So I'm just going to put this out there, in case you didn't know (in which case I'm not entirely sure why you're reading my blog, as you obviously don't know me, because it's my most apparent quality): I'm obnoxious. Ridiculously obnoxious. Sometimes offensively obnoxious.
I say this because lately some of my obnoxious comments have prompted people to stop associating with me. The comments in question were political in nature, and that did have something to do with it; they said, however, that it wasn't the comments/opinions themselves, but how they were expressed that caused them to want to break off association.
Beyond the obvious "Really??" reaction that I and others like me are prone to have in this situation, is a deeper issue. And it was actually this with relation to other experiences I've had that helped me come to this realization. (I know it may surprise you, but my obnoxiousness is not my only quality that's been criticized over the years.)
I was thinking about this idea, about how people choose who they associate with, are friends with, date, marry, what have you, and I realized a couple things. I realized: 1) that people make these judgments based on who people are; and 2) that this outlook can be severely limiting and downright wrong.
Now, obviously some judgments must be made on who a person is. For example, I know no child of mine is going to go play at a convicted pedophile's house. But this can't be the end of what judgments we make. Truly, at least as important and most likely more important than our judgments on who a person is is who a person is becoming.
See, no person on Earth is perfect. Christ was and is perfect, but He no longer lives on Earth. and Enoch and Melchizedek and their respective cities became perfect, but as soon as they reached perfection, they were taken from the Earth. So what do any of us imperfect people really know about what or who a person should be? Answer: precious little.
Of course, that doesn't stop us from trying to act like we do. We're always ready to tell people when they're doing something wrong, what Christlike faith or charity is, what the correct attitude is, etc. The Gospel explains these attributes to us in abstract terms, but no one really understands what they really mean. Even the prophet, as intelligent and wise as he is, has a severely limited understanding.
So then why do we continue to make judgments based on who people are? Rather, the more prudent route would be to make judgments based on who they're becoming. Are they becoming more like Christ or not? That is the true measure of a man. Or woman.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Faith is Trust
So I've been thinking more about what I talked about in my "Certainty" post. Mostly about it's implications on my understanding of faith. See, before I saw faith as a kind of means to knowledge. When people would say, "I know the Church is true," or "I know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God," it was because of their faith they obtained that knowledge.
After all, as it states in Alma 32, "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things." Whether accurate or not, the accepted interpretation of this seems to be that one is supposed to use that faith to obtain that perfect knowledge. Perhaps a discussion of what "perfect knowledge" means would be helpful, but that's for another post.
Either way, in Hebrews 11 faith is equated with an assurance, meaning faith is a kind of surety, even if it's not a perfect knowledge. However, since I can't be completely sure of many of the laws and principles of the Gospel, how am I to have faith in them? How is that faith supposed to lead to a perfect knowledge? What is a perfect knowledge of something that is subject to change?
I reached a conclusion that I feel really good about. Not only that, since reaching this conclusion, I've found that I'm not the only one who has; I'm currently taking Philosophy of Religion and the professor has reached the same conclusion. Not only that, the professor explained that the Greek word for faith--pistis--actually supports my conclusion.
The conclusion, as hinted at in the title to this post, is this: faith is trust.
Thus, one doesn't have faith in a what, but in a whom. As expressed so simply in the 4th Article of Faith, the first principle of the Gospel is "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." When we have faith, we trust God, meaning all three members of the Godhead. Thus we don't have faith in principles and laws, but in the principle- and law-Giver. We do what He tells us to do, which ends up being more centered around ordinances than principles, for principles can contradict each other (just take the classic example of mercy and justice).
Either way, this is a small yet significant change in most members' understanding of faith, one that members would benefit greatly from.
After all, as it states in Alma 32, "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things." Whether accurate or not, the accepted interpretation of this seems to be that one is supposed to use that faith to obtain that perfect knowledge. Perhaps a discussion of what "perfect knowledge" means would be helpful, but that's for another post.
Either way, in Hebrews 11 faith is equated with an assurance, meaning faith is a kind of surety, even if it's not a perfect knowledge. However, since I can't be completely sure of many of the laws and principles of the Gospel, how am I to have faith in them? How is that faith supposed to lead to a perfect knowledge? What is a perfect knowledge of something that is subject to change?
I reached a conclusion that I feel really good about. Not only that, since reaching this conclusion, I've found that I'm not the only one who has; I'm currently taking Philosophy of Religion and the professor has reached the same conclusion. Not only that, the professor explained that the Greek word for faith--pistis--actually supports my conclusion.
The conclusion, as hinted at in the title to this post, is this: faith is trust.
Thus, one doesn't have faith in a what, but in a whom. As expressed so simply in the 4th Article of Faith, the first principle of the Gospel is "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." When we have faith, we trust God, meaning all three members of the Godhead. Thus we don't have faith in principles and laws, but in the principle- and law-Giver. We do what He tells us to do, which ends up being more centered around ordinances than principles, for principles can contradict each other (just take the classic example of mercy and justice).
Either way, this is a small yet significant change in most members' understanding of faith, one that members would benefit greatly from.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Favorite Terry Pratchett Passage.... so far
So lately I've been reading Terry Pratchett books, because they're hilarious. Anyway, after reading this last passage, which comes from the book The Light Fantastic, I decided I should share some of the joy. So here goes:
"In yet another part of the forest a young shaman was undergoing a very essential part of his training. He had eaten of the sacred toadstool, he had smoked the holy rhizome, he had carefully powdered up and inserted into various orifices the mystic mushroom and now, sitting crosslegged under a pine tree, he was concentrating firstly on making contact with the strange and wonderful secrets at the heart of Being but mainly on stopping the top of his head from unscrewing and floating away.
"Blue four-side triangles pinwheeled across his vision. Occasionally he smiled knowingly at nothing very much and said things like 'Wow' and 'Urgh.'
"There was a movement in the air and what he later described as 'like, a sort of explosion only backwards, you know?', and suddenly where there had only been nothing there was a large, battered, wooden chest.
"It landed heavily on the leafmould, extended dozens of little legs, and turned around ponderously to look at the shaman. That is to say, it had no face, but even through the mycological haze he was horribly aware that it was looking at him. And not a nice look, either. It was amazing how baleful a keyhole and a couple of knotholes could be.
"To his intense relief it gave a sort of wooden shrug, and set off through the trees at a canter.
"With superhuman effort the shaman recalled the correct sequence of movements for standing up and even managed a couple of steps before he looked down and gave up, having run out of legs."
Of course, this passage is funnier if you know the history of the chest, which you can read about in The Color of Magic, but the stoned shaman is hilarious enough in itself.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed!
"In yet another part of the forest a young shaman was undergoing a very essential part of his training. He had eaten of the sacred toadstool, he had smoked the holy rhizome, he had carefully powdered up and inserted into various orifices the mystic mushroom and now, sitting crosslegged under a pine tree, he was concentrating firstly on making contact with the strange and wonderful secrets at the heart of Being but mainly on stopping the top of his head from unscrewing and floating away.
"Blue four-side triangles pinwheeled across his vision. Occasionally he smiled knowingly at nothing very much and said things like 'Wow' and 'Urgh.'
"There was a movement in the air and what he later described as 'like, a sort of explosion only backwards, you know?', and suddenly where there had only been nothing there was a large, battered, wooden chest.
"It landed heavily on the leafmould, extended dozens of little legs, and turned around ponderously to look at the shaman. That is to say, it had no face, but even through the mycological haze he was horribly aware that it was looking at him. And not a nice look, either. It was amazing how baleful a keyhole and a couple of knotholes could be.
"To his intense relief it gave a sort of wooden shrug, and set off through the trees at a canter.
"With superhuman effort the shaman recalled the correct sequence of movements for standing up and even managed a couple of steps before he looked down and gave up, having run out of legs."
Of course, this passage is funnier if you know the history of the chest, which you can read about in The Color of Magic, but the stoned shaman is hilarious enough in itself.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sunstone
So I've had some time to digest everything that went down at the Sunstone Symposium, and I've figured out why overall I didn't particularly enjoy it. (This isn't to say I couldn't enjoy it, just that three full days was way too much.) It was because of the hierarchy of questions posed there.
Questions on the Church's teachings on male/female roles became more important than whether it was God's church. The political and social aspects of the Church were more important than the eternal ones. Not only that, but whether it was God's church became a question of its standing on political and social issues.
This is exactly reverse of what it should be. First comes the question of whether it's God's church, then comes the question of the correctness of its stances on political and social issues.
Questions on the Church's teachings on male/female roles became more important than whether it was God's church. The political and social aspects of the Church were more important than the eternal ones. Not only that, but whether it was God's church became a question of its standing on political and social issues.
This is exactly reverse of what it should be. First comes the question of whether it's God's church, then comes the question of the correctness of its stances on political and social issues.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Certainty
So one of the sessions at the Sunstone Symposium was about how members of the Church are too certain about some things that might not be true. I really resonated with this, because I've recently come to the same conclusion, especially about myself. I started this after the Church came out against Prop 8.
See, as with any new commandment or doctrine from my Priesthood leaders, I prayed about it to get my own testimony. The difference this time was that I got an answer that I shouldn't support Prop 8. I shouldn't be openly against it, but neither should I be openly for it. Now, every other time I can remember--other than a couple times on my mission, but that was zone leaders, not General Authorities--I always received an answer in accordance with the new doctrine/commandment/whatever. Until now.
At first I thought I must've misinterpreted my impression, so I prayed again. And got the same answer. This process was repeated a good 4 or 5 more times before I finally decided that I hadn't been mistaken after all.
Except now what?
Suddenly if supporting Prop 8 wasn't right for me, what about other declarations from the General Authorities? Could I trust them? If so, for how long? I was reminded of polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood, where the Church completely reversed its position. What could I be certain about?
Since then I have been systematically going through different aspects of the Gospel trying to figure out whether it's actually an eternal princple or law, or whether it's something subject to change; and thus not something I should be completely certain about.
(See, I worry about what would happen if I was certain about something that the Church then reversed directions on. Would my faith sustain me?)
Either way, I have found precious little that I can actually be 100% certain about. Faith, love, prayer, scripture study, the Atonement and Plan of Salvation, that this is God's Church; a few other things, but much less than others seem to think I should be certain about. You know, though, I don't think I agree with them.
See, as with any new commandment or doctrine from my Priesthood leaders, I prayed about it to get my own testimony. The difference this time was that I got an answer that I shouldn't support Prop 8. I shouldn't be openly against it, but neither should I be openly for it. Now, every other time I can remember--other than a couple times on my mission, but that was zone leaders, not General Authorities--I always received an answer in accordance with the new doctrine/commandment/whatever. Until now.
At first I thought I must've misinterpreted my impression, so I prayed again. And got the same answer. This process was repeated a good 4 or 5 more times before I finally decided that I hadn't been mistaken after all.
Except now what?
Suddenly if supporting Prop 8 wasn't right for me, what about other declarations from the General Authorities? Could I trust them? If so, for how long? I was reminded of polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood, where the Church completely reversed its position. What could I be certain about?
Since then I have been systematically going through different aspects of the Gospel trying to figure out whether it's actually an eternal princple or law, or whether it's something subject to change; and thus not something I should be completely certain about.
(See, I worry about what would happen if I was certain about something that the Church then reversed directions on. Would my faith sustain me?)
Either way, I have found precious little that I can actually be 100% certain about. Faith, love, prayer, scripture study, the Atonement and Plan of Salvation, that this is God's Church; a few other things, but much less than others seem to think I should be certain about. You know, though, I don't think I agree with them.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Life Problems and Math Problems
So my brother-in-law said something interesting that got me thinking. He said that problems in life are not the same as math problems, which got me thinking.
Many times we approach life problems the same as math problems. We look at it, think about it, and then ask God what the correct answer is. We get an answer and then go on our merry way.
Unfortunately, too often we misunderstand what God is saying. God very rarely gives us the answer, or the end result, to the question. Think of an algebraic equation that has multiple steps. God will tell us "Do this," giving us the first step, and we think that's the answer. Rather than saying, "This is where you'll end up," He's saying, "This is what you need to do right now."
Life problems really aren't like math problems. We don't know the end, that's God's job. We just have to take it one step at a time and trust in Him, which makes it sound much easier than it actually is. I wish you luck.
Many times we approach life problems the same as math problems. We look at it, think about it, and then ask God what the correct answer is. We get an answer and then go on our merry way.
Unfortunately, too often we misunderstand what God is saying. God very rarely gives us the answer, or the end result, to the question. Think of an algebraic equation that has multiple steps. God will tell us "Do this," giving us the first step, and we think that's the answer. Rather than saying, "This is where you'll end up," He's saying, "This is what you need to do right now."
Life problems really aren't like math problems. We don't know the end, that's God's job. We just have to take it one step at a time and trust in Him, which makes it sound much easier than it actually is. I wish you luck.
Blog Changes
So I suppose you probably noticed the changes in my blog. Well, I kind of got sick of the old layout, so I wanted to change it up. (It's slightly deeper than that, but the full explanation will be forthcoming.) The current layout is a little too bland for my taste, but it's a step in the right direction, at least as far as my vision for the final layout is concerned. I'll probably be making slight changes here and there periodically over the next few weeks until I've got it where I want. Hope you like it! Though to be honest, it doesn't really matter if you don't, because it won't change anything, sorry. :)
Monday, April 13, 2009
Trusting in the Future vs. Trusting in God
So lately I've been pondering the future, simply because I have no idea whatsoever I'm going to do with mine. Many might be confused because I try and play it off as no big deal, like I prefer it that way, but the truth of the matter is that I worry about it a lot. It's kind of unsettling not knowing where in the world you're going with your life.
Yet every time I try and make plans, God stops me. You know those stupors of thought described in D&C 9? Yeah, one of those every single time. "Why?" you ask. Good question; I think I'm just now figuring it out, despite having this problem for a while. (I suppose I can be a little slow sometimes.)
So the shortest explanation is that, at least for right now, the what is not as important as the who (the who being God). See, that is the answer every time I ask about my future: "Just trust me." (My response back is usually something like, "Well frick." Probably not the best way to respond to God, but He and I have a mutual understanding.)
See, I think God has long realized something about me that I'm just now coming to realize. If I were to have my entire future planned out, knowing when I was going to accomplish what and how, I would probably center my life on that rather than God. God, being the omniscient being that He is, has thus let me know in no uncertain terms that I am not to plan my future; He's got things figured out already. Thus I'm pretty much left with no choice, but I'm pretty sure I'll be better off this way. (And by 'pretty sure,' I mean 'definitely sure.')
Yet every time I try and make plans, God stops me. You know those stupors of thought described in D&C 9? Yeah, one of those every single time. "Why?" you ask. Good question; I think I'm just now figuring it out, despite having this problem for a while. (I suppose I can be a little slow sometimes.)
So the shortest explanation is that, at least for right now, the what is not as important as the who (the who being God). See, that is the answer every time I ask about my future: "Just trust me." (My response back is usually something like, "Well frick." Probably not the best way to respond to God, but He and I have a mutual understanding.)
See, I think God has long realized something about me that I'm just now coming to realize. If I were to have my entire future planned out, knowing when I was going to accomplish what and how, I would probably center my life on that rather than God. God, being the omniscient being that He is, has thus let me know in no uncertain terms that I am not to plan my future; He's got things figured out already. Thus I'm pretty much left with no choice, but I'm pretty sure I'll be better off this way. (And by 'pretty sure,' I mean 'definitely sure.')
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Friends vs. Acquaintances
So not too long ago I had an experience which caused me to think (this happens a lot). I was with a group of friends and we played one of those mind-teaser games; there are a number of them out there. Well, suffice it to say I was not one of the quickest at figuring the game out (I still think too much into things, but I'm working on it).
Anyway, after the game, I was explaining to the other people there why it took me so long. As most people know, one way to deal with embarrassment is to kind of rationalize it, explain it away as normal. However, there is another reason for sharing this same information, and it has to do with the difference between a friend and an acquaintance.
What makes an acquaintance a friend for you? There is something qualitatively different between how we feel about a friend as opposed to an acquaintance, but when and why does that difference occur? As one of the people kept saying, "It's okay, Peter," I kept thinking But that's not why I'm sharing this with you. So it kept bugging me, but I kept sharing it, hoping to get a different response, the desired response. It never came, which is why I started thinking about this.
For one, I kept wondering why the person was reacting the way they did, because that's not at all what I was going for. It's only after I realized how misconstruable (is that a word?) my actions were. After realizing this, I thought about the real reason for sharing what I did, what seemed to be my rationalization for acting embarrassingly. Also, what response was I looking for exactly, because all I knew is that it wasn't the one I got.
I realized that I was hoping for a similar response from those I was talking to, hoping that they would share their thought processes during the mind-teaser game. I also realized what, at least for me, is the difference between a friend and an acquaintance. I could know the birthday, major, career, where they grew up, went to college, whatever of someone and they could still be an acquaintance. What makes them a friend is when I know something of what makes them them. When I know something of how they think, what makes them tick, their passions/desires/hates/loves, something that gives me an insight into what makes them them; that's when they go from the acquaintance column to the friend column. Oh, and they have to know something about what makes me me as well.
Anyway, after the game, I was explaining to the other people there why it took me so long. As most people know, one way to deal with embarrassment is to kind of rationalize it, explain it away as normal. However, there is another reason for sharing this same information, and it has to do with the difference between a friend and an acquaintance.
What makes an acquaintance a friend for you? There is something qualitatively different between how we feel about a friend as opposed to an acquaintance, but when and why does that difference occur? As one of the people kept saying, "It's okay, Peter," I kept thinking But that's not why I'm sharing this with you. So it kept bugging me, but I kept sharing it, hoping to get a different response, the desired response. It never came, which is why I started thinking about this.
For one, I kept wondering why the person was reacting the way they did, because that's not at all what I was going for. It's only after I realized how misconstruable (is that a word?) my actions were. After realizing this, I thought about the real reason for sharing what I did, what seemed to be my rationalization for acting embarrassingly. Also, what response was I looking for exactly, because all I knew is that it wasn't the one I got.
I realized that I was hoping for a similar response from those I was talking to, hoping that they would share their thought processes during the mind-teaser game. I also realized what, at least for me, is the difference between a friend and an acquaintance. I could know the birthday, major, career, where they grew up, went to college, whatever of someone and they could still be an acquaintance. What makes them a friend is when I know something of what makes them them. When I know something of how they think, what makes them tick, their passions/desires/hates/loves, something that gives me an insight into what makes them them; that's when they go from the acquaintance column to the friend column. Oh, and they have to know something about what makes me me as well.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Planning
(So it's been far too long since I've written something here, for which I apologize, and I'll try to be better in the future. I can't promise anything more than that, though.)
So the topic of planning has come up in my recent conversations. This is something I've thought a lot about, mostly because I'm incapable of doing it. No, it's not an I-won't-do-it thing, it's an I-can't-do-it thing. Trust me, I've tried. On the mission, you're supposed to plan every hour of every day and have daily, weekly, and monthly goals, and that kind of worked for me, but not entirely.
But all the recent conversations I've had on this topic have caused me to think about it. Mostly it's come up in my psychology classes, because there are a lot more girls than guys, and let's be honest, girls, on average, plan a lot more than guys. They write down all their homework assignments in their planners, plan out when they are going to do each assignment, and even have much clearer long-term plans. (Now, I'm not saying that every girl is like nor that no boy is, just that generally speaking this tends to be the case for whatever reason.)
Most of the girls I talk to say that it's simply my attitude that prevents me from planning, that if I were to choose to really plan, it would happen. I am not convinced this is the case. Perhaps I'm speaking too deterministically, but I don't think that everyone's personality meshes well with planning ahead.
Of course, this presents problems with my religion, because I don't even want to try and count how many times I've heard leaders of my church talk about the importance of setting and striving to accomplish goals (not to mention my parents). We should write them down, set smaller goals on the way to achieving our big goal, essentially plan out how we're going to accomplish each goal. By doing this, we'll be able to accomplish more in life.
Perhaps I'm in a very small minority, but my collegiate academic career has been exactly the opposite. Before my mission I used to try and follow this counsel, but I kind of stopped during my mission when my attempts at doing so failed miserably. Since my mission my grades have been better, despite my planning being non-existent. And the funny thing is, I'm pretty sure this is exactly how Heavenly Father wants it. Explain that one.
So the topic of planning has come up in my recent conversations. This is something I've thought a lot about, mostly because I'm incapable of doing it. No, it's not an I-won't-do-it thing, it's an I-can't-do-it thing. Trust me, I've tried. On the mission, you're supposed to plan every hour of every day and have daily, weekly, and monthly goals, and that kind of worked for me, but not entirely.
But all the recent conversations I've had on this topic have caused me to think about it. Mostly it's come up in my psychology classes, because there are a lot more girls than guys, and let's be honest, girls, on average, plan a lot more than guys. They write down all their homework assignments in their planners, plan out when they are going to do each assignment, and even have much clearer long-term plans. (Now, I'm not saying that every girl is like nor that no boy is, just that generally speaking this tends to be the case for whatever reason.)
Most of the girls I talk to say that it's simply my attitude that prevents me from planning, that if I were to choose to really plan, it would happen. I am not convinced this is the case. Perhaps I'm speaking too deterministically, but I don't think that everyone's personality meshes well with planning ahead.
Of course, this presents problems with my religion, because I don't even want to try and count how many times I've heard leaders of my church talk about the importance of setting and striving to accomplish goals (not to mention my parents). We should write them down, set smaller goals on the way to achieving our big goal, essentially plan out how we're going to accomplish each goal. By doing this, we'll be able to accomplish more in life.
Perhaps I'm in a very small minority, but my collegiate academic career has been exactly the opposite. Before my mission I used to try and follow this counsel, but I kind of stopped during my mission when my attempts at doing so failed miserably. Since my mission my grades have been better, despite my planning being non-existent. And the funny thing is, I'm pretty sure this is exactly how Heavenly Father wants it. Explain that one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)