership wouldn’t phrase it this way – need to fight themselves.

The roots of the tension between homosexuality and Mormon thought are doctrinal (though the conflict is also manifest culturally). In Mormonism the nuclear family, with a heterosexual union of husband and wife at its head, is the theological and social center of the religious experience. This is the ideal family organization designed for all people. Though not elaborated on much by current leadership, God himself is a biological male with a wife (actually, wives) in an exalted heterosexual union. We are his direct spiritual children here on earth with the principal goal of advancing along the same path that He took in the past towards glorification. Glorification (“exaltation” in Mormon terminology) comes through increase (reproduction). Either here or in the next life, everyone is supposed to eventually be married to the opposite sex or they have failed the principal reason for their existence. Families are discussed in Church meetings, families form the basis for much of Mormon advertising and proselytizing, and families are the central focus of LDS temples. In fact, such is the rigor and frequency with which the ideal family is discussed in the Church, that perhaps even Jesus is secondary in importance in Mormon theology. It is through this one specific family structure (man + woman + children) that earthly happiness is obtained and the ultimate objective of this current life – securing eternal life with God – is realized and perpetuated. In fact, in LDS thought the principle reason for Earth’s creation even, with its millions of species, is for one species - for us. If Christianity can be said to be a strongly anthropomorphic religion, Mormonism is a significantly accentuated variation on the theme.

In the LDS cosmology I have attempted to sketch out, there is no place for gay love or gay relationships. For Latter-day Saints, heterosexuality is built into the universe. Same-sex relationships stop with friendships or direct family relationships. Sexual activities are off limits. Non-sexual physical affection, especially between two males, is also limited, though this is a modern cultural norm and it was not prohibited socially a century ago, even among devout Mormons (1). Finally, any emotional bonds between two people of the same sex are ultimately supposed to be subservient to the emotional connection one makes with an opposite-gender spouse. So, all of the ways in which a gay person can be attracted to a person of the same sex – physical, sexual and emotional – have proscribed limits in Mormonism. Sex is the big one, however, and is the area with the most severe consequences officially.

Because heterosexuality appears to be the only type of attraction that exists in the eternities, Latter-day Saint leaders teach that gays will not be tempted with same-sex attraction in the next life if they are faithful (either celibate or heterosexually married) and repentant of any homosexual behavior (2). Therefore, the concept of homosexuality doesn’t really exist in the realm where it matters most (eternally); it is only a mysterious wrinkle in our current imperfect and fallen world. Same-sex attractions will somehow disappear for the faithful once they die. It is unclear how this will happen, or even if that promise is consonant with the general Mormon understanding of how this current life’s experiences relate directly to the next life: “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.” (3). For gay people, is this really an appealing doctrine? Personally, I am not sure that I want to be changed in such a fundamental way in the next life (if there truly is one). Sure, the less desirable traits in my personality would be good to dispense with, but my capacity to love? I don’t want to find myself a stranger in my own soul or disconnected from the same-sex bonds I make with people in this life.

For many gay Mormons, the fundamental heterosexuality of all of Mormon reality leaves a nearly intractable tension between the essence of who they are as persons and the belief structure of the Church (4). Dizzying tales of conversion therapy and suppression of homosexual “urges” notwithstanding, virtually all gay people really are gay and cannot change their orientation. By being forced into a universe in which heterosexuality is the only option, currently and forever, gays are left as theological strangers in a worldview that cannot accommodate them. And if there is no place for what are the most fulfilling of relationships for gay people, then there is only a shadow of happiness, a shell of existence.

Mormonism thus damns us homosexuals – in the doctrinal sense of the word – because it prohibits us from the possibility of a life that is most likely for us to achieve relationship fulfillment. Church doctrine on sexuality is damnation for us because it caps our ability to grow spiritually and emotionally. It limits our chance to find sexual and physical fulfillment. It prohibits us from attaining what is supposed to be the pinnacle of Mormon achievement, a deep and abiding union with another person. Why do gays leave the church? If it is not because of un-Christ-like ridicule from insensitive members, intellectual dissonance, or intolerant leaders, then it is likely because of this theological damnation. God just has nothing to do with being, thinking, or acting gay. God is not gay and never has been and never will be. This perhaps is at the heart of gay Mormon despair and sorrow. Many gay Mormons internalize their theological otherness and their emotional separation from the divine. It is this doctrine that pits our loyalty to self against the official position of the Church. Though most gay Mormons will eventually choose either the self or the Church to be supreme in this matter, the conflict is a spiritual fire through which eventually every LGBT Mormon must pass.

There is really nothing that has brought me to a place of sorrow in life quite like being in love and not having the opportunity to form an uninhibited romantic same-sex relationship. I understand that there are many people, regardless of sexual orientation or religious background who go through life never experiencing reciprocated love or who have circumstances that keep them from a relationship that they desire. But heterosexuals always have the chance to form these relationships and experience love in all of its physical, emotional and spiritual manifestations. There are no legal, doctrinal, or cultural barriers to their relationship potential inside or outside the Church.

Does the orthodox Mormon position on homosexuality benefit anyone? Is it even harmonious with other tenets that are essential to the religion? As I understand it, the whole purpose of commandments and restrictions in Mormonism is to keep individuals from doing that which is harmful to their spiritual, emotional or physical health. It is fair then to ask if the LDS position on homosexuality actually achieves that. I think it accomplishes the opposite. It humiliates, confuses, degrades and exiles gay members. It keeps them from developing more fully the valuable personality attributes essential to thriving relationships such as selflessness, sacrifice and compromise because they cannot attain an intimate long-term stable relationship with a person of the same sex. It inspires spiritual self-doubt, facilitates dishonesty, and can generate an emotional distance between a gay person and his or her associates. It leads to a higher incidence of mixed orientation marriages than is likely to be the case if same sex relationships were allowed in the Church. It restricts sexual fulfillment and expression of non-sexual physical affection.

Having extricated myself from the constraints of Mormon possibilities, I have the freedom, at least mentally, to explore the idea of a relationship with another man – one in which I can give fully of myself, as much as my potential permits. A same-sex romantic relationship seems likely to be the kind in which I can give and receive the most that a relationship between two un-related people can offer. Though I do not know what my own future holds, I want all people to have the opportunity to form relationships that work best for them, free from social, legal and theological roadblocks that have little real value. The ability of two consenting adults to express love is a basic human right.

I believe the Church would benefit from seriously examining its position on homosexuality in light of its other doctrinal views about human happiness and human progress. Church leaders need to have the courage to recognize that their prohibition on homosexual relationships is unjust to a significant number of God’s children. Institutionally, Mormonism has shown theological creativity and adaptability in the past. It may take some unprecedented creativity to incorporate same-sex relationships into Mormon theology, but it may be a necessary step if Mormonism is to rightly claim that it is a religion for everyone. On an encouraging note, among Church membership, understanding, dialogue and acceptance are growing. Perhaps an increasing number of Latter-day Saints now diverge from their leadership in full support of their gay friends and family members. Meanwhile, back in the narrow corridors of doctrinally pure Mormon sociology, however, gays continue to be damned.

Notes:

1. See Quinn, D.M. 1996. “Same-sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans. A Mormon Example”

2. Homosexual behavior is universally interpreted in Mormonism to include same-sex sexual intimacy, but is more ambiguously interpreted for other types of affection such as kissing or holding hands.

3. Alma 34:34

4. There are many possible solutions to the tension between accepting homosexuality and Mormonism. In many cases, however, an imbalance arises in the reconciliation. Either the member (1) renounces homosexual behaviors to be in line with the Church, (2) continues to “commit” homosexual acts while still being a devout believer and cycles through a likely painful process of confession and repentance, or (3) decides that they must abandon some or all of the Church’s teachings to accommodate their conscience. I don’t mean to imply that acceptable resolutions are unattainable, rather that all gay Mormons confront the tension at some point and that a balanced compromise between homosexual desires and Mormonism is probably exceedingly rare.

Experiencing more

There is a place for idealism in my heart. It gets beat up by reality on a regular basis, but it lives on.
As I get a little older, sometimes the sobering thought that life is finite will settle in my mind for a short time. In the course of my life I will only meet a small fraction of the world’s people. But each person holds a lifetime of experience and dreams, failures and successes. What do I learn from each person? What do I contribute in return? In my short life, I will only read and ponder a tiny sampling of all the knowledge accumulated by thinking men and women throughout history. So thus I must choose my education and entertainment wisely. Is every day a lecture, every walk through nature an instructive reminder of silent ageless lessons? In my few decades, I will only visit a handful of fascinating and beautiful places built by human hands or nature’s laws. Therefore to be in more places I must imagine, I must look as carefully at the microscopic as I do at the majestic landscapes visible below a mountaintop. Do I see the beauty of where I am presently? In my transitory life, I will only sample a small percentage of the great wealth of human experience. Therefore, I must savor the good in each experience that I’m a part of. Am I grateful for the past, energetic in the present, optimistic about the future?
 
The body often limits us, but the mind seems capable of extending us. Antiquated human structures and age old patterns built on superstition also often tie us down, but creativity and knowledge can free us. Body and mind, reality and hope, the finite versus imagination … these are the twin voices of reality and idealism. We need them both I suppose. But in my idealistic musings, I like to think that you…me…all of us together, we visit more, we learn more, we experience more, and we connect more than each of us alone. Thus by our shared journeys we transcend the finite each of us is born into.

Positives of the LDS Church

I have been distancing myself from LDS doctrine for several years now.  This originated from concerns that had more to do with such things loss of faith in Mormon cosmology and the conflict between generally accepted scientific data and church teachings than anything to do with homosexuality.  That can of worms came later.

Because I have committed substantial fractions of my time, income and energy to Church activities for many years, my connection with the Church will always have an effect on my life going forward, no matter my future level of belief or activity. In an honest assessment of what the Church means to me currently, it is important for me to remember the many positive aspects of the doctrine and social structure of Mormonism.  Because distancing oneself from the Church can run concurrent with a degree of disillusionment, it is probably a natural reaction for a withdrawing member to focus for some time principally on the problems that one now feels were whitewashed during all of those years of faithfulness.  I am still sort of in that phase.  However, neglect of the good in the Church would be an oversimplification too.  Here are some positives that I find in LDS doctrine and culture:

1. There is a genuine and deep well of love and service in the hearts of many Latter-day Saints.  I have met countless wonderful individuals through my affiliation with the Church. In fact, it was the example of acquaintances in high school that led me to investigate the Church in the first place and move towards the decision to be baptized.  The Church truly attracts wonderful people to its congregations and helps improve the lives of its members.

2. Many core doctrines of the Church represent foundational principles that help individuals and societies solve problems, find meaning in life, and work towards a common good.  These include charity, forgiveness, hard work, sacrifice, cooperation and service.  These principles have been impressed strongly on my mind and they are important components of my spirituality.  They are the essence of the life that Christ lived and they cut across doctrinal and historical differences.

3. With its emphasis on morality, the Church indirectly promotes the more basic idea that human happiness derives in large part from believing that one’s conscience is in harmony with a higher truth.  The specifics of LDS morality may be debatable from scientific, historical or social perspectives, but I think that the general idea that a fulfilling life necessitates a good conscience is a valuable template for making decisions throughout life.

4. The Church promotes self-discipline and self-improvement.  These are keys to finding personal happiness and improving our ability to contribute to society.  Although LDS approaches to these topics may not be the most balanced at times (and some members turn these elevating principles into self-defeating perfectionism), society will truly be better off if we each have a genuine desire to improve and grow each day.

5. Through the Word of Wisdom and other teachings, the Church teaches that the body is sacred and that maximizing health is important for personal happiness and the ability to serve others.

6. LDS teachings emphasis self-worth.  This is very important in today’s world where selfishness, self indulgence, competition and power can be emphasized to destructive degrees.

7. LDS doctrine places great emphasis on the family.  While the LDS conception of family is too narrowly construed, and some Church members appear to place allegiance to the Church above charity for God’s children (instances of LDS parents alienating gay children are an excellent example), I believe that it is true that one of the most rewarding aspects of life is the close relationships that we forge with others.

The Church is successful as an organization because it promotes a cohesive social structure filled with many positive teachings.  As a good friend once explained, it is a paradigm for making sense of the world that works on many levels for its members.  When that paradigm (or model) is stretched to more extreme positions, when the Church fails to support and embrace those perceived as being on the “fringes” of Mormon culture, or when faith and obedience overpower reason and productive inquiry, it will proportionally lose its power over the hearts of its members.