One last prefacing disclaimer: what I write might make some people question "What is truth?" (John 18:38). (Yes, I know who asked this).
If you just want to read the personal gossip/anecdotes/witty social critique, SKIP the next three paragraphs. Warning: This entire post could be construed as judgmental, flippant, and offensive. I have admitted long ago that I think I am better than most people. If you want to read about something cute, SKIP to the very bottom of the post. Throughout this entire post, I am not speaking even remotely about any of you who would be reading this. I am not trying to make any accusations. Asking "Is it I?" is a very needed aspect of life that I will almost entirely ignore in this post. Also, to be patently clear, I am not trying to interpret doctrine or advocate unrighteousness. But we will end didactically.
One question that often can be asked in evaluating something is that of qualitative results versus quantitative results. In other words, "looks/feel" versus "numbers."
A fast example demonstrating Qualitative vs. Quantitative comes from the NBA. One would never think that a player that has a career average of 6.4 points, 2.8 rebounds, 1.3 assists per game, and shoots 57% from the free throw line (rather mediocre quantitative results) would be a starter on three championship teams and would have his #12 jersey in the rafters of the AT&T Center in San Antonio. But, Bruce Bowen (famous, so not a code name) was considered an excellent defender--something that sports metrics still have not really figured out how to capture. Bruce Bowen's utility was qualitative. You cannot quantify why he was a good defender; he just was.
Many times in life, we allow quantitative results to dictate our qualitative results. This can be simply described as "check boxing." Allowing a number to drive our results usually comes at the expense of the quality of our results. Think fast food: Low price (quantitative) yields low quality. I will apply this to home teaching in a proceeding paragraph.
SKIP TO HERE for gossip/anecdotes/Slaps In the Face.
In thinking about Qual vs. Quant, I began to realize that in certain aspects of life we are very quick to use quantitative results over qualitative results.
We can count how many times someone has their ears pierced, but we then entirely overlook that there are some "one piercing" people who walk around wearing what can only be described as garbage can lids on their ears (But only one pair!), bright pink "contraptions" on their feet, and painted like they were going to a KISS concert. I guess I could get up at the pulpit in church and ask them if they get ESPN with those satellite dishes on their ears. This might actually have positives, as a good television signal sure would make some of those talks easier to survive without going into organ failure. I am pretty sure that I darn near blew a spleen during some of those Corn Flake Especially talks (Wait, was that a Fred Rogers reference?). Although maybe that was just because the guy in front of me had gone nose to navel. It is not easy to spend 45 minutes silently laughing without losing a few vital organs. Well, the spleen is not vital, but you get the point......As usual, please do not think that I walk around at school or go to church and keep a tally for times I have though "Oh, Sister Macafeeley has those darn tin cans hanging from her lobes and is painted like she thinks her name is Ace" (See far right man with Gibson Les Paul). If you were to ask me which girls in my current ward have their ears pierced and what type of earrings they wear, I would first say "There are girls in my ward...?" and then I would say "I have no idea. I do not go to church to observe such things." I think that the girls in my ward are overall quite decent and respectable young ladies. (Alas, none of them read this). And it is not my place to begin placing them into categories of naughty and nice, pierced once or pierced twice. But, I think this illustrates how we are really good sometimes at publicly judging people over the pulpit in a quantitative manner ("I would never associate with someone who has her ears pierced twice," while holding up two fingers), but we turn a blind eye to things qualitative.*(Disclaimer)
 | ||||
| KISS/"The Midlands 12th Ward." |
Since the last paragraph was offensive, I will talk about something less offensive: Home Teaching. Back long ago, my family had some home teachers that were amazing. Brother Beard and Brother 'Stache would bring Oreos for Christmas. And that was all they did. Now naturally, for some families, home teaching needs to entail more. Rightly so. But for us, that was sufficient. They shot 8.33% from the FT line (Worse than Bruce Bowen, but not worse than BYU's basketball team last year). This was their quantitative result. But their quantitative result was perfect. Again, I am not advocating not doing home teaching, but I think that we need to start letting the qualitative result drive the quantitative result, not the other way around.
I heard first hand a story just this week from a young mother with a son who is about 5 or 6 and a baby that is 1 year old. The mother was painting her basement walls in preparation for carpet that was going to be delivered the next day and had just put the baby down to nap. Then her visiting teacher called and wanted to stop by and share a message--right then. The young mother deferred, saying that she was trying to finish painting her basement while the baby slept. Undeterred, the visiting teaching came anyway because "she had not missed a month in over 55 years." But instead of helping paint or tending the young boy/baby, this visiting teacher came and overstayed her already unwelcome welcome, then taught a message from the Ensign that I'm sure was touching. And meaningless. But she got her number: 100%. The mother then had to stay up late into the night making up for the hours lost while the visiting teacher got her numbers.
This story is not to discredit visiting teaching. But I think we can learn something about qualitative and quantitative aspects of Church service. You might have just hit a half court shot, but if it was in the other team's hoop no one really cares.
Now for another (subtly) offensive paragraph. I remember a time when I was a visitor at church (If you are asking "Is this my ward,?" rest assured that it is not. You would know beyond a shadow of a doubt if I am talking about you). I knew pretty much no one there, and they did not know me. I was the proverbial "unshaven single man" in the back. One of the speakers got up and began to go into a long diatribe about why he hated how the Church expends its tithing money on "stupid and ugly people." And people began to laugh in approbation. Wait, really? Oh, sure, these people probably pay their 10%. But perhaps these nameless people missed the qualitative aspect of paying tithing.
As a visitor, it was sort of a one and done thing and I have never seen these jokers again. However it opened my eyes to the fact that we would never dream of paying only 9% (a quantitative result), but it is easy (and defended with vehement importance in the Waddlyacha 8th Ward I guess) to belittle how our 10% is used. Perhaps this is where we ask "Is it I?"
Now for another (subtly) offensive paragraph. I remember a time when I was a visitor at church (If you are asking "Is this my ward,?" rest assured that it is not. You would know beyond a shadow of a doubt if I am talking about you). I knew pretty much no one there, and they did not know me. I was the proverbial "unshaven single man" in the back. One of the speakers got up and began to go into a long diatribe about why he hated how the Church expends its tithing money on "stupid and ugly people." And people began to laugh in approbation. Wait, really? Oh, sure, these people probably pay their 10%. But perhaps these nameless people missed the qualitative aspect of paying tithing.
As a visitor, it was sort of a one and done thing and I have never seen these jokers again. However it opened my eyes to the fact that we would never dream of paying only 9% (a quantitative result), but it is easy (and defended with vehement importance in the Waddlyacha 8th Ward I guess) to belittle how our 10% is used. Perhaps this is where we ask "Is it I?"
The overall conclusion I want to make is that too often we allow a number to become our doctrine, then checkbox that we have adhered to that number, and pat ourselves on the back. That about sums it up.
*(Disclaimers). Yes, I heard live (and reread and watched while writing this post), the counsel given by President Gordon B Hinkley on women and earrings. It was given in a talk entitled “Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children” in October 2000 General Conference. Some things to keep in mind:
1. Sustaining a leader for something they never actually said can be nice, but baseless. The question we now need to ask is "What did Gordon B Hinkley say?"
2. I have no idea how to even interpret for you personally what he said. You need to do that.
3. It is entirely fine if you walk away from reading the talk and still feel exactly the same as you did before reading it. I am not trying to convince you of a certain view on earrings.
*(Disclaimers). Yes, I heard live (and reread and watched while writing this post), the counsel given by President Gordon B Hinkley on women and earrings. It was given in a talk entitled “Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children” in October 2000 General Conference. Some things to keep in mind:
1. Sustaining a leader for something they never actually said can be nice, but baseless. The question we now need to ask is "What did Gordon B Hinkley say?"
2. I have no idea how to even interpret for you personally what he said. You need to do that.
3. It is entirely fine if you walk away from reading the talk and still feel exactly the same as you did before reading it. I am not trying to convince you of a certain view on earrings.
4. We can read some interesting words in 1 Samuel 16:7. As always, I am not advocating that our appearance does not matter, but this teaches us an important principal. I am aware of course that a woman who wears large earrings can still be an entirely worthy member of the Church. The last thing I want is to turn this into some sort of bash on women and modesty.
5. That oft used "body is a temple" argument is rather specious here. Are we really going to say that a woman who has her ears pierced once has not defiled the temple, but ears pierced twice? Well sister, that has now defiled the temple. You read that talk, and he clearly makes a wise social concession (Okay, I interpreted something). In our society, it is perfectly acceptable (by myself included) for women to have their ears pierced. But again, read and listen to the talk, because both mediums were informative for me.
6. Gordon B. Hinkley sat on the BYU Board of Trustees since before I was born. And yet BYU's Honor Code always previously allowed for 2 sets of earrings.
7. If I had daughters (which, as you know, I do not), I probably would advocate them not to have their ears pierced twice.
8. President Hinkley was clearly speaking in an overall qualitative and not quantitative manner. And that is the subtle point that both he and I are making.
9. I am also aware of what Elder David A Bednar has said on the subject ("Quick to Observe", BYU Speehes). He closed by saying "The issue was not earrings!" I could clearly say a lot more, but I will not.
10. Understand that I could write a tome as thick as the US tax code and still not cover all of the different aspects of this topic. I know that some of you will take (and perhaps have) what President Hinkley said differently than how you perceive I have interpreted his words. Again, "What is Truth?"
SKIP TO HERE for nothing offensive. Here is a cute little book that I have never read: "Pinkalicious."
If I had daughters (which, as you know, I do not), I probably would advocate them not to read this book.
5. That oft used "body is a temple" argument is rather specious here. Are we really going to say that a woman who has her ears pierced once has not defiled the temple, but ears pierced twice? Well sister, that has now defiled the temple. You read that talk, and he clearly makes a wise social concession (Okay, I interpreted something). In our society, it is perfectly acceptable (by myself included) for women to have their ears pierced. But again, read and listen to the talk, because both mediums were informative for me.
6. Gordon B. Hinkley sat on the BYU Board of Trustees since before I was born. And yet BYU's Honor Code always previously allowed for 2 sets of earrings.
7. If I had daughters (which, as you know, I do not), I probably would advocate them not to have their ears pierced twice.
8. President Hinkley was clearly speaking in an overall qualitative and not quantitative manner. And that is the subtle point that both he and I are making.
9. I am also aware of what Elder David A Bednar has said on the subject ("Quick to Observe", BYU Speehes). He closed by saying "The issue was not earrings!" I could clearly say a lot more, but I will not.
10. Understand that I could write a tome as thick as the US tax code and still not cover all of the different aspects of this topic. I know that some of you will take (and perhaps have) what President Hinkley said differently than how you perceive I have interpreted his words. Again, "What is Truth?"
SKIP TO HERE for nothing offensive. Here is a cute little book that I have never read: "Pinkalicious."
If I had daughters (which, as you know, I do not), I probably would advocate them not to read this book.
I really appreciated this post! In my calling I have totally seem the truth of the Oreos... There is a difference between checking a monthly visit off the list and knowing and meeting the needs of those you teach, whatever form those needs might take.
ReplyDelete