Christian

I carried this phrase as a mantra for many years. As a Mormon I knew that there were lots of things said about my faith--including that we weren't Christian. Since I most certainly was Christian by every definition in the book, I tried really hard to show my beliefs through my behavior, so that I would always be 'convictable.'

I remember one day when I was 17 I was talking with a group of associates at community college, and said something about being Mormon. One of them said "Well, I've always heard that Mormons aren't Christian, but you clearly are, so I guess those other people were wrong."
(Convictable? Yep.)

Now, today, I find myself contemplating this question from the other side.

I do not consider myself Christian anymore. I've left Mormonism and fall somewhere in the complexity of athiest/eclectic Pagan. But even though my theological beliefs have changed, my way of living really has not. I don't believe in Jesus as God or Savior, but I do believe that the teachings to love one another, forgive, and care for others are good moral value and I do follow them. In other words, I'm pretty sure I'm still 'convictable' even though now that conviction would be incorrect.

And it's got me thinking.

I think that "christian" and "Christ-ian" are not the same thing.

I mean, yes, in the literal meaning of the word, a Christ-ian is a believer in Christ-as-Savior.
But in the common cultural use, as in "that wasn't a very christian way to handle that situation," nobody is asking--or even caring--about the beliefs of the person in question. They are simply focusing on behavior. And in that sense, a lot of non-Christ-ians are some of the most 'christian' people I know.

So go ahead and convict me of being christian. (You'll probably want to convict me of being a witch too while you're at it...just sayin...) Neither label is technically accurate, but I also don't mind either one.

Finding My Place

Today was the fourth annual "wear pants to church day."

I know, I can hear you saying "she hasn't blogged in almost two years, and now she's back to blog about this?" Yeah, I am. And if that bothers you, well I guess you know where I will tell you to stick it, right? Because (in case you're new here or something) I don't see a point in beating around the bush. If you don't like what I write, feel free to go read something else. Nobody is making you stay.

But if you are here, and reading, I thought maybe you'd like to know some of my thoughts about why I do this, and what it means to me.

I participated the first year, and the second, and if you are scratching your head and trying to figure out what on earth I am talking about, please go read the posts that I wrote about those two days.   I didn't participate last year, actually, because I didn't attend church on that day. I don't remember why. I do know that I wore pants on the first day I attended my ward here in Kenai, and no one batted an eye that day (just as they did not today). No one minds here.
And it's not as if wearing pants is dressing down. (In fact, due to my body deciding that metabolism is not a thing we do anymore these last few years, I've had to rebuild much of my wardrobe, and actually my 'best dressed' mostly IS pants because it's my work wardrobe. But I digress.) This year my sister lives with me, so she joined in.

The obligatory 'pants picture'

The point of pants day is to stand up in a visual representation of fulfilling the calling--the covenant--to love. To comfort those who need comfort. To be a light for those in darkness. To say loudly and clearly to everyone "I am here, I accept you as you are, and I claim you as my sister or brother."

Over the last few years my relationship with the church has changed. I've written about it here on and off under the tag 'my faith journey.' I know my journey is troubling to most of my family and probably to some of my friends. Others of my friends are supportive and even wholly understanding as they travel or have traveled journeys of their own. I don't know that I have figured out everything, but today I made some decisions.

Let me try a metaphor. It may help.

Water sustains life; it can also kill you. It all depends on the specifics of who you are and the situation of the water around you. 

They always say that if you see someone drowning, you should not go out to them. You should keep yourself safe, and toss a life preserver or something to them. You should never jump into the water with them. 

But what if that person is a tiny child who is not able to understand about grabbing onto the life preserver? Or what if you are are a lifeguard. Then you are supposed to jump into the water, because you are able to be safe even as you save that person who literally needed you to be right there. 

Some people cannot jump into the water safely. We do not blame them for the fact that they cannot swim, or have not been trained for this task. They do what they can from the shore.

Some people can jump into the water safely. And therefore it seems to me that perhaps they have a responsibility--a moral obligation--to do so.

With that in mind, I return to my story:

Within Mormonism I am disenfranchised now more than ever. My spouse is no longer a member of the church. My children prefer to stay home with dad. I, myself, have only attended sporadically for the last year or so. It was a sabbatical, I suppose. Time I needed for pondering over many things. 

It has been a long time since I felt like I got much out of my relationship with the church. I have felt like it was a very one-sided relationship, where I gave and gave and gave, and was asked to give always more, but was not receiving even the little that I had been promised (peace, hope, support, or inspiration). I could find those things in other places--and I did--but it was not coming from church sources. So I took a break. I stopped giving so much. I took care of myself.

I work in behavioral health, and when someone is in a one-sided relationship like that, the typical advice would be to move on. Leave it behind. Find someone or something that gives to you as much as you give to it. So, naturally, this is something I have contemplated.

It is not something I am choosing at this time.

Remember the part of the story about having a moral obligation to go into the water if you are able to do so safely?

The Mormon church is flawed. There are imperfect people and beyond that there are policies in place within the organization which are hurtful and damaging. I will be honest and say that I do not believe in the literalness or infallibility of many things which I once did. But I also do not forget that this is my heritage and my culture. That doesn't go away, even when I am deeply troubled by some of the things happening right now. 

I am also aware of many people who do believe in literalness and infallibility, and who are hurting (even to the point of suicidality) at the situations they find themselves in because of it. That is where the metaphor comes in. Because there are some people who cannot swim in the waters of Mormonism safely, even at the same time as there are those who need it to sustain life. Some people will choose to exit the water (with or without help) and they have every right to do so. Some people need the water, even though they are literally dying by being in it. 

And here is me. I can swim these waters. I may no longer feel the need for them as I once did, but I am safe within them nonetheless. I can help others learn to swim (or get safely to shore, if they prefer). I can do it safely and without judgment toward those others, regardless of which path they choose.

I can be what I have always been--what I have always felt called to be--a teacher, a healer, a helper. I can be that person who makes the comment in sunday school that was inclusive instead of exclusionary, or the comment that makes everyone think instead of just repeating the status quo. (I've always done that; might as well carry on!) I can be that person who has the knowledge and credibility of being an insider, but who also boldly wears this necklace week after week, or who wears pants to church, thus establishing myself as someone who is not entrenched in habit or closed-minded. I can be a safe space for those who feel they are drowning, or for those watching others drown and not knowing how to help.

I do not know what the future holds or where I may go next, but this is where I choose to be now. So perhaps it is not accurate to say that I am finding my place, but rather to say that I am choosing my place.

Rising Water

This morning I was browsing pinterest and this photo caught my eye:

Pebble Shore Lake in Glacier National Park, Montana, United States. 

Photo by Jason Savage.

It got me to thinking about rocks; specifically about wet rocks...

More than once I've sat on the shore of a body of water and noticed how different a rock can look when it's wet as compared to when it's dry.

In every case, the change I have observed is that the wet rock is prettier. Its natural features of stripes or speckles or color variation (or even just its natural color) are enhanced and given definition by the presence of water.

When they are dry, the rocks all look more or less alike, but when they are wet they are unique.

My husband found a large pretty stone in a river last summer and wanted to bring it home for our garden, but once it dried out it became quite dull. He has actually decided that he'd like to put some kind of lacquer on it so that it will maintain its 'wet' look even when not submerged. Because it's a better or more appealing rock when it is paired with water.

Water is, in many senses, the antithesis of stone. Stone is simple, solid, stable, and more or less immoveable. Water is fluid and flowing, changeable, and sensitive to its surroundings.

The only way for a rock to maintain the beauty of the water is for it to be submersed repeatedly or at length. In other words, it is immersion in opposition that creates the beauty.

In longer spans of time water can change rock even more, by shaping and smoothing it through gradual erosion. I realize the metaphor here isn't perfect, but I did at least want to give a nod to the idea that it's not just about beauty or definition.

The point is that opposition, though unpleasant or even painful in the moment, can be beneficial or improving in the longer run. It can show us the best version of ourselves. It pushes us through the changes that refine us.

I Claim You

I vividly remember the day that I listened to Joanna Brooks' speech at the 2011 Mormon Stories Conference in SLC.  She talked about her Mormon heritage, and then about how many different kinds of people there are who have Mormonism in their bones. She celebrated the diversity, and then said loudly and passionately "We Claim You!"

At the time I was feeling quite awkward about my relationship with the LDS church. My husband had disaffiliated from Mormonism just a few months before, and I suddenly found how disenfranchised I felt now that I was in a "part-member home" and had "no priesthood in the home." The kids saw daddy staying home from church and they didn't want to go either. I found myself often going to church alone. I found myself missing church more than I ever would have in my youth. My husband's faith transition had been happening simultaneously with my own, but our conclusions had been different: he was done with it, but I could not be. Mormonism is in my bones. I'm not the same kind of Mormon as I once was though. For so many reasons I cannot return to the safe, sweet way I used to live.

Being an outsider is nothing new though. I have always been an outsider. As a kid I was homeschooled. Now I'm a hearty supporter of homeschooling, but it made me an outsider at church because I was the only one.

And I realized that we make many kinds of outsiders.

And here's the thing. A lot of people have looked at the PANTS event and concluded that it is about female ordination. Or that it is about LGBTQ something or other (because of the suffragette purple I suppose). Or that it's about feminism in general. Or trying to attract attention and create contention. Or trying to put down women who wear dresses or are satisfied with the status quo. Or about trying to prove a point.

I will grant that last one. It IS about trying to prove a point: It is about proving that we believe that love is bigger than judgment. It is about saying to all those outsiders WE CLAIM YOU and we love you and we count you among our brothers and sisters.

• To the young person who is homeschooled and always feels left out; I claim you.
• To the one who is 'weird'; I claim you.
• To the one who is whispered about behind his or her back; I claim you and promise those whispers will never come from me.
• To the one who is overweight; I love you.
• To the one dealing with an eating disorder; I love you. 
• To the one who has ever felt awkward because your clothes were 'wrong' or 'not stylish' or 'uncool'; I claim you and I understand.
• To the sister who is disenfranchised because she is unmarried, divorced, or otherwise "does not have the priesthood in her home"; I claim you and support you
• To the sister who wants children but cannot have them; I love you, I understand you, and I support you more than you realize.
• To the sister who does not want children; I claim you and respect your choice.
• To the sexual abuse survivor; I accept you, love you, and do not blame you for what happened to you.
• To the one who is the only member in her or his household; I claim you and support you.
• To the one who is struggling to find her or his place in the church; I claim you and I am your sister no matter what.
• To the one who has been so hurt that you cannot bear to come to church anymore; I claim you and I love you.
• To the one who wears pants to church because the weather is cold, because you have small children or a calling in the nursery, because you play the organ in church, because you have a health condition, because you don't have a dress, or simply because you feel more comfortable or confident in pants; I claim you, I support you, and I stand with you this year and last year and every year.

Pants for church in 2013

This is me actually 'in church' today via conference call. Cuz that's how it is in the Alaskan bush.

God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear

Last year, on December 16, women around the world joined in wearing pants to church. I had mixed feelings about it. I supported the idea of feminists doing something instead of just talking about it, but I had been more in the mood for a letter writing campaign or something. But pants was the choice and so I supported it. I still had mixed feelings about wearing pants myself, but I decided to go with it because I remembered having felt judgmental towards pants-wearers in the past, and decided that it was worthwhile to take a conscious stance against judgmentalism. As I said then:

I have never ever worn pants to church. It so happens that I love wearing dresses and skirts, and often wear them on weekdays. I don't particularly want to wear pants to church. BUT, I will be doing so because of this experience. I will be wearing pants to church to be an example to my children that I really do believe that "the lord looketh on the heart [rather than the outward appearance]." I believe in walking the talk. Is wearing pants to church a big deal? No. Will this single event bring about any of the other changes that the All Enlisted movement is hoping for? Not really. But we hope that it will help people to take a look at themselves and their socio-cultural prejudices, and take the opportunity to practice a little non-judgment.

Wow, I had no idea what would follow. Dozens of people (family and friends and total strangers all in chorus) told me that wearing pants was a total non-issue, and that there was no point. Then they told me that I shouldn't do it because it was a point of contention and that contention is of the Devil. Aside from being confused about how pants-wearing can be simultaneously a non-issue and a point of contention, my attention came sharply into focus on two points.

1. All the contention came from outside the pants-wearing group. (This seemed to prove that it was NOT a non-issue.)
2. I was scared to wear pants to church.

Scared!! Of wearing pants!! Wow was that a realization. Especially with the knowledge that I was living in a tiny branch in rural Alaska where frankly nobody would care what I wore so long as I showed up. But I was doubly nervous about it because I was supposed to sing in church on that day, and in a congregation of 15 that meets in a room the size of a typical primary room... my pants would be as bold as could be.

But then a scripture came to mind. "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind" (2 Timothy 1:7). I remembered that fear is the opposite of faith. I remembered the reasons why I supported this whole idea. And on Sunday, December 16, 2012, thirty miles above the Arctic Circle at -16 Fahrenheit, I wore pants to church.

The blouse had pink and purple embroidery so I had my purple too

Can you what happened? Absolutely nothing. I sang in church. In my pants. People told me how well I sang. No one said a word about the pants. Because it was a complete non-issue for all of them.

Except that it was not a non-issue for me. I practiced faith over fear, and love over judgment. And I will do it again.

Agency and Obedience: internal and external control

"Obedience is the first law of Heaven." I heard this so often growing up that I was sure it was scripture until about fifteen minutes ago when I actually looked it up. It seems that a couple of well-know church leaders said it, and at least one non-LDS philosopher said it before either of them.
I was an extremely compliant young person. The notion of obedience as the most important thing in the universe did not phase me...until I considered it in light of some other oft-repeated tenants of the faith:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. [Doc & Cov 58: 26-27]

Wait, did I read that right? Someone who obeys "in all things" is still "slothful and not wise" and "receiveth no reward" because he did not "do many things of his own free will"? Because that is what it looks like to me. If we are simply compliant in all things, without learning to be independent and proactive, then we are not where God wants us to be.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon... Wherefore, men are free to choose liberty and eternal life, [or] to choose captivity and death [2 Nephi 2:26-27]

In the great council in Heaven there were two plans, one which would force compliance so that every person would definitely return to God, and one which promised freedom of choice for every individual. Which one did God choose? Choice. Free will. Self control.

It is important to note that "self control" means actively controlling oneself. It doesn't always mean that you're making the choices that someone else thinks you should. But it does mean that you are making your own choices.

~~~~~~~~~

Swedenborg (he was that other philosopher I mentioned earlier) suggested that obedience is the "first" law in that it is the most basic (as opposed to the most important). It is a building block. Without argument, obedience is a useful way to build healthy and righteous habits. But there comes a point where each individual needs to be able to evaluate a new situation and know how to make a choice about it, without the support of pre-designated rules.

Some people, when they reach adulthood, are still looking for someone to control them. They feel safer with a high fence of rules all around them. They look for rules in philosophies or advice books. Religious leaders and scripture give delightfully long lists of rules to follow. But is this really self-control? Or is it still deferring to someone else to control you? I would argue that it is the latter.

But, but, but, WAIT! I hear you saying, When there are rules, you choose whether or not to obey them. So even with rules you still have agency. You still can choose whether to obey or not!

Yes and no.

Studies consistently show that children who are heavily controlled by their parents grow up without much self-control.  In fact, these overly-controlled children can be just as out-of-control as the kids who are neglected. (When they grow up, some of them continue seeking outside sources to control them, and others cut loose all over the place. I argue that neither is very healthy.) What children--and the rest of us--need is to have some guidance in how to make decisions ourselves. We need to develop our own ethical guidelines and moral values; we cannot just have someone else's thrust upon us. We can use those other rules and values as guide to forming our own, but ultimately we do need to form our own.

"he that is compelled in all things is a slothful and not a wise servant"

So it is not just a matter of choosing to obey or not. It is a matter of forming our own internal source of guidance, rather than relying on an external one.

~~~~~~~~~ 

Some people have a remarkable sense of direction. Blindfold them, put them anywhere, spin them around, and then let them go...and they can point north or find their way home without any assistance from anyone. Other people can only do that if there are familiar landmarks or geographic features to rely on. Some people will point every which way unless the have a GPS in their hand to show them which way is actually north. Some people can have a GPS in their hand, be looking at it, and still end up pointing somewhere vaguely southwest...

Life is a little like that.The GPS is a useful tool (if you know how to use it!), and it can help you get oriented in unfamiliar territory. If it is just a GPS, then all it can do is tell you where you are, but offers no help in where to go next. Many newer GPS systems have directional programs in them that may be able to give you the directions to get home. On the other hand, if you rely wholly on that GPS, it may send you on an indirect or inconvenient route--in other words, a route that is not good for you. Is it a functional route? Sure, probably. But it's someone else's idea of the best route, and it may or may not be appropriate for you.

Ultimately, we need to learn to read the map ourselves, to read the street signs ourselves, to trust our guts, and figure things out ourselves. It is not wrong to have maps, guides, or rules to help you find your way. But it is very problematic to rely on them so totally that you are unable to function independently.

And it is very problematic to raise our children with so many rules that their only options are compliance or defiance, and not true agency. Of course we are bound to give them some rules (I vote for as few as possible) in order to help them develop some good habits. But I think that guidelines (such as "respect yourself and others") are more useful than strings of specific rules ("don't hit your brother, don't sass your mother, do your homework on time, don't put the cat in the dishwasher, turn the lights off when you leave a room, clean up your own messes and don't leave them for someone else," etc etc etc...) More general guidelines leave room for personal interpretation and understanding, and demand individual thought and commitment to the behavior choice. Of course these things adjust with age, but even a three year old can understand the idea of  "respect" a lot better than most parents would probably give him credit for.

you may choose one

The law of the land: considering same-sex marriage

Today my facebook wall is covered with these:

Today the Supreme Court will decide whether same sex marriage is legal in this country.

In recent years, the equals symbol has been used by the marriage equality movement and those who support it. I am told that representing it in red is indicative of this movement being about love.

I have been raised my entire life with the teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong. That is a moral stance adopted by more than a few religions, and I believe that these religions are entitled to it.

I also believe there is a reason for the separation of church and state. Our founding fathers were spiritual men and I think they were inspired men, but most were not actually religious. They objected to state religion because they saw how it had been abused in Europe. They felt strongly that government and religion need to operate independently. I agree with them.

There are times when government and religion agree on issues (such as murder), and there are times when they disagree. When they disagree, each should function in their own sphere. Government establishes what is legal in the temporal world, while religion declares what is acceptable in the spiritual one. In this imperfect world, it is inevitable that they will not always be in perfect alignment. Marriage equality is one such issue. I believe that government has a duty to interfere with things like underage marriages (because by legal definition the underage party is not able to give consent). I believe that government has a duty to interfere in cases of abuse of spouse or child. I do not believe that government has a duty--or even a right--to legislate or vote on the non-abusive relationships of consenting adults.

Ironically, just over a century ago my religion fought hard for the right to polygamous marriages. Sixty years ago many states had laws against interracial marriages. I do not think it was right for the government to interfere at those times. I do not think it is right for them to interfere now. The constitution says that people should have equal rights under the law. The only logical constitutional conclusion that I see for the Supreme Court today is to legalize marriage for any pair of consenting adults. No religious group will be obligated to perform religious rites for these couples unless they want to (and I'm sure that many will not). No religious group even has to allow these couples to be part of their sects (and again, I'm sure that many will not). But I also think that no group (religious or otherwise) has a right to overrule the constitutional rights of anyone else. (Writing as someone from within a faith group that has had our rights stomped on, I feel very very strongly about this.)

As my friend eloquently put it:

As homosexuals couldn't possibly do anything to desecrate the institution of marriage that hetereosexuals haven't been doing for millenia, I cannot support the notion that marriage equality is going to destroy it.

As "traditional marriage" has very often historically meant as a transfer of property from one man (the bride's father) to another (the groom), sometimes based on affection but often based on convenience, politics, economics, or the need for another generation, I cannot support the notion that our modern ideal of marriage union largely based on love should exclude consenting adults.

I think the rift between the exclusive and the inclusive will cause more damage to society than marriage equality.

I can't support that it's bad for children when lesbian homes have a 0% rate of reported abuse, where 1 in 4 children in heterosexual homes report abuse. http://bit.ly/aOkzC3 I cannot look at my friends' long-sought daughter and think she will be disadvantaged for having two amazing mothers.

I hope that when Justices go to make a decision, the Constitution alone becomes their Bible.

I am a straight ally.

I have heard people speak with great emotion on this issue. I have heard appeals about love, about physical ambiguity, about moral imperatives... Ultimately, the thing that speaks the most loudly to me is logic. And while I do feel some conflict over how to reconcile these opinions personally in my religious context, I do not feel any conflict over what I think the law of the land should be.

I know these statements will probably be troubling for some of those nearest me (particularly my family). I hope they can be understanding of my attempts to reconcile my thoughts on this matter. Honestly, I hadn't planned to say anything about this today. As I said, my facebook wall is covered with little red equals, but I had no intention of joining them because I simply did not want to engage in the conflict. I was going to stand quietly on the side. But Thomas Jefferson put it well when he noted that "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

This is my conscience. I will speak it.

Conversion

This was the talk I gave in church a few weeks ago.

            Many Christians use the word “convicted” to describe their faith. When someone is convicted of something that means that some outside source has judged or proven them to be guilty of something. In this case, to be a convicted Christian would mean that others are able to judge the person as Christian based on an outside perspective. Obviously a person’s faith should show in their actions, however it is important to separate conviction from conversion, because they are not the same. While conviction refers to what is apparent from the outside, conversion refers to what occurs on the inside, and is truly known only to oneself and to God.

            The word conversion means change. In the spiritual sense, a conversion is a change in ones self, either in belief, or behavior, or both. Although we often focus on the externally visible conversion signs of accepting the gospel and being baptized, the bible dictionary makes sure to mention that “complete conversion comes after many trials and much testing.” Real conversion is an internal change and a lifelong process. It does not matter if a person was raised with the gospel, or encountered it a week before dying, we all must experience conversion at some point. Alma describes conversion as “a mighty change of heart” and spends an entire chapter talking about it. He makes it clear that he is speaking to church members as well as gentiles, and that conversion is intensely personal, and undeniably ongoing.

There are three questions I want to discuss today:

1 How do we become converted in the first place? What happens—or what can we do—to begin the process?

2 How do we know that we are converted, or at least that we have experienced the initial change of heart?

3 How can we remain in the converted or changed state? And avoid returning to the unconverted condition?

1 How do we become converted?

            In Mosiah 18, Alma the elder had taught the gospel to a group of people, and was preparing them for baptism. As they gathered by the water, he spoke to them about the things they had learned, and about the covenants they would be taking in baptism.

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

 9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death…that ye may have eternal life—

 10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

Alma makes it clear that conversion involves not just a willingness to keep the commandments and care for each other, but also a genuine desire to do so. Conversion is a change of heart.

            Sometimes we may think that a conversion will happen through a single stunning event, with trumpets and angelic visions. As Elder Uchdorf said in the April 2011 conference,

            There are some who feel that unless they have an experience similar to Saul’s or Joseph Smith’s, they cannot believe… They wait at the threshold of testimony but cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth. Instead of taking small steps of faith on the path of discipleship, they want some dramatic event to compel them to believe.

            There are many others who, for different reasons, find themselves waiting [around]. They delay becoming fully engaged as disciples… They [hope] for the Christ to be given to them like a magnificent painting—to remove once and for all their doubts and fears.

            The truth is, those who diligently seek to learn of Christ eventually will come to know Him. They will personally receive a divine portrait of the Master, although it most often comes in the form of a puzzle—one piece at a time. Each individual piece may not be easily recognizable by itself; it may not be clear how it relates to the whole. Each piece helps us to see the big picture a little more clearly. Eventually, after enough pieces have been put together, we recognize the grand beauty of it all. Then, looking back on our experience, we see that the Savior had indeed come to be with us—not all at once but quietly, gently, almost unnoticed.

Elder Uchdorf concludes that if we will be proactive in seeking testimony and conversion, then we can find it, but that we cannot just wait around for it to come to us. He goes on to suggest several things that we can do to actively seek this conversion, this change of heart.

            The first is to “hearken and heed,” meaning to listen for promptings of the spirit. He says we should do what is necessary to “turn down the volume control of the worldly noise in our lives” so that we can hear the spirit, and then do what we feel prompted to do.

            Secondly, Elder Uchdorf points out that “we sometimes do not recognize the voice of the Lord in our lives is because the revelations of the Spirit may not come directly to us as the answer to our prayers. Our Father in Heaven expects us to study it out first and then pray for guidance as we seek answers to questions and concerns in our personal lives. We have our Heavenly Father’s assurance that He will hear and answer our prayers. The answer may come through the voice and wisdom of trusted friends and family, the scriptures, and the words of prophets...

            Often, the answer to our prayer does not come while we’re on our knees but while we’re on our feet serving the Lord and serving those around us. Selfless acts of service and consecration refine our spirits, remove the scales from our spiritual eyes, and open the windows of heaven. By becoming the answer to someone’s prayer, we often find the answer to our own.”

            The third thing Elder Uchdorf recommends for becoming converted is to share what we know. We don’t have to know everything, we can share what we do know and grow through that.

            There are times when the Lord reveals to us things that are intended only for us. Nevertheless, in many, many cases He entrusts a testimony of the truth to those who will share it with others…. The most effective way to preach the gospel is through example. If we live according to our beliefs, people will notice. If the countenance of Jesus Christ shines in our lives, if we are joyful and at peace with the world, people will want to know why. One of the greatest sermons ever pronounced on missionary work is this simple thought attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi: “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words.” Opportunities to do so are all around us.

2 How do we know that we are converted, or at least that we have experienced the initial change of heart?

In Alma 5, Alma asks a series of questions which can help us to ascertain whether we have been converted.

 14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

 15 Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?

            He continues with more questions we can ask ourselves to see if we are exercising the faith of an ongoing conversion. He asks “if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, can ye feel so now?” He also asks if we are stripped of pride, and stripped of envy. He asks us to consider whether we mock or persecute those around us, or feel that we are superior to anyone else. He asks if we ever turn our backs upon the poor and needy, or withhold our substance from them.

            Alma adds that we will have a “perfect remembrance” (verse 18) of all that we have done in our lives, and urges us to be totally honest with ourselves when we ask these questions.

 19 I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?

Married couples often tend to look like each other because of what is known as mirroring each other. Mirroring is when we imitate each other’s facial expressions and other body movements. Children learn emotional and other responses from their parents through this method, and any two people in a close relationship tend to mirror each other. A couple will often develop matching wrinkle lines because of it, because of mirroring each other so often. When you mirror someone regularly, you can in fact begin to look similar.  How do we mirror God in order to look like him?

            In Galations and Ephesians, Paul teaches us some of the divine wrinkle lines that we can look for in ourselves. He refers to them as fruits of the spirit, meaning things that are products of living a spiritual life. Here is the list: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, goodness, righteousness and truth. (Galations 5:22-23, Ephesians 5:9)

            Or, as Alma put it,

 40 …whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil.

 41 Therefore, if a man bringeth forth good works he hearkeneth unto the voice of the good shepherd, and he doth follow him; but whosoever bringeth forth evil works, the same becometh a child of the devil, for he hearkeneth unto his voice, and doth follow him.

Finally, how can we remain in the converted or changed state? And avoid returning to the unconverted condition?

            In the October 2011 general conference, Dale G Renlund of the quorum of 70 made the following analogy.

            In December 1967 the first successful heart transplant was performed in Cape Town, South Africa. The dying man’s diseased heart was removed, and a healthy heart from a deceased donor was sewn in its place. Since then, over 75,000 heart transplants have been performed worldwide.

            In each heart transplant recipient, the patient’s own body recognizes the new, lifesaving heart as “foreign” and begins to attack it. Left unchecked, the body’s natural response will reject the new heart, and the recipient will die. Medicines can suppress this natural response, but the medications must be taken daily and with exactness. Furthermore, the condition of the new heart must be monitored. Occasional heart biopsies are performed wherein small pieces of heart tissue are removed and then examined under a microscope. When signs of rejection are found, medications are adjusted. If the rejection process is detected early enough, death can be averted.

Surprisingly, some patients become casual with their transplanted hearts. They skip their medicines here and there and obtain the needed follow-up less frequently than they should. They think that because they feel good, all is well. Too often this shortsighted attitude puts the patients at risk and shortens their lives.

            So what can we do to maintain our changed heart? How can we ensure that we do not reject this new heart? In Ephesians 5, Paul gives some suggestions for how to live continually as what he calls “children of light.”

1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

 2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us…

 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

 4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting… but rather giving of thanks.

 5 For this ye know, that no unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

 8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

 9 ([Showing] the fruit of the Spirit in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

 10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

 14 …Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

             So it seems that all the things which help us achieve that initial change of heart are exactly the same things that will help us to maintain it. Seeking and listening, serving others and sharing the truths we learn, and above all mirroring Christ in our daily lives, so that in imitating Him, we will become like Him.