The Role of Emotions in Manhood, Priesthood...and Everywhere Else

As a kid I had a gift for understanding intellectual, scientific, things, or at least, I think I did. I was fascinated with nature, biology, computers, technology, astronomy, chemistry, geology, and more. I'm still fascinated by all these things, but my fascination with more things has sprouted. I've since learned that I love history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and more.

I used to have the mindset that emotions were these burdens we were stuck with as human beings. Feelings that complicated our thinking, that got in the way of making good decisions.

Regardless, I was raised in a home that taught me to follow the Spirit, follow the Holy Ghost, and that I should follow it by using my feelings and emotions. There was the teaching that I should "study it out in my mind" and then make the final decision based on how I "felt". It was easy to recognize and listen to the positive emotions, but I was never given a whole lot instruction on dealing with the negative emotions: boredom, loneliness, anger, fear, stress, fatigue, sadness. I was told to read the scriptures, go to church, talk to my parents, and help others. Those are good things, but it was a bit incomplete and I often still didn't recognize those things in myself.

For anyone who's seen the movie by "Inside Out" by Pixar, like the main character, I may have felt a pressure to exude positivity and happiness all the time. Those came pretty easy to me and it was an ever-present compliment from strangers or my parents' friends that I was always smiling. I felt a naive confidence that I was in control of my emotions and at times I obnoxiously put down others who weren't, or gloated over people who couldn't control their negative emotions. I remember one night, my younger brother telling me, "You're making me MAD," and I telling him back, "Nope, I can't MAKE you do anything. If you're mad, it's because you want to be mad." He was furious with me and I thought I was hot stuff that I wasn't the one that made him that way and that I wasn't feeling angry back. Steffen, I'm really sorry.

There was some truth to what I was saying that night, but my actions were not helping anything. I didn't MAKE him mad, but I certainly contributed to it, a lot.

We do that a lot, in life. We influence the feelings of others through our actions. We can do this in both directions. We can help people feel good or help them feel sad. We can't MAKE them feel these things, but we can certainly make it easier or more difficult for them to deal with their emotions in constructive ways. While I am responsible for the actions I take because of my emotions, I have learned to take into account the effect that others have on me and now I have to practice compensating for, or dealing with those effects from others.

Emotions are valuable tools. They are the fire inside us that pushes us in our chosen (or unchosen!) direction. An emotion is a widespread response inside our brain, triggered by some loaded memory, thought, or action, that calls to action parts of our brain that wouldn't normally be involved in the thinking process or action process. If our conscious thought is the steering wheel, emotions are the engine. Our brains do an ENORMOUS amount of thinking behind the scenes, most of it we are unaware of. It calculates and deduces and decides long before we know it does, and long before our conscious thought becomes aware of it, much of it in the form of emotions below the surface, triggered by some...thing...that we encountered in the last hour, this morning, or even the previous week. The effects are long lasting and very pervasive.

I had to go through a lot of my own rough times to learn this. For a period of time, I was very, very alone and it seemed like my life was falling apart and I wanted it to end. I went to see a therapist, I found a support group, I relied on a lot of prayer and quiet moments to think through the whole thing. My family was all 400 miles away and my cell phone was my life-line to people who cared about me.

And they were a tremendous help. They took to heart, the council in Mosiah 18:8-10, that those who are uniting themselves with the teachings of Jesus Christ should "mourn with those that mourn" and "comfort those that stand in need of comfort". Or as Paul admonishes, "Rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep." (Romans 12:15)

That kind of empathy I received from my family and a few close friends, as well as professionals and even strangers, was enlightening for me. I'd been taught about empathy just a bit before, but I don't think I really understood it. In our current society, the word "sympathy" is falling out of favor as a negative thing and being replaced with "empathy". Sympathy says, "I feel bad for what happened to you." Empathy says, "I may not know what you are going through, but I can understand those feelings." Sympathy has a strong tendency toward selfishness, self-pity, and emotional manipulation (if others feel bad for me, they would do things for me), while empathy keeps responsibility for feelings in the appropriate corners but brings about unity between people who can share similar feelings.

It makes me think of the definition of "Zion" found in the Book of Moses 7:18, "And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind and there was no poor among them."

This Zion could only be achieved by a people rejoicing with each other and mourning with each other. Think of what that would be like. If my neighbor enjoys a huge success that elevates his position, comfort, or status in life, I wouldn't be jealous of him, I'd be ecstatic! If my friend loses healthy use of his body, I wouldn't tell myself, "Well, he was careless and took big risks, serves him right!" I'd go be by his side and help him work through what happened as he tried to make sense of it and learn to cope with it. If he really did lose something because of his own poor choices, he is mostly likely going to figure that out with healthy support and the safety that empathy brings and the ability to think clearly we can achieve when we feel safe.

King Benjamin described this in his sermon, "and ye yourselves, succor those that stand in need of succor...perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just - But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same has great cause to repent;" (Mosiah 4:16-18) We need to know what others are feeling and do what we can to help them and we cannot do that if we don't know them. When we know them, we will have one heart AND one mind. We will be individuals with different backgrounds, gifts, and experiences, united in a common purpose, bringing ourselves to the group to enhance it.

So how does this relate to the target of Men and the Priesthood? As men, it is a mix of biology, culture, upbringing, and peer pressure that keeps us from expressing our own emotions. When we don't express our emotions, we stop recognizing them. When we don't recognize our emotions, give names to them, address each one appropriately, we let them do what they want, below the surface, without oversight or supervision. Only when one breaks the surface do we finally address it, but by then it's been getting it's way for a long time. This shows up in an outburst of anger, frustration, or a lost temper. It shows up as an unproductive past-time. It shows up as addictions. It shows up as detachment from others, distancing ourselves from loved ones. It shows up as sin.

My wife and I and other family members have been working hard with my son to teach him how to recognize his own emotions. He got to attend a summer school focused on this. The class was almost entirely boys. They did exercises and assignments to recognize, describe, and learn what each emotion does. I think it has helped. When he sees something scary and tries to downplay it in an attempt to be strong or tough, we talk about it. "What you saw WAS scary. It's okay, you NEED to know that, or your brain will stop trying to tell you what is scary and not and it will just do its own thing without you." To keep in charge of his body, he needs to recognize his feelings.

Most men have this disconnect. Many women do as well, but it doesn't seem as prevalent. Maybe it's just a human nature problem that affects everyone, but men in mostly this way. Maybe it's a challenge built into the "system" and Plan of Salvation by a loving God who set this place up for our learning and growing.

The church and the Priesthood are near-perfect vehicles for helping us with this challenge. It pulls us out of ourselves and into the lives of others, not just our wives and children, but also our neighbors, ward-members, and even strangers. It puts us into a position of service to others. It puts us into a position where we are supposed to listen to others, to get to know them, to serve them, and occasionally counsel them, but mostly find ways to help. It encourages us to Give, to spend energy, to love, to work for others without thought of reward or gain.

For some nay-sayers out there who will claim that magnifying our priesthood is selfish because it works toward our Eternal Life and Salvation, I will put out that no threat of hellfire and damnation ever worked well to get men to do their home-teaching. Those who home-teach faithfully and regularly don't do it for selfish reasons, they do it out of love for others. Eternity is too far away and home teaching is to "small" an act to be a consistent motivator.

It would be nice to think that intellect can stand on its own two feet without the complication of messy emotions, but it can't. It is inextricably tied to our emotions. If sadness, fear, or anger is what is boiling below the surface, our intellect tends towards cynicism and mistrust. When love and joy are what our minds focus on, we put more emphasis on hope, cooperation, and gratitude. Most of us are a mix of both.

Ever heard that story of two wolves inside of us? One filled with fear and doubt, the other with hope and love. Which one wins? The one we feed. Most of us feed both.

Neither side is blind to the truths of the world, but our emotions will drive our thinking, which then drives our actions, whatever those truths of the world actually are. Our focus determines our direction, regardless of truth or reality. I remember an incident at a park where many people were sledding. Near the bottom of one of the hills was a post embedded deep into the ground and most people just went right by it. Two boys went down this hill, in a steerable sled, the one driving could not take his focus off the post and several bystanders watched them turn and veer right into it.

Now, with all this in mind, think about what happens to our intellect, our emotions, and our actions when we focus on things like a perfect God who loves us unconditionally, a priesthood that expects us to serve, and a weekly Sacrament that points us to a merciful Savior. Do you think our emotions, intellect, and actions will start to align and harmonize with those thoughts? Absolutely.

This is why, even if someone doesn't believe in a literal Savior, the thinking of and hoping for one can still create an improvement in their lives.

I know there is a Savior. I have felt him in ways that are undeniable and I have seen his touch in my life in unmistakeable ways, even when not looking for him.

Why Logic Cannot Prove or Disprove A Religion, History, or Just about Anything

I've tried writing three different posts with that title in mind. But Logic is so fickle and so subjective I get lost in the discussion with myself. It starts to sound like I'm arguing with myself, or rambling on. It's easy to go around and around in circles. Imagine what it's like when two or more people try using logic to back up their claims!

LOGIC can give us an indication of what probably happened in the past, according to the best of our observations, knowledge, and reasoning. Logic is simply and very simply a method FOR reasoning, not the end result of our reasoning and thinking.

Think of that sentence above. Those are a lot of conditions that have to be met to figure out the best "truth" we can figure out. Think of that for a minute. Even if we use the BEST archaeological findings, the BEST scientific reasoning, and pair both of those with the most complete basis of previous knowledge, we are still only reaching as high as is within our current grasp for the moment and we still could be wrong!

Now, let's look at reality. There is too much for any one person to know, too much for even many large groups, organizations, and bureaucracies to know. And even with a large mastermind group of the most brilliant scientists, trying to get a unanimous consensus between them is near impossible. Why? Because each person will have a slightly different perspective on their field of expertise, a slightly different collection of knowledge in their head, and a slightly different aim for their intentions or their predictions.

And this is only to decide what physical events actually occurred or are occurring!

Now try to figure out what emotions a person was feeling as those events occurred. Or what the motives of a person were as they carried out their deeds. Some motives and emotions will be obvious but most will be....extremely complicated.

Was Genghis Khan actually a good guy, like most natives to Mongolia believe, or as my friend asserted in his Master's Thesis? What about Napoleon or Charlemagne? How about Robin Hood, or even more complicated: Prince John Lackland, King of England (Robin Hood's nemesis)

Was Joseph Smith an honest man? Are all Anti-Mormon articles written out of spite, bias, or ill-intent? What about LDS apologists? How many articles are written out of ignorance? If ignorance is intentional, does that make the person dishonest?

Am I a good person?

The phrase, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Is a very loaded sentence. What constitutes a "fruit" and which fruits should you judge a person by, their intentional fruits, or all of them: mistakes and successes?

We can look up the diaries of the limited perspectives of outsiders, or even insiders and try to draw conclusions about a person like Joseph Smith. If his closest friends assert to his prophetic position, if his wife stood by his side, and if the thousands of followers and members of the church praise him, that's worth considering. What about a handful of  detractors who make claims that he behaved inappropriately. Was he righteously following the commands of a demanding God, was he acting on his own? How do we know?

We really can't. From the reports of those men and women who say Joseph Smith made mistakes or poor decisions it sounds like he's an awful guy! Looking at only those things and those perspectives, it paints him in a really negative light! And in the end, we can't really know if he was acting under God's direction or not unless God himself told us, can we? If we decide for ourselves, "Well, NO prophet would ever act like that!" then we are taking on ourselves the title of "Expert on Prophetic Behavior" and that would be an arrogant position for us to take onto ourselves, wouldn't it?

What if we take a look at the whole? What if we take a look at the countless visitations, revelations, evidences, and experiences (many of which were experienced WITH another person present!) What if we look at the testimonies of his wife? His best friends? His family members and siblings? We get an entirely different picture. Emma Smith is reported to have loved Joseph until her dying breath. We know from many accounts that she was not some mousy, submissive woman. She had a strong will, a strong intellect and mind. She knew most of the accounts that are being used to paint Joseph in a negative light, and she loved him to the end all anyway. So did most of his colleagues and followers.

Emotionally, mentally, culturally, historically, and academically, it would be EXTREMELY difficult for Joseph Smith to have come up with what he did. Pretty well impossible. For an uneducated person, raised in a fairly uneducated family and community, with no access to history books or outside cultures, to write so much at such a young age, so well, with archaeological and cultural influences included into the Book of Mormon things that weren't known to the scientific experts or the public for another hundred years, would be...tough, to put it mildly.

Logic doesn't say, "You can find the truth if you put undue emphasis on the 'negative' qualities of a person." Logic says, "You have to look at EVERYTHING, and then accept what seems most reasonable, probable, or likely."

If I give you the statement, "2+2=4" you may not realize it, but you are making a LOT of assumptions in deciding whether I wrote a true math statement there. You are assuming I'm using a base-10 counting system (10 digits, 1-10, or 0-9, etc), you are assuming that the + sign I used is an additive function, and that the = sign is a statement of equality. You are assuming I am meaning true whole integers and not rounded-off measurements of an actual item, which could carry margins of error (close to 2 inches, plus close to 2 inches is about the same as 4 inches, if I actually new what an inch was).

Logic still expects you to make assumptions about my statement based on likelihoods of what I HAVEN'T told you. I didn't tell you all those background items, you had to assume them. You are MOST likely right, because I was trained in an American school using similar math techniques as the rest of you, but there's no guarantee you are.

If I took a document that inspired millions of other people, say, the Declaration of Independence, or the American Constitution, and take versions of that text, with similar principles, switch it all up, repackage it, spread it to every culture across the globe and present it in a way they will be the most receptive to it, good will likely be done to all of them and they will respect and venerate that document appropriately.

Now what if an outsider sees these similarities and similar documents and teachings across all these cultures, but this outsider has somehow learned that each was a fabrication by an uninspired and unlearned person, it could be a logical conclusion that since they were all faked, the information contained in them is not worth  basing a life on. Or you could make the logical conclusion that even if those texts are imperfect, the contents are good and wholesome and uplifting for the most part and ARE worth basing a life on until something better can be found. Or another logical conclusion could be that with so many similarities across cultures there was an original pure and undiluted source that all these things sprang from. An original that WASN'T fake. Logic helped come up with three different outcomes from the same situation. Logic is a tool and will be used differently by people with different sets of information.

Do people make unlogical conclusions about religion, even and especially their own? Absolutely, all the time. But what constitutes a logical or unlogical decision? That's a tough one, since so many things go into the formation of an opinion or action. There is almost always a reason for someone's actions. Even if WE don't think it was a logical decision, that person definitely would. The difference is in what information we have access to.

Can people make logical decisions based on or about their emotions? Absolutely. Can people make logical decisions based solely on intellect? Of course, or, they can try. If an action makes me feel good, the logical thing to do is keep doing that until some new bit of information or experience says otherwise. Some people's intellectual capacity is greater than others, and for others, their emotional intelligence is greater. Which is more important? Depends what you value, or were taught to value by your society and family.

What if a person has a very similar set of information as us (a family member, or close friend) and makes a very different decision from us? Should we assume they are crazy, or misled, or deluded? No. Should we assume they are mistaken? Not really. What we should be is understanding, loving, and kind while we share each other's knowledge as best as we can, and still be understanding if we stick with different decisions. We cannot share everything we know, no matter how hard we try. We cannot live another person's life, and until we can, we won't know everything that led them to their logical decision.

My decisions to devalue the attacks and claims of those against the church stems firstly from undeniable experiences that the Book of Mormon is correct enough for me to stake my life on and that the priesthood I hold is a real force. Secondly, it stems from an overwhelming majority of experiences I've had that those who attack the church either have incorrect information, are intentionally being misleading, or are putting an unfair emphasis on smoking guns, secondhand accounts, or details that are incomplete and must be filled in by assumptions they make using their own personal backgrounds.

I KNOW the Book of Mormon is True, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Priesthood is REAL. More than anything else, I know those things, because I received that information from The Source, undiluted, and unmistakable, specific and more real than anything else I have ever experienced. I could taint and destroy that knowledge by filling my mind with opposing thoughts, or putting undue emphasis on assumptions and guesses, or I could keep it clean and bright. Letting it corrode isn't a sign that the knowledge was false, only that I let my perception and memory of it degrade. I can't speak for others' testimonies, only of my own, which is the most important one, to me.

The only person who could accurately and completely use Logic to determine absolute truth or reality, is an all-knowing God. Anyone else who claims they can is...mistaken.