“All infant omnipotence is coupled with helplessness. When an infant realises that it is dependent on others, we can therefore expect a primitive and rudimentary emotion of shame to ensue. For shame involves the realisation that one is weak and inadequate in some way in which one expects oneself to be adequate. Its reflex is to hide from the eyes of those who will see one’s deficiency, to cover it. If the infant expects to control the world, as to some extent all infants do, it will have shame, as well as anger, at its own inability to control.

Notice, then, that shame is far from requiring diminished self-regard. In a sense, it requires self-regard as its essential backdrop. It is only because one expects oneself to have worth or even perfection that one will shrink from or cover the evidence of one’s nonworth or imperfection. To the extent that all infants enjoy a sense of omnipotence, all infants experience shame at the recognition of their human imperfection: a universal experience underlying the biblical story of our shame at our nakedness. But a good development will allow the gradual relaxing of omnipotence in favor of trust, as the infant learns not to be ashamed of neediness and to take a positive delight in the playful and creative “subtle interplay” of two imperfect beings.”

-Martha Nussbaum

Admin says: Now freed, see #13.

But this quote to me captures the heart and reach and spirit of God’s plan. As I read it, there IS an element of universal salvation and it’s pretty stunning.

“The scriptures teach that through the covenant family of Abraham and Sarah “shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.” (Abr. 2:11.) Foremost among the blessings that the family of Abraham brought about is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

“Jesus, who was a descendant of Abraham and Sarah, blesses all people through his atonement. Because of him, all will be saved from the bands of death through resurrection; and all but the few who commit the unpardonable sin will receive an eternal inheritance in a degree of glory.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/02/the-abrahamic-covenant-a-blessing-for-all-people?lang=eng (emphasis added)

Wow. This resonates with me as a very possible layer of the lies and the awful taunting. I think, in fact, that it’s taps into more of the more insidious way the adversary uses shame. It never made sense to me that he was just sort of half-lying by saying she could be as the gods. This explanation adds more to think about and just feels more like the lies of shame really feel. (Toxic shame has been one of my biggest struggles. I thought it was interesting that you used the context of an addict’s story in your post. Have you ever been to a 12-step meeting? If you ever want to witness the antithesis of shame, spend some time reading (or better, listening) to addicts in recovery. I’m not an addict in the classic sense, but 12 step work has had more impact on helping me with my toxic shame stuff than anything else. hands down.)

FWIW, another author that has some done focused work on shame is Pastor Remy Deiderich.

In a spirit of just wanting to help others, he offers his books for free.

Healing the Hurts of Your Past: A Guide to Overcoming the Pain of Shame

ePub File: http://bit.ly/19bDbhC
Kindle File: http://bit.ly/1cpjzK8
PDF File: http://bit.ly/17cG7H9

Stuck: How to Mend and Move on From Broken Relationships

ePub File: http://bit.ly/1a6bWCb
Kindle File: http://bit.ly/17hMDeO
PDF File: http://bit.ly/17hMOXz

I think this is an explanation for why telling singles “no blessing will be denied… in the eternities” is not helpful. I need to be enough now or I’m disconnected/shamed.

It never helps for “marrieds” (Muggles without this special magic ability/expectation to be happily single) to include me as long as I’m shamed (not good enough) in the overall culture (NOW – not in the eternities). It will almost always feel like I’m an ox included only to pull the wagon, or a waiting bench warmer, not as a fully integrated member of the traveling party or a valued team player.

Your words “protective detachment”, “the constant looks of defeat”, really resonate with my single status experience in the church.

When a (many/a few/maybe just me) single member experiences this, “touched by [shame], the mind moves toward a more disintegrated state” it is often seen by the outsiders as just overly sensitive or whiney or ungrateful or unfaithful or combative. I feel like I’m disintegrating in the cultural values. I’m at a complete loss as to how to respond better.

“Instead of recognizing that we are vulnerable, …. we give ourselves the illusion of invulnerability, security, and status; …. and rest(s) on expulsion, scapegoating, and marginalization.”

Like you, I’m afraid it’s damaging to all of us, singles are just canaries in a coal mine (along with others who feel “different” in our valued same-ness). I need not to be so vulnerable to disconnection/shame. I’ve no answers, I’ve just been invited to rethink the issue.

Thank you.

I don’t like “healthy shame” either. I think it should be called either “guilt” or “a sense of decency” as the case may be.

Nate, I would add that shame in this context is not the opposite of shamelessness. In fact, overt shamelessness is almost certainly an expression of shame.

Eric Russell: Excellent points, though I would argue that grandiosity is one attempt to cope. I think it falls under what Collins talks about.

jader3rd: You’re one of the lucky few.

Nate: It may be a hard sell, but I think it is just a plausible as the “selfish” interpretation and probably more plausible than the knowingly wise choice. Other than that, I don’t really disagree with anything you wrote. I would argue, however, what you’re referring to has more to do with the healthy shame I described in the second paragraph than the kind I’m discussing. Many therapists and psychologists are starting to make similar distinctions. One therapist I know who mainly handles sex addiction doesn’t even like to distinguish between “healthy shame” and “toxic shame.” He finds it too confusing and simply labels what is toxic as “shame.”

mirrorrorrim: I think salvation and exaltation as understood in Mormon theology is inherently about relationships. This is in a sense what makes God God (i.e. Heavenly Father & Mother in a marriage for lack of a better word; the Godhead in union). As for universal salvation, I’m pretty much a universalist. I think Terryl and Fiona Givens cover this idea pretty well in ‘The God Who Weeps’, but pretty much only those who absolutely want nothing to do with God will be allowed to remain outside of salvation. When one considers the three degrees of glory, one must realize that all of these are portions of *God’s glory*. Mormons still apply heaven/hell labels to them, but that’s not very accurate. In essence, the worst of the worst will still receive glory. And although progression between kingdoms is not known or taught (though some Church leaders did teach it), I tend to believe there will be.

Steve Evans: Hope that’s a good “wow.” ;)

Terry H: Thanks.

mirrorrorrim: The baptismal covenant we have certainly makes a type of universal salvation argument such as you state plausible. “Mourn with those that mourn”, comfort those that stand in need of comfort” and “bear one another’s burdens”. Even the Law of Moses had a type of collective guilt, which was why there were different sacrifices. A fairly easy explanation was from J.Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary: The Priestly Picture of Dorian Gray”. RB 83 (1976), 390-399, esp. 394, reprinted in Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology, Brill, 1983 (pp. 75-84, esp. 79). I scared the ______ out of some in my Ward trying to wrestle with this idea in a GD class several years ago (during our Leviticus lesson). My (greatly simplified) attitude about it (and ignoring the complex problems of composition) is that if its in the Law of Moses, somehow, its meant to lead us to Christ. I like your comment. To a certain extent, we all become our “brother’s keeper” when we make the baptismal covenant. This makes it more imperative when we leave the ninety and nine and see out the one. Of course, it also makes it more imperative when we (as a society) become more condoning and accepting of what is clearly sin. I believe its a balancing act that we have to follow under the guidance of the Spirit (which means imperfect application by imperfect beings imperfectly understanding perfect inspiration).

I very rarely see Latter-day Saints with this idea of collective salvation. Blake’s quote even goes so far as to seem to suggest an idea of universal salvation, where God will end up saving all of humanity.

I’m interested: is that what you believe in, or have I completely misunderstood this part? If you do believe it, do you mind sharing what led you to that belief? These aren’t meant to be leading question. I’m honestly curious. I have had times in my life where I have pondered the idea of universal salvation, and I’m interested to hear your thoughts on it. I’m interested in how that interacts with your concept of shame. It seems to me, if we could all internalize the idea that God is saving us, we wouldn’t have anything we would feel the need to shame ourselves and others over.

Alternately, a correctly-applied concept of universal sin does the same thing, because, as your post expressed so well, shame is related to relationships, and is felt in relation to other people. If everyone accepts that they are irredeemably corrupt, it seems that would also end the culture of shame. It has always been interesting to me that Peter’s sermons in Acts, which, if they are accurately reported, are probably the first post-resurrection Christian sermons, all contained as part of the message an injunction for his listeners to accept that it is their fault that Christ was crucified (see, for example, Acts 2). To me, this suggests that, as Christianity was originally taught, before you repented or were baptized, you had to accept the fact that Jesus suffered and was killed because of you: it was your sins that made him hang on the cross. Because of that, there is no reason to compare yourself to anyone else, because they’re in the exact same position as you: it was all of our sins that made Jesus die, and no one is more or less to blame for it. Since we’re all alike in our nakedness, there is no need for fig leaves for some to cover up while others are exposed. As I think your post suggests, part of Satan’s success with us in the garden is in isolating us, and separating us from each other and from God, making us think that God wants us to be separate and different from Him. Latter-day Saint theology, though, suggests that the reality is just the opposite: God was once just like us, and His mission is for all of us to become just like Him. If that’s true, then when we create divisions of shame, we are going against God’s work, and are distracted from the path of salvation.

On the other hand, I can see theological justification for seeing things completely differently, too. That’s why I’m interested in hearing more people’s thoughts about this than just mine.

I personally think shame has an important place in the human journey. It is not entirely evil, even though it is problematic. In spite of the message of the film, I think we live in a society saturated with shamelessness. Nudity, casual sexual behavior and dirty jokes are everywhere. Sex is not special or shameful in the modern world. By reintroducing shame into a shameless world, LDS culture makes the sexual world more erotic and appealing, and this is great news for exciting marriages and baby making. Shame heightens eroticism, because what is forbidden on some kind of metaphysical plane, becomes more enticing.

If we kill the shame we inherited from the Fall (“see you are naked!”), we become just like the bonobos, shameless humping animals. I believe what is felt as “shame” is what is often described as “sacred,” by members of the church who see the sex act as divine. What they really mean by “sacred” is that sexuality and human nudity is imbued with an aspect of mysterious ambiguity which should be carefully guarded and protected. Milan Kundera said: “Without the art of ambiguity there is no real eroticism, and the stronger the ambiguity, the more powerful the excitement.”