Pendulums, Paradoxes, and Pachyderms

It's that time again.  This weekend is the semi-annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some of my friends are excited for this weekend because it brings them a lot of joy and peace and helps them to re-focus on the things that really matter to them.  Other friends are avoiding it completely or dreading the talks that hurt and open old wounds.  And then my friends that aren't Mormon either don't know it's going on at all or wonder why it is such a big deal.

I'll be honest.  I wasn't sure that I wanted to watch conference this year. With everything that has happened, it just seemed easier to avoid it completely.  But, I believe that there is always a possibility that something could be said that is exactly what I need to hear.  With that in mind, I started thinking about how I can get something from this conference and not let myself be overwhelmed by the drama and the pain.

Years ago, I wrote an essay about pendulums, paradoxes, and pachyderms.  It was focused mostly on teaching singing, but I realized that those ideas can be expanded to include spirituality in general, and General Conference specifically. So now, you get the revise version of the essay.

Pendulums

In my early years of voice training, I would go to one lesson, learn a concept, apply it all week, and then go back, only to have the teacher give me almost the exact opposite advice the next week.  For a black and white thinker who was also a people pleaser, this was extremely confusing and frustrating for me.  I would think I had something figured out and that I was doing what had been asked of me, and then it seemed like everything I was doing was wrong.  Unfortunately, no one had ever explained the pendulum principle of teaching to me.  I figured it out on my own and now share it with all my students so that they know what is going on.  

Here's the basic idea:  Sometimes in an attempt to correct, we steer in the opposite direction.  If the pendulum has swung too far to the right, we send it left to correct.  In fact, we don't even send it.  The extreme position itself creates the move in the opposite direction.  Often the pendulum swings back and forth several times before finally settling to rest in the center.  

If a voice student comes in with a muffled, woofy, dark sound, a teacher might use imagery and instructions that help the student bring the sound more forward (singing into the mask, aiming the sound at the upper teeth, etc.)  A student may need to think about being bright or forward in order to actually bring the tone to a balanced place.  

We get into trouble when we confuse the thought process or imagery with the actual goal.  If the student mentioned above corrects their tone production, but thinks that thinking of bright and forward is the solution to every person's tone problem, that student will not be a good teacher.  If they encounter someone who is already quite bright and forward, and even pinched in the way they are producing their sound, it will be disastrous to ask them to do more of that.  One of my colleagues refers to that as "peeling the paint off the walls."  The student with the bright and tight voice needs a different solution to help him or her find the most beautiful tone possible.  

I personally think that much of religion is swinging the pendulum.  Policies, rules, commandments, etc. are about reversing the direction when we're headed the wrong way, but that doesn't mean that the rule itself is the goal.  For example, the Mormon church and many evangelical Christian churches have in recent years experienced a renewed focus on modesty.  In reaction to the sexualization of the female body, churches are more and more encouraging people (especially females) to cover up.  In the 50's and 60's, shoulders were not a modesty issue (see pictures of Anne Romney before she and Mitt were married, or google BYU Homecoming queens from that era), but today, Mormons are encouraged to cover up more, and some are even putting short sleeved shirts under infants' sleeveless sundresses.  

So what do pendulums mean for my General Conference experience this year?  Pendulums remind me to look for the principle, not just the action or rule.  

John Taylor, the third President of the Church, reported: “Some years ago, in Nauvoo, a gentleman in my hearing, a member of the Legislature, asked Joseph Smith how it was that he was enabled to govern so many people, and to preserve such perfect order; remarking at the same time that it was impossible for them to do it anywhere else. Mr. Smith remarked that it was very easy to do that. ‘How?’ responded the gentleman; ‘to us it is very difficult.’ Mr. Smith replied, ‘I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.’”

from Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

Pendulums remind me to ask, "Why?"  Pendulums remind me that I need to see the goal, not just all the minute adjustments in course that take me there.

Paradoxes

Paradoxes are seemingly contradictory things that are both true.  One of the best examples of this in singing is chiaroscuro.  We don't want just bright.  We don't want just dark.  We don't want the place between the two (like we might get with swinging the pendulum.)  We want them both.  Bright and dark at the same time.  This description from wikipedia is actually pretty good.  

Chiaroscuro (Italian for "light-dark") is part of bel canto an originally Italian classical singing technique in which a brilliant sound referred to as squillo is coupled with a dark timbre called scuro, which is often perceived as having great depth or warmth. Chiaroscuro is commonly used in opera. Within operatic singing, especially in Italian, the vowel "Ah" is a perfect example of where chiaroscuro can be used. When singing "Ah" it must have a bright Italian "Ah", while at the same time having depth and space in the tone, achieved through the use of breath and the body.

It's easy to read scripture or listen to General Conference and find lots of contradictions.  It's also easy to then dismiss the information because of the contradiction, but what if both ideas are true?

We don't have to go back any further than the conference of April 2013 for a good example of where this might be the case.  President Boyd K. Packer warned us of the tolerance trap in his address, "These Things I Know."  At the conclusion of the April 2013 conference, President Thomas S. Monson said,

I admonish you to be good citizens of the nations in which you live and good neighbors in your communities, reaching out to those of other faiths as well as to our own. May we be tolerant of, as well as kind and loving to, those who do not share our beliefs and our standards. The Savior brought to this earth a message of love and goodwill to all men and women. May we ever follow His example.

So which is it?  Should we be tolerant or is tolerance a trap?  Maybe the answer is both.

As I watch and listen to conference, I need to remind myself to be open to the possibilities of paradoxes.  I need to let myself wrestle with the contradictions until the truth can find it's way to the surface.  I need to remember that it doesn't have to be one way or the other.  It can be both.

Pachyderms

There is an old tale of an elephant and some blind men.  Each of the men examines a part of the elephant, and thinking that it is representative of the whole, declares their truth about what an elephant is.  The man who has examined the trunk of the elephant declares that an elephant is a snake-like creature.  The man who felt the strong, thick leg of the elephant says that an elephant is like a tree.  And the story goes on, each man describing their own truth, but unable to "see" the truth of what an elephant really is until they share their individual perceptions to create a complete picture.  

I think that truth is an infinitely large table on which we place our individual tiny circles of experience and perceived truth.  It becomes an infinitely large and multi-dimensional Venn diagram.  Those places of intersection, the places where multiple circles overlap,  are where culture, society, and religion grow.  We have a shared truth.  But we get into trouble if the only truth we allow or accept is that which falls in the overlapping areas of the majority of the group.  

Brigham Young declared, 

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods (DBY, 3).

Truth is both bigger and more beautiful than we can even begin to imagine.  It cannot be contained in a single sermon or even the entirety of this conference weekend.  In this video, Elder Holland talks about the prayerful preparation that goes into these talks.


I have no trouble believing that someone in the world needs to hear the words as they are delivered.  I also believe that some of the messages won't apply to all of us.   We're often encouraged to "Follow the Prophet," but it's also important to remember that we are entitled to receive personal revelation about how those things should be applied in our lives.  Elder Oaks addressed that idea this way,

If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.
I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.
He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”
The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this same thing in another way. When he was asked how he governed such a diverse group of Saints, he said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” ⁴ In what I have just said, I am simply teaching correct principles and inviting each one of you to act upon these principles by governing yourself.

The messages we hear at General Conference will be general rules and guidelines designed to address the needs of the majority of the people listening.  Not every message will inspire or even apply to every person.  It is quite possible that the same message that causes pain for one person might be exactly the thing another person needs to bring peace and joy to his or her life.  In cases like that, I would hope that the person who felt joy would be able to honor the pain of the other, without trying to convince them that it is wrong to feel that way.  And I would hope that it works the other way too.  Can I find a way to rejoice with my brothers and sisters over the things they love, without telling them how wrong they are, even if it is wrong for me?  

This year, for conference I'm listening differently.  I'm listening for the messages that are there for me, and letting go of those that may be helpful for others, but are not helping me right now.  I'm listening for things that might cause pain to people I love and getting ready to be there to support them in that pain.  I'm listening for things that bring strength to people I love so I can support them in that too.  But mostly I'm listening because I can't honestly say I'm searching for truth if I cut off this avenue that for me still holds the possibility of more truth.