Charity, Oprah, Donald Trump and Anything Else I Can Think of for the Search Engines

I have a confession to make.

I read an unauthorized Kitty Kelly book on Oprah Winfrey.

I couldn't help myself. It was staring at me on the library bookshelf and my daughter recommended it and I just had to find out all the backstage stuff that Oprah didn't want me to know.

I won't review the book here. But I would like to comment on something I find interesting and perplexing.

Charity among the elite.

Celebrities are all about charity. Okay, they're not all about it, but they would like you to think that they are, and Oprah is probably Queen of "I am the most charitible person on the earth" club - she fights this out with Donald Trump.  They have constant battles in their club house about who is more generous and who gets to wear the crown. She wants us to know about all the charities she supports and all the charities she creates. She has devoted many of her shows to her "angel network" and done specials on her South African school for girls, and had those tremendous giveaway shows where every audience member walks away with a car, a trip, pajamas and a date with Stedman.

Donald Trump is the same. He likes to toot his horn about all the charities he supports and what a great guy he is and even has "Celebrity Apprentice" where all the celebrities appear not for themselves but for a charity.

I am not against giving to charity by any means. But doesn't it say in the bible something about giving and not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing? In other words we're not supposed to tell everyone when we do charitable work or how much money we give away. It's supposed to be a secret between you, God and the IRS.

I think an exception can be made if a celebrity represents a charity and by their representation is able to raise more money and awareness for a charity. I'm not against this and a lot of good can happen with this. Marie Osmond and John Schneider come to mind with "The Children's Miracle Network". They've raised over a billion dollars - a sum that they couldn't have done without advertising it.

But I couldn't help but wonder while I watched the "Celebrity Apprentice" why these stars even bothered to appear on the show. It's not a simple game show where they show up for twenty minutes, plug their latest project, answer some questions and get a check for their charity. (Note, I am not against celebrites plugging their latest project - it's part of the job description) Celebrity Apprentice is hard work that takes a while to do, (it's deja vu for some of them when they find they are back to selling pizza's like they did as starving artists)  time taken away from regular work, and the money they raise, I suspect, is well within reach of these celebrities being able to reach into their pocket and write a check for. Why not just do that, make a public service announcement to get the word out there, do a couple of talk shows to promote the charity and move on. Why go through the whole apprentice thing where they are criticized, overworked and ultimately fired? I suspect it's not just the charitiy they're promoting here.

Back to Oprah and those cars. She did not give the cars to the audience. The car dealership did but she claimed she did. Whatsmore, there was a seven thousand dollar tax that recipients had to pay. She refused to help them out with that. These people were people who couldn't afford cars in the first place. If they had seven thousand bucks to pay for taxes they could have bought a decent used car for less than that. So people had a choice. Pay the taxes, sell the car and pay the taxes, or forfeit the car. Certainly the most logical would be to sell the car, pay the taxes and then buy something cheaper, but the point is that Oprah giving them cars - an act that got her a lot of attention and helped to crown her as Queen of Everything - is like saying that Bob Barker gave away cars, vacations and boats while he hosted the Price is Right. None of those things came out of his pocket and he didn't pretend they did. In fact on those giveaway days where Oprah appears so generous, it is not her generosity. She calls up the companies and they donate the goods. If they don't donate then its not her "favorite thing" which means that her "favorite things" aren't necessarily her favorite things, just the ones where she could convince someone to give her 300 of.

So I have no problem with her giving things away, but why not be honest about the giveaway and admit that not one cent comes out of her pocket. Other hosts of other shows do giveaways but they don't add the mantra "isn't Oprah the most generous person on the earth". This must be said twenty times while you wear your satin pajamas and your diamond encrusted "O" necklace, and before you crawl into your Oprah bed with the t-shirt sheets with your latest Oprah approved book club  book.

According to this book (I don't know how accurate Kitty Kelly is) in spite of all the big money that Oprah donates it still comes to less than 10 percent of her income. So really is she that generous? Isn't 10 percent a base that a person begins with for charitable donations? If I'm bringing home a hundred million dollars a year, couldn't I still have a really luxurious life and still be contribuiting generously to the economy by giving half of that away? I could still have the multi-million dollar mansion, the maid, the gardener, the 200 pairs of designer shoes and purses and maybe get by on one private jet and one yacht and still give away 50 percent of my income? And if I'm making all that money and have all that attention is it really necessary to tell everybody about what a great person I am?

The African school is another conundrum. On one hand she appears to have done good to provide an exclusive school for poverty stricken girls, but the money she spent on one school was far more lavish than any girl needs. Girls don't have to have cloth napkins, crystal, china and chandeliers to get an education. I get that she didn't want an ugly school and she wanted them to have nice things, but what she offered the girls was so far beyond anything that most of these girls would ever be able to provide for themselves one day even with success. Showing them "this is what you can have" is one thing. Showing them "this is what you can't have on your own" is another. She could have built a beautiful, functional school with far less money and used the remainder to build other beautiful, functional schools for more poverty stricken girls. Instead she most likely will create girls who will feel unsatisfied no matter how much success they achieve.

I've often been mystified by the need to put on extravagant parties to raise money. Couldn't they charge the same amount, have a less extravagant party and use the money saved for the charity? Now an argument can be made that extravagant parties put money back into the economy by the purchase of goods and services needed for the party - and I'm all about spending money to go back into the economy, but is that really what people are thinking? Aren't they all just looking for an excuse to party lavishly and they can feel good about it because they had to spend a thousand dollars on a seat.

If you notice that I put Oprah's and Trump's names in the title. That is unabashed promotion on my part to get noticed in the search engines.

But at least I'm not asking for money. However if anyone wants to donate to the Anna Maria Junus fund then I'm all for it.

Lessons in a Calgary Park on Canada Day

I was in a park in Calgary on a beautiful sunny Canada Day when a man passed by with a couple of dogs. I watched one of the dogs as it seemed slower than the other one. Not just physically but mentally as well. Noticing that I was watching his dog the man explained,  "He's blind," and then called the dogs name. The dog followed his voice.

The man threw the dog a ball. I watched as this dog crashed into trees and bushes yet still managed to find his ball. When he dropped his ball he would nose around to find it. Part of me felt bad for the dog and another part couldn't help but laugh (yes, I know it's cruel but imagine a dog that walks into trees) and another part admired his spirit. His master would allow him to muddle around a bit, then he would call him and the dog would follow the voice until they reached a big open field where the ball was thrown and discovered. Instead of resenting his master, the dog enjoyed the exercise and the game, a game that kept the dog young and alert.

I should have been thinking about how we are all blind and we need to listen to our Master's voice to know where we should go. I should have thought about how we all crash into trees and bushes, skinning our knees and hurting our pride and how our Master allows us to muddle around. I should have thought about the balls we drop and nose about to find them and pick them up again. I should have thought how with persistence we can overcome obstacles and enjoy the sunny days and the challenges that keep our hearts and minds young and alert. I should have thought of that. But I thought of something else instead.

Can a blind dog get a seeing eye dog?

Contest: Debbie West Coon CD's

Part of the contest requirements is to blog about and enter a link to the win the CD's. So here it is. Anne Bradshaw tells more.

Anne Bradshaw - Debbie Coon CD's

Sunday Musings: Reuben and the Lost Birthright

The scriptures are filled with imperfect people. Even the prophets had family problems. Anytime a parent is feeling like a failure because of the things their children do, all they need do is look at the scriptures and see that even God's chosen has had problems. Few have had the problems that Jacob has faced. Most horrific is the story of his sons Simeon and Levi who went into a city that they had made a covenent with and murdered the men, stole the women and children and spoiled the city. There may have even been rape involved although the scriptures aren't clear. It's a small footnote and it's not dwelt on much nor do we see much of the outcome. It's hard to think that that these two could ever gain celestial kingdom status after such a horrendous and uncalled for massacre.

There is also a small note about Reuben, Jacob's eldest son.

And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it. Genesis 35:22

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled
his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel : I Chronicles 5:1

So it seems pretty straightforward. Reuben slept with one of his father's wives and the consequences were that he lost his birthright. We are shocked that Reuben would do such a thing. You simply don't sleep with your father's wife. It's adultery. Within the church we tend to focus on homosexuality and paint it as the worst sexual sin, but it seems to me there are far worse sexual sins - rape, pedophelia and yes adultery come to my mind. Adultery is a devestating thing for the spouse who has been cheated on.

But is it really that simple?

It is not clear if Bilhah consented. Was she a part of it or was she raped? There is nothing in the scriptures that says that she was, so for the sake of argument, lets say that Bilhah agreed to sleep with Reuben therefore making her as guilty as he.

Before we condemn her though, lets look at her history.
 
1 AND when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.



2 And Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, Am I in God's stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?


3 And she said, Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees that I may also have children by her.


4 And she gave him Bilhah her handmaid to wife: and Jacob went in unto her.


5 And Bilhah conceived, and bare Jacob a son.


6 And Rachel said, God hath judged me, and hath also heard my voice, and hath given me a son: therefore called she his name Dan.


7 And Bilhah Rachel's maid conceived again, and bare Jacob a second son.


8 And Rachel said, With great wrestlings have I wrestled with my sister, and I have prevailed: and she called his name Naphtali. Genesis 30:1-8

Bilhah was a slave. Rachel owned her and Rachel also owned any children she had. Based on what we have from the scriptures it appears that Bilhah had no say in the joining to Jacob. There was no opportunity for Bilhah to find her own husband, and she was denied the rights of motherhood to the children she bore. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that Jacob loved her. Jacob loved Rachel. Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah (a pretty suspicous set-up if you ask me), and Jacob agreed to marry the handmaids because his primary wives wanted it. There seems to be levels of marriage here. Bilhah was married to Jacob who already had other wives, and it seems clear that this was not a decision that she made, but it was forced upon her.

Is it possible that Bilhah and Reuben fell in love with each other? If that is the case, is their sin that horrendous then? If she is tied to Jacob through no fault of her own and not free to marry Reuben is it any wonder that they might commit adultery?

Some will say it doesn't matter. It's still adultery.

But she wasn't married in the true sense of the word. Eve was given to Adam as a helpmeet. Not as a slave. Marriage is about equal power. Bilhah was not equal to Jacob.

Can someone be held to a covenant that they did not willingly make? As LDS people we try and assure non-members who are upset about our baptizing the dead that the dead have the choice to accept the covenant. We know that if we grabbed someone dunked them against their will and even had the priesthood say all the right things, it doesn't count because they didn't choose to take upon them the covenents.

So is Bilhah accountable for covenents that she did not willingly make? Even if she said the words does it count since it appears she had no other options. She was owned by Rachel and given to Jacob by Rachel and had her children claimed by Rachel.

And is Reuben wrong for falling in love with a woman who from all appearences is not loved by her husband in the way a woman should be? Even if Jacob did love Bilhah he wasn't devoted exclusively to her (can you tell how I hate the double standard of polygamy).

Is it not tragic that Bilhah should be denied the love that all women yearn for and not even be allowed to hope for? Yes, it was a different time, but are we not all the same down at the core, no matter what time we live in or what station in life we are assigned.

Perhaps Reuben and Bilhah did not do such a horrible thing. Maybe, possibly, it was a grasp at some kind of happiness.

Thoughts?

From the Annamaniacs Files: Driving Me Crazy

I had a request from my daughter - yes the same one in this story - to post this particular column from my heydays as a humor writer in newspapers.  Apparently she thinks that this story of herself somehow impresses people. I am not going to argue.

*****

                Having seven kids means that you eventually learn to handle stress fairly well.  You learn not to pull out your hair when kids draw on the walls. You don’t freak out at the first sign of blood. And watching two-year-olds walk along the backs of couches or four-year-olds climbing trees, doesn’t strike fear into your heart.

            So I’m cool, I’m calm, I’m collected, and I’m in control.

            Or at least I was until my sixteen-year-old got her learners permit.

            To be fair, we’ve been after these teenage girls to get drivers licenses.  Here in Alberta they can get their learners at fourteen. They can get their license at sixteen. I have a seventeen-year-old that still hasn’t made the first step. The sixteen-year-old finally has. I want my daughters independent. I want them to be able to drive themselves places instead of having to ask mom and dad or rely on unreliable friends. Most of all, I don’t want to have to get up at 6:30 in the morning to drive them to their scripture study class.

            So I was happy she finally got her learners. And yes, I would teach her how to drive. I could handle this.

            I can’t handle this.

            “First rule,” I say to my daughter, “do not hold on to the steering wheel like a two year old does. It causes the van to sway all over the road.”

            “I’m not going to do that Mom,” I know how to stay straight.”

            “That would be fine if this was a straight road. But it curves.”

            “So how am I doing?”

            “Don’t look at me when you say that.”

            “Mom, why are you pretending that you have a brake?”

            “Why are you looking at my feet?”

            “Mom, I’ve driven this road plenty of times.”

            “You mean once.”

            “No, three.”

            “Three times is not exactly plenty.”

            “Now wasn’t that a good turn?”

            “Yes dear, it was the best turn in the entire history of the world, except for that car that you hit.

            “Mom, there was no car there.”

            “Well if there had been you would have hit it.”

            “Well if there had been a car there, I wouldn’t have turned so wide.”

            “That’s right, you would drive so much better with more traffic on the road.”

             My husband came home from a driving lesson and declared “I’m never letting her drive again! You teach her.”

            “What happened?” I asked smiling.

            “She shone the high beams right into an oncoming car.”

            “I couldn’t see.” My daughter said.

            “Neither could the other driver.” My husband said.  “He nearly drove into the lake.”

            So it was up to me. Not only that, but it meant that whenever I picked my daughter up from work I had to take the clunky old van instead of the nice new car, so that she could drive home. There was no way she was going to be allowed behind the wheel of the car.

            “Would you relax.” She said one day on the way home from her work.

            “I am relaxed. I’m having a nice relaxing drive sitting in the passenger’s seat. The next time we do this, could you remind me to bring your brother’s bike helmet and the cell phone?”

            “Well, at least you haven’t freaked out yet.”

            “Not even when you shone your high beams into an oncoming car and almost drove into the ditch trying to shut them off.”

            “Yeah, you were pretty cool about that.”

            “I was speechless.”

            “You know, if you want me to learn how to drive, you’re going to have to let me.”

            “That would be logical. My brain understands that. It’s my body that hasn’t grasped the concept.”

            So I am warning everyone out there as I uncurl my body from its fetal position. My daughter is driving. Please be patient. Mistakes will be made. And keep your fingers to yourselves.

 

*****

Now that I posted it, could my daughter post in the comments section and tell what happened in drivers ed class and at school after this column appeared in the newspaper.

Frankie, Squeeze My Rubber Duckie!

I'm pretty easy going when it comes to movies, TV and music. When something questionable comes on I don't put my hands over my ears, shut my eyes and sing "la, la, la, la" until I think it's safe  to stop. I have no problem with people who do this unless they tell me that I should do it too. I just choose not to do it because I have a wicked side and I admit it.  I know people who only watch G rated movies and still think they're risque. I am also not one to go purposely looking for problems. When a Christian coalition accused Bert and Ernie of being gay, I rolled my eyes. I roll my eyes a lot which may be why the words on medicine bottles have gotten smaller.

My grandchildren are visiting. The fact that I have grandchildren is causing me panic attacks. When did I get old enough to have grandchildren? My birth certificate says I'm old enough, but I swear this whole thing has snuck up on me. Shouldn't there be warning signs? Like alarm systems that go off screaming "Danger" when you reach certain birthdays? Celebrities my age are having children for the first time. When my first grandchild was born I still had young kids. Is it any wonder that I am in denial about my age and my growing sense of foreboding that I am running out of time and I still haven't made a million, gone to Europe, fit back into normal clothes, or been kissed since...since...see, I've forgotten. Memory loss is a sign of old age.

Anyway, with my grandkids here  the cable channel Treehouse is on all the time. I don't normally watch Treehouse. It wasn't a station that was on when my kids were little. Sure there were kid shows but not on all day and all night for those two year olds who stay up late partying with beer and drugs. It was while I was watching Treehouse that I became perturbed and realized that I am just not mature enough to handle the material that is being presented. During a one hour period I heard these following statements from various kid shows geared to the pre-school crowd.

"Frankie, squeeze my rubber duckie."
"Spread your legs. Now spread your cheeks."
"Dam the puddle."

I was shocked. I wanted to put my hands over my ears, shut my eyes and sing "la, la, la, la". But it was too late. The damage had been done. My psyche had been irreversibly compromised. I had not been prepared for such phrases. In the past I knew I was going into enemy territory when I watched  Sex and the City and so I was prepared for the dangers I would meet there. But this was different.  I thought I was safe and so I had not been careful.  My 12 and 13 year old were affected by it too. "Frankie, squeeze my rubber duckie" has become a catch phrase around here.

A warning out there. Treehouse is like walking through a landmine.

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

We spent a bit of time today talking in Sunday School about a passage in JSM 8 “ And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.” We looked at the word “offended” and talked about what that meant.

I took issue with some of it. Did I say anything? No. Because Gospel Doctrine class is not a safe place to say anything that doesn't go along with the consensus of the group.

Basically it was stated that when someone is offended then they are the ones at fault.

In some cases I think this is true. We have all been in situations of innocently offending someone. Or been in situations where we disagree with someone and our disagreement causes offense even though we have no intention to offend. We know or may have heard of members who have left the church over something someone has said. And yet I think there is a bit of shirking of responsibility going on with this belief. One person stated something to the effect (I don't dare try to exactly quote someone), “no one can make us feel anything. We choose what we feel. If we're offended we choose to be so.”

Really? If someone comes up to you and calls you stupid or ugly and you're instantly hurt, are you choosing that emotion? Isn't that a natural reaction?

And aren't we creating a “blame the victim” attitude.

Because believe it or not, there are people within the church who are cruel and mean. People who will tell you that you're stupid (yes, it's happened to me), accuse you of being a bad parent (yep, happened to me again), question your faith (yes to me again) go behind your back to the bishop making false accusations while they keep in the shadows not allowing me to know who they are (the me is a give-away) tell you that you're worthless (yep, again), call you a liar (yes it has happened) and blame you for what ever had gone wrong (all this and more has happened to me.)

None of this was accidental. It was not me misinterpreting things. It happened.

A lot of this was done by a leader.

But we're not supposed to speak out against the leaders. We can say they're not perfect, but we still have to accept whatever garbage, punishments, and misjudgegments (withholding of temple blessings, church callings, etc. etc.) that comes from them. We are warned not to say anything or else we are in danger of being an apostate – yep, I've been accused of that one too. Note - I am not saying that we shouldn't be held accountable for our actions and in some cases its necessary to take away church priviledges, but there should be proof or confession, not because a leader doesn't like you or believe you or because its a case of he said/she said and they always believe the priesthood holder because he has the priesthood.

So if we can't speak against the leaders the answer is to suffer alone in silence.

I wonder how many suffer alone in silence and would feel much better if they knew they were not alone. I wonder how many bad things happen that are kept quiet and continue to happen because we are not supposed to speak out against our leaders.

All the leaders are men. If there's a problem between a sister and a leader, then its the leader (the man) who is to be upheld and believed. The sister must at all costs be kept quiet and disbelieved. It is her reputation and standing in the church that is threatened, never his, because he is a leader and therefore innocent of any wrong doing. There might be some who take offense to this - yes I used the word offense - but it stands to reason that if the leaders cannot be questioned and must be followed and all leaders are men, then the sister cannot be supported.

I think this whole thing of saying “if you're offended then it's your own fault” stance is a nice way to let everyone else off the hook. It allows us to say or do anything to each other and not suffer the consequences. “I can tell that sister that she should take better care of her children and if she's offended then oh well, it's her problem.”

And then we wonder why people leave the church and blame them for leaving. "They don't have enough faith. They are not righteous enough. They shouldn't feel hurt when someone says hurtful things."

Why would you stick around if you do not feel loved? If you are not loved? If people chase you away?

I have chosen to stick around. Yes I have been offended. I admit it. I have an off/on switch when it comes to my emotions. Either all my emotions are on and accessible, or none of them are. When I was a teenager my switch was off. I shut everyone out. I had no friends. I didn't care about my family. I chose not to feel emotion. It was an experience that I don't recommend to anyone. Consequently, with my on switch on, I feel things. So when people are mean to me, I get hurt. I get offended. I feel those things strongly just like I feel joy, humor and love. If someone comes up and tells me I'm a bad mother then it hurts and I get offended. If someone comes up and gives me a compliment, then I feel good. Having my on switch on, enables me to love my children and makes me a better mother. It enables me to feel the spirit. It allows me to forgive and understand others. It also causes me pain. The pain I feel is worth the joy I get to have. It's the price. I do not want to give it up in order to not be "offended". It is not that my emotions rely too much on other people, but it is the result of not being an island. I do not live in this world alone and consequently I am affected by other people and other people are affected by me.

So why have I stuck around when I have experienced so much pain within the church? Because it's where the Lord wants me to be. That I know, and I will follow the Lord, not some leader that would lead me off a cliff. Do I expect others who have left over becoming “offended” to understand this? Nope. Instead I understand them and feel compassion for them. Not because I have great spiritual insight – I don't, frankly I'm not a leader in anything and I'm constantly struggling, and no one is looking to me as an example – but because I came so close to leaving myself and only my stubbornness (he is not going to chase me away) and knowing that the Lord wants me there, as well as the example I feel I need to set for my children, has kept me within the church. There were many times I wished I had the money to move away to get distance between myself and a bad leader who told me that I was not spiritual and could not received revelation for my own life, but alas, I was not able to just pick up and go to another stake, another ward, or else I would have. I do not perceive that as running away from problems, but merely as going to a place where I can be better loved and understood.

People can be offended and leave the church over little things. In that case, they are probably on the edge anyway and just looking for an excuse. But sometimes there are big things and big reasons. It is arrogant of us to point fingers at those who have been “offended” and blame them for sorrows that have been heaped upon them by others. It is unfair to ask that people not feel anything when others are being cruel. “We choose how we feel.” Really? If someone punches you in the face with his fist would you not feel physical pain? If they punch you in the face with their words, would you not feel emotional pain? If you are punched in the face with a fist you can go to someone and complain about it and no one would condemn you for it or tell you that you shouldn't feel sore or you shouldn't be damaged. But we are to suffer word punches silently. I feel tremendous empathy and understanding towards those who have left. For now, I have chosen a different path, but I completely understand why they have chosen the other one.

Abuse happens when we keep silent. Leaders have lead people astray. The scriptures are full of examples both ancient and modern. History has shown us, both in and out of the church, examples of leaders who have done atrocities while victims have kept quiet, out of fear, out of respect for the office of the leader, of knowing they will not be believed. The result is that the leader continues to do his misdeeds. What do you do when a leader denies you blessings, for instance the blessings of the temple, because they have misjudged you? What do you do when a leader says “I have the priesthood and you have to abide by me”, again a statement that makes women powerless.

It was also said something to the effect that if we are offended then perhaps there is truth in what was said. Again, really? If someone says something, makes an accusation, then it's true? So if someone comes up to you and says “you're stupid,” then that makes it true? Frankly, I didn't know I had that kind of power that I could run around pointing fingers making all kinds of statements and magically that means they are instantly true.

I have been offended because people have deliberately hurt me. I have chosen not to be offended when I recognize that there was no malicious intent involved and we all say things that can be taken two ways. In this case I choose to look at it in a more positive light and give them the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes deliberate hurt is unmistakable. There are those who would not believe that others in the church would be hurtful. They have led lives where they haven't experienced it and so they believe it doesn't happen. It's like the atheists who haven't experienced God so they come to the conclusion that there is no God because they haven't experienced it.

I have chosen to stay in the church. Fortunately for me there are kind people in my ward as well, who have been there for me and often have a nice thing to say to me. If there are those who disbelieve me, it is perhaps because they themselves are kind and can't imagine why anyone would say those things to a sister.

There is the parable of the lost sheep. We are to search out the lost sheep and bring them home. Perhaps we wouldn't have so many lost sheep if we didn't chase them away. So lets not chase the sheep away. Let's not be wolves in sheep's clothing. Let's not be the mean sheep that turn our backs on others, keeping to our own little cliques and saying nasty things. Then we wouldn't have to search for so many lost sheep.

There is also the story of the prodigal son. I have always felt empathy for the son who stayed home. I think we judge him unfairly yet I think he has a point when he tells his father “ Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment (admittedly an overstatement but lets look at the spirit of it and recognize that he was hurt when he said it): and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends."

Basically I think he's saying “Hold it. I'm here. I've always been here. Why don't you celebrate me? Don't you love me?” If you look at the scripture, he wasn't even invited to the party. No one came and told him that his brother was home. He was left out in the field, working hard, and he was forgotten. Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.


Are we doing that? Are we forgetting the ones that are here? Are we not inviting them to the party? Do we fail to celebrate them? Are we failing to love them? Or are we instead blaming them after they leave and saying “well, if they're offended then it is their own fault.”

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

When we look at this scripture it's natural to assume that it is the ones who are offended that will do the betrayal and the hating. And certainly there is a case for that. But we can look at this scripture another way. Perhaps there are those who are offended because they have been betrayed and hated.

And maybe that's what she should be focusing on. Not betraying, and not hating, and loving instead, so that people won't be offended and can come to us and solve differences and misunderstandings instead of going away to suffer alone in silence.