This is the mouse that's turning the little wheel in my head today.
Yesterday in Family Relations class, we had a sub. He didn't teach out of the manual and some of the things he said and did were out of line, if you ask me. Needless to say, the Spirit wasn't there a whole lot. But I've been thinking about one thing he said.
He was talking about how our society is in a place where we have to find someone to blame for everything. Blame your bad behavior on your mother, or something you're lacking in your life. Blame your circumstances on someone else's selfishness. Blame your unhappiness on your husband/bishop/neighbor/friend/children. Blame the credit card company for exploiting you and keeping you in debt. . . blame blame blame.
I agree with him for the large part. At some point you have to stand up and look at yourself, and realize that the only one responsible for your life is YOU. Some have more to deal with when it comes to crossing that bar, and of course we'll be judged based on what we know and what challenges we have, but ultimately what we make of our lives and who we become is on us.
It's empowering, I think. I am not the victim of anyone's choices or attitudes. I have the ability to make my days and my life what I want them to be. I can overcome trials and past hurts and make my weaknesses strengths. Of course all of this is done with the help of the Lord; but no person can forcibly take those things away. Blessings are there for my asking, and the Lord provides, and if I choose to I can remain unaffected by people that try to steal my peace (*coughlikemyMILcough*).
Now, the trick is remembering that when my husband's family is visiting tonight, and in other situations.
-- Edited by Jen at 13:40, 2008-03-31
__________________
"There is order in the way the Lord reveals His will to mankind. . .we cannot receive revelation for someone else's stewardship." L. Tom Perry
At some point you have to stand up and look at yourself, and realize that the only one responsible for your life is YOU.
I would agree with this. However, what this means, is that people stand on both sides of this line. There are those who are locked in the throes of victimhood, and are honest-to-goodness being harmed by other people. Then, there is this line that is crossed. On the other side, stand all the people who sit there and claim victim status, who whine and ball and whimper, but basically, their lives are there choice.
It's an important distinction, because we want to react to the two different types of people in two different ways. Problem is, we pretty much aren't equipped with the ability to determine which side of the line someone is on. Do we offer help, or do we offer advice in the form of 'get up off your rear end and fix this'? Do we err on the side of caution, and take the risk of enabling some schlomo to stay in their comfortable world of perpetual victimization? Do we err on the side of agency, and deny someone the help they desperately need?
Good things to think about.
LM
-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 14:45, 2008-03-31
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
There are also people who sit around and say that your life is the sum of your choices, and that every bad choice that others have made are a result of that, and when someone feels badly, they say, "well they just have a victim mentality" and therefore they never do anything kind, or helpful, or reach out to people because nobody really deserves kindness or forgiveness cuz they brought it all on themselves...
I see this a lot in many conservative lines of thought, which imo is what King Benjamin warned us all to be wary of when we saw the beggar and told him that he'd brought upon himself his own troubles.
So we have to tread a fine line between running at the speed we can run and no faster, and in giving to the poor, regardless of how deserving they may seem.
One of the most annoying thing I've heard in recent times is the pop-psychology term "enabling". I've seen that diagnosis applied to all sorts of people just trying to be a good neighbor to people who sometimes make poor choices. "Well they're just enabling that bad behavior"... and imo, that sort of thing is their way of excusing their own sour conscience which secretly wishes they would've done something... but didn't.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I agree with LM and Ray both. I do think that other people can really do harm to people. And if someone does not ever find a person or reason to trust someone, how are they to know that you can trust. People can overcome a lot in this life. People can do real harm to others. If there were no consequences of being a bad parent or a bully, then it really wouldn't matter what you did whether it is good or bad. I'm not saying that a person should not try to improve and get past their past. I think much growth can come as you seek to learn from the past. I don't want to judge a person as victim mentallity. Maybe that is where they are right now. Maybe they just aren't capable of seeing things more clearly. Maybe someone has robbed them of that. Borderline personalities, for instance, don't seem to have much of an ability to even know themselves let alone make positive life choices. I am grateful that as far as I know that I am not a borderline personality. I know myself pretty good. In fact, I am probably too introspective. At any rate, I do think we run the risk of excusing our lack of help towards our fellow man by pushing all the blame back on that person. We all need somebody. I wouldn't be where I am today without people being kind to me. And people telling me that I didn't deserve the abuse that I have received has meant a lot to me. It has helped with the healing.
rayb wrote:One of the most annoying thing I've heard in recent times is the pop-psychology term "enabling". I've seen that diagnosis applied to all sorts of people just trying to be a good neighbor to people who sometimes make poor choices. "Well they're just enabling that bad behavior"...
Oh, great. Now my sense of self has been hit by an invalidation arrow, and I'm locked in a shame spiral. Thanks a lot.
Say what you will about the term, the notion is sometimes right on the money. Homeless folks that populate our downtowns stay where they are because of handouts. You give them money, they blow it on their drug of choice, and the process repeats the next day.
Pick whatever name you wish for it. Giving them money is not charity, it is not helping them.
Guilt issues go away immediately when you carry around the toll-free phone number and address to the local homeless shelter. Place it in the outstretched hand of need, and watch it shrink away like a crucifix had touched Dracula's skin.
LM (Got on a first name basis with several homeless folks in Denver)
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
When I was a supervisor at work, I had a difficult time defining the line. On the one hand, I wanted everyone to succeed, so I worked my tail off to help them. But, their habits didn't change. It wasn't until I started holding people accountable (which meant that there were consequences for inaction) that real change came about. Sometimes that change resulted in someone losing their job. But, I knew that I had given them every opportunity to change--they just decided that they didn't want to change.
I've had to remind myself of this lesson whenever I'm in a similar situation. A good example is working with someone at church who needs assistance. My bishop has taught me alot about holding people accountable even in the most pitiful situations. You want to help them, but Bishop is adamant that we will offer our hand, it is up to them to take that hand. So, if we help them with food assistance, they had better be working with us to improve their situation. Bishop has a stewardship over the fast offerings and he is conscious that if someone is just looking for a free handout and not willing to actually do something (such as look for a job, assist at church when asked, etc.), then he is failing in his stewardship.
__________________
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
You can't live your life making sure that every gift you give is spent righteously or responsibly... not if you want to develop true charity, cuz God loves even the "undeserving" poor.
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 13:36, 2008-04-02
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Quite true Ray. But again, assisting someone in remaining a slave to their addiction doesn't really qualify as a "gift", now does it.
If it does, then consider this situation: Small town built around the local tire plant. Tire plant announces it'll be laying everyone off and closing up shop. Do you think that heading into the local bar, and buying everyone a round of drinks could be considered 'charity'?
How come alcohol isn't charity, but crack is?
LM
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
So if you're an employer, do you make sure they're not abusing their salary? They could be spending their money on child pornography, for example... You'd better police every expenditure, then. How shallow of you to use them to do some simple tasks like do work for your company, as long as it doesn't affect your work, you just keep enabling them.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
Paying an employee is my legal duty. Giving charity to those in need involves a judgement call as to what they need, and what will help them. So the answer to your question is no, I will not violate privacy laws or try to manipulate employees into using their pay for what I want them to.
I answered your question, now you answer mine!
Do you think that heading into the local bar, and buying everyone a round of drinks could be considered 'charity'?
How come alcohol isn't charity, but crack is?
LM
-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 11:35, 2008-04-03
__________________
And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, seven hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
If they do go out and drink their paycheck or use it to buy child porn, can they blame their boss for giving them the money in the first place? That was the only end I was thinking from.
Of course there's a need and commandment for charity. . . but what I was speaking to is blaming everyone but yourself (general you) for your problems.
__________________
"There is order in the way the Lord reveals His will to mankind. . .we cannot receive revelation for someone else's stewardship." L. Tom Perry
