my musings

Social Responsibility and Being Christlike

2011-10-08T06:54:00.000-07:00

So a little while ago I was pondering what it means to be Christlike. It's something I ponder a lot, but during this time it was weighing a little more heavily on my mind. I suppose what prompted it was a Sunday School lesson (an hour of theological discussion and learning that occurs during my weekly church services) where we discussed the idea of social responsibility. For the sake of full disclosure, I will admit that I was in fact the teacher during this particular lesson.

The lesson covered Ezekiel 34 (among other chapters) wherein is a metaphor given by the Lord. The Lord talks of His people in terms of shepherds and sheep and seemingly blames the shepherds not only for their own actions (in not feeding the sheep) but also for the consequent actions of the sheep as well. He describes the sheep as being "scattered" (v. 12) which to me means that they have fallen away from the Lord's true gospel and teachings and have become worldly.

I found this story interesting, because the Lord never once blames the sheep for becoming scattered, yet surely people are responsible for their own actions. It makes me wonder, then, whether others can't also be (at least partially) responsible for one person's actions. Certainly United States law (and I imagine other countries' laws as well) take the actions of others into consideration, yet it has been my experience that many people (especially members of my church) believe very strong in the idea of personal responsibility and vehemently argue that the only person responsible for Person A's actions is Person A. I have to admit here that I have never been able to believe that, because I can't help but feel responsible when someone I know does something bad.

It was while thinking on this that I was reading an article that mentioned the fact that Christ took upon himself the sins of all other people. Then it hit me. Christ is quite literally the perfect example of social responsibility. He, the only sinless person to ever live, took upon himself the sins of every other person who has ever lived, who does live, and who will ever live. He endeavored with everything He was to make Himself responsible for all the bad things that anyone has ever done and will ever do. He said, "Let me be responsible for Person A's actions, not Person A." He was arguably the only person who has ever lived and will ever live who could truthfully say that He is not responsible for anyone else's failings. But He wants to be. The culminating act of His life was an attempt to make that statement untrue.

Which makes me think about people today, including myself. I personally am reticent to admit responsibility for another's actions. They're their own person and should be able to take care of themselves, right? (Don't get me wrong, I can't help but feel guilty, but that doesn't mean I like to. I have enough of my own problems that I don't really want to feel responsible for others' as well.) Yet if I am serious about being Christlike, and I certainly try to be, being responsible for others' actions (or at least striving to be) is exactly what I should be doing.

Living the Question

2011-05-05T20:36:00.000-07:00

Rainer Maria Rilke once wrote, "I would like to beg you dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign langauge. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer."

I rather like this quote. Probably because it was shared with me shortly after I had come to the same conclusion. Living the question should be our goal, not living the answer. Which is a rather difficult thing to grasp. I still don't fully understand it and I've been trying to do it for a few years now. And yet I really think it's the way each person should live. Allow me to explain.

Each of us has family and friends, people we love. I imagine that most people believe in the idea that we should try and love all mankind, each and every person. Perhaps with the rare exception, such as Adolf Hitler or Osama bin Laden, but for the most part, we should love everyone.

How do we do this, however? There are many answers out there. The most common one is probably the well-known Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." A great sentiment. One that is common in my church is service. If we want to love someone, we should serve them. Another great sentiment. And there are many more out there.

But I can't help think that maybe in answering the question we've missed the mark. As we interact with another person, whether it be through talking or actions, we should not be thinking, "I must treat this person as I want to be treated." Instead, in my opinion at least, we should be thinking, "How can I best love this person?" A question should guide our actions, not an answer. If I'm a parent and my kid disobeys me, rather than deciding that either justice or mercy is the correct answer, I should ask myself, "What is the best course of action with this child in this situation?"

If we want to be the best person we can be, we must realize that each context, each set of circumstances, is different. And I don't know about you, but for me living the question is the only way I have even the slightest chance of doing something resembling the right thing.

Hyper-religiosity and (Non)Conformity

2010-11-02T20:08:00.000-07:00

So as you may or may not know, depending on how well you know me, I currently work at a substance abuse treatment program where I teach classes. Put simply, I give drug addicts tools and ideas to help them overcome their addictions.

Anyway, today in class we got on the topic of Utah culture and how it's dominated by Mormons and the problems associated with that. I explained my theory as to why Utah culture is kind of messed up: homogeneity leading to hyper-religiosity. I think any time you have too much homogeneity, it leads to extremism. But then I started wondering why that is, and I'm not sure I came to a complete explanation, but I think part of it at least has to do with conformity.

I was thinking about how different groups and classes of people like to separate themselves from others. The classic example are the self-described "nonconformists," those that wear things noticeably different from the norm because they want to be noticed as being different from the norm. As many have correctly said, however, these so-called "nonconformists" in fact just conform to a different set of guidelines/principles/ideologies and in fact aren't really nonconformists at all. But they highlight something I think we all do: focus on what makes us different, unique. And by that, I mean we focus on what makes us along with our group of friends different, because what makes us different and unique makes us important; it gives meaning to our lives.

Thus, in the case of Mormons and Utah, what makes us different is not drinking coffee, not cursing, and a host of other rules and commandments and traditions that are less important for salvation but more important for our own personal security and identity. And I think often--especially in areas where there is more homogeneity--these less important rules and traditions become more important than the truly important commandments and laws, even when we don't mean them to be. Nor do I think Mormons are unique in doing this. I think similar phenomena can be seen in polygamist colonies, among Evangelical Christians, and among Muslim extremists in the Middle East.

So I think the question is: What can be done about it? And I hate to break it to you, but I don't have an answer to that. We can try fighting against those ideas and social norms that we don't agree with, but that can lead to serious problems. A Mormon can't very well drastically reject the social norms, because that would lead to breaking commandments. Yet if said Mormon then completely acquiesces to the social norms, then s/he just contributes to the problem.

So I think the answer has to lie somewhere in the middle, but for one that's incredibly difficult, and for two I'm not convinced that it actually does any good. As someone who's been trying for 25 years trying to stay in that middle ground, I can say that I feel totally lost the vast majority of the time. I don't really have any group of friends that I hang out with, nor have I ever had one. I have a few good friends here and there, but staying in the middle means not really conforming to anyone one group's standards, which means not conforming enough to be a true part of that group. Thus, you end up in a void with lots of acquaintances but few real friends.

Also, I don't know that my being in the middle (or at least attempt at) has done any good whatsoever. All I know is that I can't bring myself to do otherwise; I'm already too far down this path. So here's to hoping.

Agency

2010-10-09T13:33:00.001-07:00

So seeing as how agency was a big theme this past General Conference, I decided to give some of my thoughts on the subject, as it is something I've thought a lot about. In Conference and during various Sunday School lessons, agency has been defined. The definition that has almost always been given is the right or ability to choose. I, however, am not so sure that's the case. Well, I should clarify a bit. I think when we talk of agency today, that is the definition we use; but I don't think that's the correct definition of agency when it is used in scripture. Come with me on a little journey as I will attempt to explain what I see as the correct scriptural definition of agency.

To start off, we go to Moses 4:3, where we learn that Satan tried to "destroy the agency of man." We also know from a number of scriptures, including the very next verse, that Satan seeks to lead us captive--in other words, enslave us. So it seems logical to assume that there is something about agency that allows us to be free, to avoid captivity. I think most people are still with me, but here is where I think I divert from most people.

See, I think most people would say that it is agency itself that makes us free, that as agency and choice decrease, captivity increases. As far as I can tell, however, that is not what the scriptures say. For example, look at 2 Nephi 2:27, where is states that "men are free to choose captivity and death." Nowhere in that verse or in surrounding verses does it say that one must give up one's choice in order to be captive. In fact, it seems to say that choice is a necessary condition or prerequisite of being captive. I think this interpretation is supported when you consider the fact that men are also able to "choose liberty," as 2 Nephi 2:27 also states. If choice was what made men free, then why would they have to "choose liberty?"

Now let's take a look at an oft-quoted scripture in the New Testament: John 8:32, which states, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (emphasis added). This verse seems to say that it is not choice that makes us free, but rather the truth. So, if my analysis is correct, then agency must be inseparably connected with truth. Which means, as I see it, that the correct scriptural definition of agency is not "the ability or right to choose," but rather "living truthfully" or "living according to truth."

Now what does this mean? Well, I'm not sure I have it all worked out yet. I can tell you that I know of two definitions of truth in the scriptures: 1) In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (emphasis added), meaning that one definition of truth is Christ; 2) In Doctrine and Covenants 93:24, we read, "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come," meaning another definition of truth is knowledge about reality, about the way things really are. As far as I can tell, either "living according to Christ/living Christlike" and "living in and according to reality" can both work for the definition of agency. In fact, I think both are supposed to work as definitions of agency. I just haven't yet quite worked out what they both mean exactly or how to actually do/live either of them. Let me know if you do.

God's Omniscience

2010-09-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

So the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that God is omniscient in the way we generally understand it. We generally think that omniscience means that God knows everything about everything, including the future. He knows exactly what will happen when, no matter how mundane.

I think that this definition of omniscience destroys agency. Allow me to explain. Let's say God knows that I am going to to have to choose between choices A, B, and C tomorrow. Moreover, He knows that I'm going to choose B. Now, many argue that His knowledge of my choice does not determine that choice, but I'm not so sure. I think a requirement of choice is possibility, and God knowing that my choice will be B eliminates A and C from being possibilities.

Think of it this way. Let's say you come to a three-way fork in a road. Paths X and Z, however, are covered or camouflaged such that you never knew they were there. Thus, you chose Path Y. Would you really say that you chose Path B, though? I know I wouldn't. For me it's not a choice unless I know all the options available. I can't choose Path Y unless I know that Paths X and Z are also viable options.

Now, obviously there is a difference between the two scenarios: my knowledge/understanding of the circumstances. In the first case, I know that A and C are also viable options. In the second scenario, I don't know that X and Z are. Which raises the $64,000 question: Do you need different viable options or do you just need knowledge or understanding of different viable options in order to have agency?

I think you need both. Obviously you need some sort of knowledge or understanding of the different options available to you, but I think that those options have to actually be available. However, if God knows--for certain--which option you are going to choose, then how can you call A and C actual options? You can't choose A, because it's already been determined that you will choose B, and you can't choose C for the same reason; God may not have determined it, but it has been determined. Because it can't be any other way. And because you can't have a choice determined and still have it be a choice, I'm not so convinced that God's omniscience includes knowledge of our future choices.

Hiatus

2010-09-19T18:03:00.001-07:00

So I haven't posted anything for a rather long time, and lately I've been trying to figure out why. The best answer I can come up with is that I was trying to fully process all the stuff I was working out before. It's one thing to come to a new understanding or new way of thinking about life and how to live, but it's quite another to actually live that way; to live according to that new understanding. I think that's what I've been doing, so I wasn't really able to think about any new stuff. I think I've managed to process it enough now, though, because I've now started thinking about new questions that I'm going to be discussing here. So stay tuned. Or don't. Either way, I'm going to be posting stuff, so it doesn't make a huge difference to me.

The Self and Relationships

2010-02-17T11:45:00.000-08:00

So in one of my psychology classes this past week we discussed the interplay between relationships and the self. The question arose of which comes first, which gives rise to which: the self or relationships. Society today generally talks about the self giving rise to relationships. He proposed the opposite to be true, however.

His main evidence for thinking this way are the many "feral" children that have been found over they years (the most famous being Victor, found in France in 1799). Whether they grew up isolated, confined, or raised by animals, they all have one thing in common: their mental capacity never passed/passes a toddler's. Not only that, but almost all language and social learning comes after they've been found (I say "almost" only because those found in confined situations sometimes know a couple words, such as the case of Genie). Moreover, as with happened with Sudam Pradhana, he grew up normally until the age of 13; he was then lost in the woods until the age of 24, by which time he had lost all social and language skills. (You can go to www.feralchildren.com to read about more cases.)

Whether he's right or not, it's a very interesting idea. If he's right--and the more I think about it the more I agree with him--then who we choose (and sometimes don't choose) to interact with very much defines who we are. Our relationships make us who we are, and we can't be ourselves (or even fully human) without them. Suddenly who we choose to associate with is a much bigger deal. If we are who we have relationships with, then we really must choose who we associate with very carefully. And we must work hard to have positive relationships, because whatever our relationships are like is what we are like.

Judging on Being vs. Judging on Becoming

2009-10-09T12:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Faith is Trust

2009-09-01T09:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Favorite Terry Pratchett Passage.... so far

2009-08-22T11:36:00.000-07:00

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!

Sunstone

2009-08-16T20:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Certainty

2009-08-15T23:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Life Problems and Math Problems

2009-06-14T20:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Blog Changes

2009-06-14T18:59:00.001-07:00

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. :)

Trusting in the Future vs. Trusting in God

2009-04-13T11:38:00.000-07:00

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.')

Friends vs. Acquaintances

2009-03-03T22:01:00.001-08:00

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.

Planning

2009-02-15T11:11:00.000-08:00

(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.

Evangelicals and their Jesus

2008-12-18T22:49:00.000-08:00

Wow, it's kinda been a while since I wrote anything here. I need to get better at that. But hey, if this was my actual journal, it would've been 1 1/2 years, instead of just 1 1/2 months, so that's something, right?

So this last semester I took a class entitled "American Christianity" which I found rather interesting. One of the main current Christian... trends, I suppose you could say, is evangelicalism. They're very big on the whole 'praising Jesus' and 'being saved' stuff. It didn't make much sense the whole time the teacher was explaining it, I'm not gonna lie; but the very last class we had actual evangelicals come and explain it in their own words.

Now, I'm not gonna lie, there's a lot about evangelicals that annoys me, a lot I vehemently disagree with (most notably the rejection of anything even halfway intellectual by many of them). However, as we were having this class discussion the topic of Jesus came up, and the professor said something very interesting. One of the girls had actually converted to the LDS Church and had mentioned to the professor that there had been church services where she hadn't heard Christ's name even once; and entire three hours without talking about Christ.

This got me thinking: have we, as Latter-Day Saints, strayed too far in the other direction? Certainly we must address ways in how we, as individuals and as a whole, can improve; but what about Christ? After all, whatever we attain in faith, virtue, charity, etc. is only a gift provided through the magnificence of the Atonement. I personally feel that evangelicals have strayed too far into the praise-Jesus realm at the expense of the how-can-I-grow/become-better realm; but have I strayed too far in the other direction? (I fully realize that I'm part of the problem.)

I am not saying that Latter-Day Saints do not love Christ or lack a personal relationship with him, but how often is that expressed at church? I think this could play a particularly large role in our bearing of testimonies: Imagine instead of telling some random story followed by a rote recitation of "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet," or "I know Jesus Christ lives," you could say "Jesus Christ saved me. My world was dark, dreary, and without hope; my world is bright, joyful, and without impossibilities." Imagine the passion you would put behind the latter statement. For nor matter how great your world may seem right now, when compared with what God could make of it through the Atonement of Christ, it would seem dark, dreary, and without hope.

So, again i ask: Have we strayed too far away from "praising Jesus?" I leave it to you to answer that for yourself.

The Miracle of Forgiveness

2008-10-28T21:59:00.000-07:00

So I ponder the interplay of justice and mercy a lot, how the two work with each other and against each other at the same time. You can't have one without the other, yet the two so rarely exist in a given situation at the same time.

Being as religious as I am, I especially ponder the mercy and justice of God. I came across an interesting realization as I thought about the scriptures that talk about this interplay.

If you read verses on justice, most of them say something to the effect of "God is a just God" or "God has to be a just God." (See, for example, Alma 42; there it states justice could not be destroyed or God would cease to be God, or in other words God has to be just.) If you read verses on mercy, however, they say something far different. Many of them say "God wants to save us" or "God wants to be a merciful God." (See, for example, D&C 43:24-25.)

Interesting that God has to be a just God, but He wants to be a merciful God. He wants to forgive us, show us mercy, but we have to do what's necessary.

I wonder if we are the same way. Do we want to forgive people? Do we want to show them mercy? My opinion is that we rarely want to forgive someone; if God does, however, shouldn't we as well? We shouldn't need a reason to forgive someone; rather we should need a reason to not forgive them, and a very compelling reason at that.

Campaigning in Colorado

2008-09-28T19:10:00.000-07:00

So this last weekend I went to Colorado to campaign for Barack Obama. One of the awesome advantages to living in Utah is that campaigning here is pointless; it's going to go Republican anyway. Luckily, this year Colorado is a big swing state. Obama and John McCain are polling evenly there, so we take trips to Colorado to help it swing for Obama.

The trip was awesome. I went on three different canvassing routes, which basically consists of knocking on people's doors and asking who they are planning on voting for. The goal is two-fold: 1)make sure all the Obama supporters are registered to vote, and 2)finding the indecisive voters and convince them that Obama is the better choice.

It's way cool to take part in the political process, especially when you're doing it with a group of friends. It's like a road trip with a purpose; I highly recommend it.

Books and Writing

2008-07-20T11:29:00.000-07:00

So this past week I took my friend's advice and decided to read a Kurt Vonnegut book. The one I chose to read first was Cat's Cradle. I started it on Monday, figuring it would be a good book to read while I was commuting, thinking that I could make it last for the better part of a month that way. Needless to say, I was done with it three days later.

I still need to read more of his books (I now have Slaughterhouse 5), but he may well become my new favorite author, provided the rest of his books are as good as Cat's Cradle, and I expect that they will be.

More than that, however, Vonnegut showed me that I'm not crazy to write the way I do. See, I've long toyed with the idea of writing a book, but I've never really been able to get it going because I've tried to alter my writing to be more like the authors I've read. See, until Vonnegut, I had never come across an author who wrote like me, so I thought I had to change my writing in order for it to be good.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm as good an author as Vonnegut; I'm just saying that I have a similar style to him. It's kinda cheesy to say this, but his book liberated me as far as writing is concerned.

Before reading his book, I had come up with a few book topics and written a few pages here and there, but I could never really get into it. In the few days since reading his book, however, I've doubled the amount of written. On top of that, I have a clear view of the storyline of my book.

It's a weird sensation, having such a clear view of what I want to do in my book. I've never had it before, and it's making it really hard to think of anything other than my book. I think I now know what I'm going to be occupying all my free time with next semester.

Motivations

2008-04-22T22:46:00.001-07:00

My mom is an incessant worrier. Something is wrong if she has nothing to worry about. Now, this is okay except for the fact that her worrying causes everyone around her to worry as well. On top of that, I have somewhat inherited her constant angst. And on top of that, my parents still try to dictate my life to a large extent.

So I am at college now, but my parents pay for everything (for which I am extremely grateful). They give, however, one stipulation: I have to keep my grades up. If I don't, then I'm punished (they stop paying for school). Imagine the anxiety this causes. I'm constantly asking myself, "Are my grades high enough? How long do I have to study in order to get an A?" and so on.

First off, school should be about learning, not about grades. Grades are a decent measurement of progress, but the point of school should not be to get good grades, but rather to get a good education.

But that's not even the point of this post. My main point is that there has to be a better motivator than worry. It seems as though my parents have done things that have only caused more worry and more anxiety, yet is this really the most powerful motivator there is? Can't we find a better way to motivate people to do well in school? at work? in general? Do we really want everyone in the world to be gray by their 30th birthday?

It seems to me that, at least as far as an education is concerned, a love of learning would be a much better motivator than worry. For work, a love of work would be a better motivator, or a desire to be able to provide for one's family.

So why do people still try to motivate through fear and worry? It is entirely underproductive. If you want someone to do something, show them why it's important, why they should care, why it's interesting; don't punish them for not living according to your standards. Eventually, people will do what they want anyway, so the only way to enlist people's help is by helping them to want to help.

How does one do that, you ask? Well, basically, it depends on the person; there is no one right way to accomplish this. But this is the way it must be done.

5 Years Later

2008-03-20T21:05:00.000-07:00

So it's now been five years since the start of the War in Iraq... and where are we? 4,000 Americans and over 80,000 Iraqi civilians later, where are we? Was it worth it? Is Iraq truly better now than it was 5 years ago? I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to simply fight. I'm amazed at how little a human life means to some people, let alone 90,000.

But then, I guess that's not the question facing us today. I guess the question now is: Where do we go from here? Do we stay there for the next hundred years? Or do we get out now? Would getting out now be better, or do we stay until the current government is stable enough to take care of itself? Will it ever be?

And not only in Iraq, but what will be our future foreign policy? Do we continue starting wars like the one in Iraq and the one we had in Vietnam? When do we try diplomacy? The military?

These are tough questions, ones that I wish I had the answers to. One thing I do know: We, the United States of America, have fought so many wars over the last 50 years that war has become the norm. Being in a state of war is our normal state of affairs in this country. That is incredibly sad. War should be the exception, not the norm.

Pointless Responsibilities

2008-03-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

Ever feel like you have a pointless responsibility? Or perhaps even more than one? I do. So I'm the ward mission leader in my ward. (Just for explanation, a 'ward' is what we call the local congregation in my church.) Basically, I'm in charge of making sure that people share our teachings/faith with others (oh, yes, that aspect is that integral).

However, being at BYU, as you can imagine, there aren't very many 'nonmembers,' as we call them (though I'm not sure we should). In fact, in my ward, there are NO nonmembers. Thus, there is no one to share the 'Gospel' with ('Gospel' is our term for the sum total of our beliefs/teachings/etc.).

Basically, I feel like I have incredibly useless responsibilities. What am I supposed to do? There is no one to share the Gospel with. I go to monthly meetings to report absolutely nothing. GAAHHHH!

Mourning

2008-03-05T14:11:00.000-08:00

So I am in mourning today, for two reasons. First, Obama lost both Texas and Ohio yesterday... that sucks. Second, and more importantly, this could be disastrous for the Democratic Party. First of all, the primary is now going to go all the way to the convention. On the one hand, that gives McCain a three-month head start on unifying the party behind him. On the other hand, it does means more publicity for Clinton and Obama. However, after her recent success with negative ads, Clinton is sure to use even more of them, which is reason number two for mourning.

Clinton is not going to get the majority of the pledged delegates at this point. She has to win all of the remaining states by at least 60% in order for that to happen, and it won't. If she runs enough negative ads, however, she might go into the convention with momentum and with most of the DNC on her side. If she then gets the nomination, it'll be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party, for a number of reasons.

Clinton is divisive. Her negative ads will only reinforce the hatred many people have for her. Many Republicans who don't like McCain will vote for him just to vote against Clinton. In short, Clinton will come out of the convention behind McCain and a Republican could win the Presidency again. And then the Iraqi occupation would go on. And on and on. Not to mention all the Bush taxcuts.

Please, DNC! Pick a candidate now! The party needs it before things get way ugly.

Ends-Means Analysis

2008-03-03T06:18:00.000-08:00

So there is a question that has plagued mankind since the beginning of time: do the ends justify the means? Or, more, specifically, when do the ends justify the means?

Being a liberal at an extremely conservative university, I have few friends that I feel comfortable talking politics with; that I feel will understand me when I try to make points. Politics is an amazingly broad topic, and as such, requires one to know a lot about a lot in order to really have an opinion about something. Since coming home from my mission, I have been actively searching for information on everything that even remotely relates to politics. I do not consider myself an informed person, though I am much more informed than I was 6 months ago when I first came home.

In order to facilitate my knowledge/understanding/growth, I joined the BYU Democrats (yes, I'm a liberal at BYU, maybe now that first paragraph carries a little more meaning). I have made many friends in the club, friends that I respect and from whom I have learned a great deal (and continue to). They are the aforementioned people, the few here I trust to talk politics with. They are also the only ones I feel comfortable sharing my personal inadequacies with: specifically relating to my lack of being informed on political topics.

Recently one of these close friends attacked me on not being adequately informed, something I personally struggle with already. While we are both liberal, he supports Clinton, while I support Obama. He attacked me on not knowing enough about Obama, something I've already confided in him; to make matters even more difficult, he debated with me about it just to prove his point.

As far as I can tell, someone can only have two reasons for accusing someone of something else: 1)that person doesn't realize their fault, or 2)they are not doing anything about it. Considering both statements are untrue of me, I am left with a troubling conundrum: why did this person do what he did? Was I wrong to befriend him? Am I just a glutton for punishment, unconsciously choosing those people who will take advantage of me for their own personal amusement? And what am I to do now with the rage he has so effectively drawn out in me?

Perhaps I could just forgive and forget if I could be sure that this was a one-time thing, but I'm fairly certain that it's exactly the opposite. I'm quite certain that he will keep attacking me where I'm softest. On the one hand, it's good, because I'm now much more motivated to know as much as possible. On the other hand, however, are my motivations righteous? Does that even matter, considering the ends are righteous? Or does the righteousness of the ends depend on the righteousness of the means? Where is the balance?

I am a firm believer that whatever can be accomplished by evil motivations can be accomplished by good motivations. Matter of fact, I strongly believe... no, I know that good motivations will always be able to outperform evil motivations; whether or not good motivations actually do is up to the person, but they will always be able to. So why does my friend (along with what seems like the vast majority of the world) insist on evoking evil intentions out of people, instead of accomplishing the same thing by evoking good intentions?

In the beginning...

2008-03-02T21:11:00.000-08:00

So, I finally decided to jump on the blogging bandwagon, for a number of reasons, actually. I guess the biggest reason is because I'm a complete failure at keeping a regular journal, and I figure that if I blog, some of my life experiences might make it past the neurons in my brain.

I'm unsure of what exactly to put on here... stories? ideas? complaints? I guess in the end the goal is to let you, the reader (right, because obviously people read this...), a sense of what life is like according to me. It was in that spirit that I finally decided on the title of my blog: setting for my story. Just so you know, I agonized over what to name this blog. I finally had to go to thesaurus.reference.com and just start searching for words that could give me ideas. The final product fits, though, so I'm content.

Anyway, thus begins my blog. Hopefully this will help me keep my journal. And maybe, just maybe, someone out there in this enormous internet universe will benefit.