In a recent opinion piece in the Sunday SLTrib, a mother described her problems in a store when some children started to mock her disabled child. When she attempted to correct the offending children, their mother stepped in and aggresively defended them.
In a recent article in the Ensign (Aug 2010), Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventy, writes about similar experiences with his brain-damaged brother. “I’m sorry to say that some children–even children from active LDS families–were unkind to my brother. They shut him out of games, called him ugly names, and teased him unmercifully.”
Elder Jensen makes a strong plea for tolerance. He notes that “being compassionate and sensative to those in special circumstances–those who are different–is an important aspect of our efforts to be Christ’s disciples.” His article includes a laundry list of “special circumstances,” including those with same-gender attraction. He rightly states that, “We are all different.”
Where I disagree somewhat with Elder Jensen is when he talks about the ”ideal” and “lives that vary from ideal”. I think diversity in the world is important, so it becomes very difficult to define the “ideal.” Who is to say what is “ideal”? Is a childless couple less than “ideal”? Maybe not for them. Is a gay man less than “ideal”? Of course we need standards, but those standards need to be inclusive.
When we see someone who is disabled, or someone who has a drinking problem, or someone who is homeless and living on the street, we need to remember the old adage: “There but by the grace of God go I.”
I applaud Elder Jensen for his article. It is one of the most thought-provoking and timely pieces that I have read in the Ensign.
Isn’t how we define “ideal” part of the origins of discrimination? White is ideal, so everyone else is inferiror. Having children is ideal, so not having children is less than ideal. Being Mormon is ideal, so not being Mormon is less than ideal. Having two legs is ideal, so not having two legs is less than ideal.