Not surprisingly, someone has objected to the non-libertarian stand on the second amendment to which I alluded in the previous post. This is a slightly different subject, so I'm opening a new post.
I'm used to this. As an essentially conversative person living deep in Hunting Country whose opinions on gun control tend to surprise people, I get into this a lot. My position makes perfect sense to me, of course.
Anyway, today's writer correctly observes that the Constitution nowhere "grants Congress the power to forbid me from buying, owning, or using a firearm, a knife, a whip, a rock, or a stick for defense." Of course, the Constitution doesn't do a whole lot of things. It's a very short document. But leaving that aside, this writer is "open to debate about whether automatic rifles and bazookas are too extreme or whether there are some specific individuals that should not be able to bear arms," but wonders if I "think it wise to give government complete and utter control over who can defend themselves and how."
Here's my response:
To get a bit more fundamental, why does "the government" have the "right" to do anything? What is the purpose of government? (A related question: Why would people bring themselves together, organize, and voluntarily submit to the rule of law?) Why should the government have anything at all to do with law enforcement or with the safety and well-being of citizens? Who decides what is "extreme" about possessing any kind of instrument the sole purpose of which is to send a missile of destruction far away from the person holding the instrument? If not government (i.e., the collective will of the people), then who? So much of the law is drawing lines.
The questions form around where we draw the lines, and why. I don't know anyone personally who has ever successfully defended himself or herself with a gun except in time of war or in the line of duty as a police officer. A couple of people very near and dear to me, born and raised in other places, apparently do know such people, and quite naturally they and I are not of accord on second-amendment issues. Basically, they think I'm naive, which I probably am. I do know of children who have been killed by accidental discharge resulting from play with their parents' guns. And of course we all know about the havoc wreaked by crazy children who were able to obtain guns. So is the proper response that teachers should keep guns in their desks, just in case they need to mow somebody down? And then of course I have known quite a few belligerent, gun-totin' folks with quick tempers who tend to a high degree of self-righteous defensiveness. These facts color my opinions.
So .... Even more fundamentally, and this loops us back to our anonymous writer's question and to my previous post, I would pose this question: What should we(who?) defend, and how? But most importantly, why?
By now everyone knows that what concerns me most is the heart, for without pure love in our hearts, in the end, says the Lord, we are "nothing."
In the meantime, we have policy and laws to make or break. How, upon what principles, do we do this?
Admittedly, it's more fun to talk about hoarding Diet Coke.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Provident Living
A few people have noticed the lack of postings here, so I'll try to recitfy that. But first, excuses (which I know you all love).
1. Trying to lose weight. Takes a lot of concentration and uses up all the self-pity and creativity I posssess.
2. Spending time traveling to, preparing for, and visiting with family members from age 80 to newborn. Wonderful, but time- and energy-consuming.
That's it. The house and garden are no excuse.
But here's something I could throw out ... with extreme trepidation. In approaching this please maintain the kind of decorum, courtesy, and gentle good will that has characterized this blog in the past except for certain posts by Christian and Michael. I'd be happy if you wanted to support your assertions with scripture or other potentially de-polarizing sources. In other words, let's try to prove the contraries instead of winning the case.
(Deep breath.)
Scenario: You have followed wise counsel (or your own good sense) and are well-prepared for physical disaster. That is to say that you have a good year's supply of food, water, and basic necessities. Disaster occurs. Others near you are less prepared than you are. Some of them want what you have. What will you do? If you have also exercised what you mistakenly (following a recent opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States) think is your Constitutional Right and have sequestered arms and ammunition along with your other supplies, under what circumstances, if any, would you pull out the gun and shoot someone who wanted your stuff?
Serious questions raised by a friend's recent Relief Society lesson. GO!
P.S. After thinking on this a bit and considering my good friend's useful questions about weapons and the Constitution (see Arms and The Man post, above), I thought I might re-frame this issue a bit. Say that through hard work, provident living, and considerable sacrifice you have put away sufficient food, water, and supplies to preserve your family through hard times. Hard times come. Your bishop asks you to "consecrate" (i.e., turn over to him) all of your hard-earned storage (and receive back from him sufficient for your needs). This is just a thought question. No response necessary.
Of course, Josh's friend's Diet Coke solves that problem. The bishop wouldn't want it.
P.P.S.S. Christian and Michael, I love you! (Neither of these gentlemen, by the way, was the anonymous contributor who elicited Arms and The Man.)
1. Trying to lose weight. Takes a lot of concentration and uses up all the self-pity and creativity I posssess.
2. Spending time traveling to, preparing for, and visiting with family members from age 80 to newborn. Wonderful, but time- and energy-consuming.
That's it. The house and garden are no excuse.
But here's something I could throw out ... with extreme trepidation. In approaching this please maintain the kind of decorum, courtesy, and gentle good will that has characterized this blog in the past except for certain posts by Christian and Michael. I'd be happy if you wanted to support your assertions with scripture or other potentially de-polarizing sources. In other words, let's try to prove the contraries instead of winning the case.
(Deep breath.)
Scenario: You have followed wise counsel (or your own good sense) and are well-prepared for physical disaster. That is to say that you have a good year's supply of food, water, and basic necessities. Disaster occurs. Others near you are less prepared than you are. Some of them want what you have. What will you do? If you have also exercised what you mistakenly (following a recent opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States) think is your Constitutional Right and have sequestered arms and ammunition along with your other supplies, under what circumstances, if any, would you pull out the gun and shoot someone who wanted your stuff?
Serious questions raised by a friend's recent Relief Society lesson. GO!
P.S. After thinking on this a bit and considering my good friend's useful questions about weapons and the Constitution (see Arms and The Man post, above), I thought I might re-frame this issue a bit. Say that through hard work, provident living, and considerable sacrifice you have put away sufficient food, water, and supplies to preserve your family through hard times. Hard times come. Your bishop asks you to "consecrate" (i.e., turn over to him) all of your hard-earned storage (and receive back from him sufficient for your needs). This is just a thought question. No response necessary.
Of course, Josh's friend's Diet Coke solves that problem. The bishop wouldn't want it.
P.P.S.S. Christian and Michael, I love you! (Neither of these gentlemen, by the way, was the anonymous contributor who elicited Arms and The Man.)
Monday, May 4, 2009
Skill
Once again I bring the comments out onto a blog. You won't understand this one unless you start with a couple posts back ("Greetings!") and follow the conversation I'm having with my excellent friend, Graham. Who, by the way, is headed for BYU Law in the fall (congratulations, Graham), and as you can tell will do very well.
I wanted to clarify something I said earlier, so as not to leave the suggestion that I want in any way to denigrate the acquisition of skills, particularly in parenting or in any other interpersonal dimension. I have spent some time discovering, learning, and ... okay, I'll say "perfecting" ... skills that help me be a better parent. And during my brief career as a mediator and teacher of mediation techniques, I often heard people say that what they learned in mediation training had beneficial effects in their "daily life," especially in family relationships. The thing is, skills are morally neutral, which is why I suggested to Graham that we should try to discover why we are yelling at the kids. Am I a "naturally" irritable person with poor impulse control? Am I emotionally damaged from a lack of nurturing in my own childhood? Do I come from a culture where yelling is the norm in family life? And what do I think about this? Do I think yelling is a character flaw? Do I fail to see that I'm am "taking it out on the family" when something else is really the source of my anger? Are my children particularly annoying? Do I have more of them than a human being can possibly deal with?
I have known emotionally cold people who never yell at the their children but damage them nevertheless. I have known emotionally volatile people who yell all the time, and nobody seems the worse for wear. However, has anybody (maybe you, Mike, as I recall?) had an experience where a Church leader said something about certain tendencies or inculturated habits (such as emotional volatility or attitudes men might have towards women and children) being nevertheless inexcusable? Anyway, skills are skills and can be used for good or ill.
Say I develop awareness, learn all sorts of skills and techniques, practice impulse control. Learn to be kind, all that. That's good. Beneficial for me and my family. But such skills are also learned for unholy purposes. To advance oneself socially or politically. To build a strong downline (get gain). I know people who unabashedly teach that you should love your employees in order to increase productivity. We're not going to argue the result. But the motives seem to me cynical, manipulative, and therefore unholy. Even in the presence of a "good" result. An elementary school principal patiently explained to me when I complained that a tight system of rewards and punishments was depriving the children of the opportunity to understand and develop healthy internal motivations: "Well, Mrs. Thayer. Most of our patrons appreciate the improvement in behavior that our program has brought about." Yeah, well. I saw a goodly number of those kids after hours.
I Corinthians 13 doesn't say that almsgiving and prophesying don't have good results if the motives are improper. It just says that as far as the actor goes, there is no eternal benefit.
Anyway, these issues deserve attention, because they have to do with nothing less than this: Who is God? And how do we become as God is? Here's what I couldn't get quite right in all the years of my youthful striving: Be still, and know.
What do you DO, though, when you lift your head? You do as the Spirit directs. But you're not a robot, so being prepared, knowledgeable, skillful is good. Give the Spirit something to work with.
Are we getting closer, Graham?
I wanted to clarify something I said earlier, so as not to leave the suggestion that I want in any way to denigrate the acquisition of skills, particularly in parenting or in any other interpersonal dimension. I have spent some time discovering, learning, and ... okay, I'll say "perfecting" ... skills that help me be a better parent. And during my brief career as a mediator and teacher of mediation techniques, I often heard people say that what they learned in mediation training had beneficial effects in their "daily life," especially in family relationships. The thing is, skills are morally neutral, which is why I suggested to Graham that we should try to discover why we are yelling at the kids. Am I a "naturally" irritable person with poor impulse control? Am I emotionally damaged from a lack of nurturing in my own childhood? Do I come from a culture where yelling is the norm in family life? And what do I think about this? Do I think yelling is a character flaw? Do I fail to see that I'm am "taking it out on the family" when something else is really the source of my anger? Are my children particularly annoying? Do I have more of them than a human being can possibly deal with?
I have known emotionally cold people who never yell at the their children but damage them nevertheless. I have known emotionally volatile people who yell all the time, and nobody seems the worse for wear. However, has anybody (maybe you, Mike, as I recall?) had an experience where a Church leader said something about certain tendencies or inculturated habits (such as emotional volatility or attitudes men might have towards women and children) being nevertheless inexcusable? Anyway, skills are skills and can be used for good or ill.
Say I develop awareness, learn all sorts of skills and techniques, practice impulse control. Learn to be kind, all that. That's good. Beneficial for me and my family. But such skills are also learned for unholy purposes. To advance oneself socially or politically. To build a strong downline (get gain). I know people who unabashedly teach that you should love your employees in order to increase productivity. We're not going to argue the result. But the motives seem to me cynical, manipulative, and therefore unholy. Even in the presence of a "good" result. An elementary school principal patiently explained to me when I complained that a tight system of rewards and punishments was depriving the children of the opportunity to understand and develop healthy internal motivations: "Well, Mrs. Thayer. Most of our patrons appreciate the improvement in behavior that our program has brought about." Yeah, well. I saw a goodly number of those kids after hours.
I Corinthians 13 doesn't say that almsgiving and prophesying don't have good results if the motives are improper. It just says that as far as the actor goes, there is no eternal benefit.
Anyway, these issues deserve attention, because they have to do with nothing less than this: Who is God? And how do we become as God is? Here's what I couldn't get quite right in all the years of my youthful striving: Be still, and know.
What do you DO, though, when you lift your head? You do as the Spirit directs. But you're not a robot, so being prepared, knowledgeable, skillful is good. Give the Spirit something to work with.
Are we getting closer, Graham?
Perfection
Graham and I are having a conversation under the "Greetings" blog that I'd like to bring into focus, because it's a topic that has for a long time been very important to me. Check Graham's last post about training. Here is my response:
Logically speaking (and in reality, I think), a product (training) orientation can never lead to wholeness, which is what "perfection" is. I'm happy that the "new" annotated LDS scriptures (the ones you all grew up with) contain in the footnote to Matthew 5:48 an explanation of "perfect" as it would have been understood in a 1611 translation of teleios into English: "complete, finished, fully developed." (Think teleology, that which something is fundamentally, in and of itself. Think whole number; the Latin equivalent is integer; think integrity.) And think about this in the context of D&C 67:13: "Ye are not able to abide the presence of God now, neither the ministering of angels; wherefore, continue in patience until ye are perfected." Made whole, made what you fundamentally are, without that which holds you from perfection, constrains, tempts, pollutes you, holds you back, draws you away. Made complete, increased in capacity and then filled with the knowledge, power, and will to goodness that makes you (like) God.
The problem with a checklist/training/product orientation is that you CANNOT be perfected (made whole) that way. It's an impatient, self-directed, finite, never-ending process looking outside itself, toward an end, a goal, a product. If you proceed in increments (think Zeno's arrow), there will always be another increment. Perfection can't be linear. Infinity isn't linear. That's Greek thinking, with the head. The Hebrew thinking, with the heart, is circular. All truth is circumscribed into one great whole. As a man thinketh in his heart, so IS he. It can happen in a moment for the person prepared, as that person completely submits to the will of God and becomes a new creature in Christ, whole. And it can be lost in an instant, as we turn from the center (Christ) and veer off on a tangent. This is a process, to be sure, but involving yielding not striving, one with which we must have patience, working out our salvation with fear (awe) and trembling, before the Lord. While we are in mortality, we'll never finish, it will never "hold" (unless we have our callings and elections "made sure" by the presence of the Lord Himself). But if we are experienced in the process, we are ready at the end of mortality to enter into the Rest of the Lord, to come into His presence and know His Glory.
This is why charity (love, an emotion/will/capacity, not a series of actions) is the greatest of all the spiritual gifts, and the one without which, in the end, we are "nothing," all our actions being (in) vain. Wholeness implies a condition/state of being. God is (has become) LOVE. He is no-thing other. He acts only out of wholeness, and having no disposition to do evil, he can only do good. That is perfection.
Here's something: We don't learn "things" in the temple. We learn a way of being. Think of how your (one's, my) problem with your temper utterly vanishes in certain contexts. Instantly. God doesn't get up in the morning and say, Wow, Lucifer really makes me angry, so I'd better get that under better control. God is what he does. (Does what he is.) Because he is love. I don't think this is like hitting the perfect tennis ball without thought because I have trained myself over and over again to do it. It's that my whole body is filled with light, and there is no darkness in me. Missing the ball is not an option. Nor is missing anything else, regardless of whether I have ever tried it before.
I can't stress enough how important this is. Is has taken me most of my adult life to shake off the shackles of accomplishment, striving, the training/product mentality that got me where I am today (and I'm glad of it) and in the meantime plunged me into a depression I couldn't pray myself out of. When there was no one else to measure myself against, I would measure myself against myself. It was never enough. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I didn't.
I have been studying this matter since I was a 19-year-old freshman. That's more than 40 years now. When my big crash came (just under 25 years ago, just after my adorable Mikey was born), I had already been pondering love and accomplishment for many years. In the old days before these new editions of scriptures were produced, without a reliable concordance, I had to go through the Standard Works line-by-line to find all the references to love. So I understood the thing intellectually pretty well before the stresses of striving for perfection (6 kids in 9 years and no report card to tell me how I was doing) got me. I pondered taking drugs for the depression, as the doctor ordered. But instead, through a combination of hard work that I called "scrupulous mental hygiene" and a re-ordering of my understanding of God, I came out of it. After about 15 years.
Sounds like training, doesn't it? I re-trained my brain. So this is the sense in which you are surely right, Graham. I have treated this issue at some length elsewhere, as some of you already know. In a nutshell, it's a mortal paradox. We live in a time-bound sphere in which scarcity makes competition necessary. And we are aiming for eternity, where abundance makes competition pure evil.
I'll leave you with that for now. I have to go mow the back lawn before it rains. AGAIN!
Love to all on a Monday morning!
P.S. Could it be that Graham and I are merely exhibiting the typical masculine/feminine, Greek/Hebraic, spear/vessel, linear/circular, mechanical/organic polar modes of thinking about the same thing, both of which modes are necessary to the comprehending of Reality? (The kind of "opposition" in all things ... note not rival but necessary ... that "must needs be"?) The "proving" of which contraries will yield ... eventually, finally ... Truth? (Which is ultimately experiential, contextual, not factual?) Hey, hey!
It's all in the process. The means doesn't justify the end, it IS the end! Or is this just another example of my mode at work? Can I no longer even think outside of it? Wait, but I AM thinking, and striving. Hm.
The problem is that I'm back inside blogging because I couldn't get the lawn mower started, so I have to wait until my husband comes home and figures it out. I lack both experience with and information about this mower. It's not that I'm a girl; it's that I'm lawn-mower challenged. Actually, it IS that I'm a girl and am mowing the lawn only for exercise. I certainly did mow as many lawns in my youth as my brother did, but since I've had husband and sons ....
Never mind.
Logically speaking (and in reality, I think), a product (training) orientation can never lead to wholeness, which is what "perfection" is. I'm happy that the "new" annotated LDS scriptures (the ones you all grew up with) contain in the footnote to Matthew 5:48 an explanation of "perfect" as it would have been understood in a 1611 translation of teleios into English: "complete, finished, fully developed." (Think teleology, that which something is fundamentally, in and of itself. Think whole number; the Latin equivalent is integer; think integrity.) And think about this in the context of D&C 67:13: "Ye are not able to abide the presence of God now, neither the ministering of angels; wherefore, continue in patience until ye are perfected." Made whole, made what you fundamentally are, without that which holds you from perfection, constrains, tempts, pollutes you, holds you back, draws you away. Made complete, increased in capacity and then filled with the knowledge, power, and will to goodness that makes you (like) God.
The problem with a checklist/training/product orientation is that you CANNOT be perfected (made whole) that way. It's an impatient, self-directed, finite, never-ending process looking outside itself, toward an end, a goal, a product. If you proceed in increments (think Zeno's arrow), there will always be another increment. Perfection can't be linear. Infinity isn't linear. That's Greek thinking, with the head. The Hebrew thinking, with the heart, is circular. All truth is circumscribed into one great whole. As a man thinketh in his heart, so IS he. It can happen in a moment for the person prepared, as that person completely submits to the will of God and becomes a new creature in Christ, whole. And it can be lost in an instant, as we turn from the center (Christ) and veer off on a tangent. This is a process, to be sure, but involving yielding not striving, one with which we must have patience, working out our salvation with fear (awe) and trembling, before the Lord. While we are in mortality, we'll never finish, it will never "hold" (unless we have our callings and elections "made sure" by the presence of the Lord Himself). But if we are experienced in the process, we are ready at the end of mortality to enter into the Rest of the Lord, to come into His presence and know His Glory.
This is why charity (love, an emotion/will/capacity, not a series of actions) is the greatest of all the spiritual gifts, and the one without which, in the end, we are "nothing," all our actions being (in) vain. Wholeness implies a condition/state of being. God is (has become) LOVE. He is no-thing other. He acts only out of wholeness, and having no disposition to do evil, he can only do good. That is perfection.
Here's something: We don't learn "things" in the temple. We learn a way of being. Think of how your (one's, my) problem with your temper utterly vanishes in certain contexts. Instantly. God doesn't get up in the morning and say, Wow, Lucifer really makes me angry, so I'd better get that under better control. God is what he does. (Does what he is.) Because he is love. I don't think this is like hitting the perfect tennis ball without thought because I have trained myself over and over again to do it. It's that my whole body is filled with light, and there is no darkness in me. Missing the ball is not an option. Nor is missing anything else, regardless of whether I have ever tried it before.
I can't stress enough how important this is. Is has taken me most of my adult life to shake off the shackles of accomplishment, striving, the training/product mentality that got me where I am today (and I'm glad of it) and in the meantime plunged me into a depression I couldn't pray myself out of. When there was no one else to measure myself against, I would measure myself against myself. It was never enough. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I didn't.
I have been studying this matter since I was a 19-year-old freshman. That's more than 40 years now. When my big crash came (just under 25 years ago, just after my adorable Mikey was born), I had already been pondering love and accomplishment for many years. In the old days before these new editions of scriptures were produced, without a reliable concordance, I had to go through the Standard Works line-by-line to find all the references to love. So I understood the thing intellectually pretty well before the stresses of striving for perfection (6 kids in 9 years and no report card to tell me how I was doing) got me. I pondered taking drugs for the depression, as the doctor ordered. But instead, through a combination of hard work that I called "scrupulous mental hygiene" and a re-ordering of my understanding of God, I came out of it. After about 15 years.
Sounds like training, doesn't it? I re-trained my brain. So this is the sense in which you are surely right, Graham. I have treated this issue at some length elsewhere, as some of you already know. In a nutshell, it's a mortal paradox. We live in a time-bound sphere in which scarcity makes competition necessary. And we are aiming for eternity, where abundance makes competition pure evil.
I'll leave you with that for now. I have to go mow the back lawn before it rains. AGAIN!
Love to all on a Monday morning!
P.S. Could it be that Graham and I are merely exhibiting the typical masculine/feminine, Greek/Hebraic, spear/vessel, linear/circular, mechanical/organic polar modes of thinking about the same thing, both of which modes are necessary to the comprehending of Reality? (The kind of "opposition" in all things ... note not rival but necessary ... that "must needs be"?) The "proving" of which contraries will yield ... eventually, finally ... Truth? (Which is ultimately experiential, contextual, not factual?) Hey, hey!
It's all in the process. The means doesn't justify the end, it IS the end! Or is this just another example of my mode at work? Can I no longer even think outside of it? Wait, but I AM thinking, and striving. Hm.
The problem is that I'm back inside blogging because I couldn't get the lawn mower started, so I have to wait until my husband comes home and figures it out. I lack both experience with and information about this mower. It's not that I'm a girl; it's that I'm lawn-mower challenged. Actually, it IS that I'm a girl and am mowing the lawn only for exercise. I certainly did mow as many lawns in my youth as my brother did, but since I've had husband and sons ....
Never mind.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Greetings!
Welcome to a couple of new followers since I last checked! And greetings to you all. Just wanted to report that I'm still alive and invested in the blog. But ....
It was Doug's 80th birthday on the 19th, and we've had family reunion going on here at home and in cyberspace for a couple of weeks. (Congratulations by the way to Michael the Contentious and his beautiful, charming, calm, supportive wife, Jill, who welcomed Owen Michael on the 18th and celebrated Abigail Jane's second birthday on the 20th in a city far away.)
I wanted to take a minute to suggest something to you while I'm occupied with playing with grandchildren: The Complete Christian by Robert S. Wood. (I once bought up all copies available through Amazon.com, but try again if you're interested.) Those of you who were in class with me Fall '08 know about Brother/Elder Wood, member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy and former dean of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies and the U.S. Naval War College. Has degrees from Stanford (BA) and Harvard (MA, PhD). If you haven't done it already, you might want to Google him.
Elder Wood brings together a number of useful sources—from Moses to Kurt Cobain—as he works his way through his own ideas. Early in the book he quotes something from Brigham Young that I find worth pondering in light of some questions we've raised here:
Except I am one with my good brethren, do not say that I am a Latter-day Saint. We must be one. Our faith must be concentrated in one great work—the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth, and our works must aim at the accomplishment of that great purpose.
We have got to be united in our efforts. We should go to work with a united faith like the heart of one man; and whatever we do should be performed in the name of the Lord, and we will then be blessed and prospered in all we do. We have a work on hand whose magnitude can hardly be told.
It is also our duty to love the Gospel and the spirit of the Gospel, so that we can become one in the Lord, not out of Him, that our faith, our affections for truth, the kingdom of heaven, our acts, all our labor will be concentrated in the salvation of the children of men and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth. This is cooperation on a very large scale. This is the work of redemption that is entered into by the Latter-day Saints. Unitedly we perform these duties, we stand, we endure, we increase and multiply, we strengthen and spread abroad, and shall continue so to do until the kingdoms of this world are the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Deseret Book, 1956, p. 284.)
It was Doug's 80th birthday on the 19th, and we've had family reunion going on here at home and in cyberspace for a couple of weeks. (Congratulations by the way to Michael the Contentious and his beautiful, charming, calm, supportive wife, Jill, who welcomed Owen Michael on the 18th and celebrated Abigail Jane's second birthday on the 20th in a city far away.)
I wanted to take a minute to suggest something to you while I'm occupied with playing with grandchildren: The Complete Christian by Robert S. Wood. (I once bought up all copies available through Amazon.com, but try again if you're interested.) Those of you who were in class with me Fall '08 know about Brother/Elder Wood, member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy and former dean of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies and the U.S. Naval War College. Has degrees from Stanford (BA) and Harvard (MA, PhD). If you haven't done it already, you might want to Google him.
Elder Wood brings together a number of useful sources—from Moses to Kurt Cobain—as he works his way through his own ideas. Early in the book he quotes something from Brigham Young that I find worth pondering in light of some questions we've raised here:
Except I am one with my good brethren, do not say that I am a Latter-day Saint. We must be one. Our faith must be concentrated in one great work—the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth, and our works must aim at the accomplishment of that great purpose.
We have got to be united in our efforts. We should go to work with a united faith like the heart of one man; and whatever we do should be performed in the name of the Lord, and we will then be blessed and prospered in all we do. We have a work on hand whose magnitude can hardly be told.
It is also our duty to love the Gospel and the spirit of the Gospel, so that we can become one in the Lord, not out of Him, that our faith, our affections for truth, the kingdom of heaven, our acts, all our labor will be concentrated in the salvation of the children of men and the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth. This is cooperation on a very large scale. This is the work of redemption that is entered into by the Latter-day Saints. Unitedly we perform these duties, we stand, we endure, we increase and multiply, we strengthen and spread abroad, and shall continue so to do until the kingdoms of this world are the kingdoms of our God and His Christ. (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Deseret Book, 1956, p. 284.)
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Oneness, a Thought Experiment
I have been receiving e-mail messages from people who are following the blog on the sly, and this morning someone mentioned that he would like to hear my response to the question I asked a bit ago, What does it mean to be one?
Of course you all know that I am a bit more interested in that than I am in discovering the Ultimate Truth about Climate Change and What We Should(n't) Do About It, the answer to which is very important but seems to me is going to depend as much as anything else on your politics. As much as I care about ideas, I care more about people and relationship. (Is this a "feminine" thing?)
So here are some questions that have come to my mind as we took off into the climate thing:
1. How do we find truth (even veracity) in this Age of Information?
2. How do we trust, when Self-Interest replaces God as the ultimate guide to human behavior?
3. How are we godly together ("one") when our opinions put us at odds with one another, perhaps even passionately at odds?
To explore these questions, I propose that instead of thinking about how, oh, Christian and Mike might try to speak nicely to one another, we could imagine instead, say, that Glenn Beck and Harry Reid were to end up in the same high priests quorum.
Brother Harry and Brother Glenn would probably get along fine at a cannery assignment or during a disaster clean-up. (Neither would be very good with a chain saw, though.) But let's say they were sitting together in a priesthood lesson about Our Divinely Inspired Constitution. Or let's say the Becks and the Reids ended up in the same temple session one day and at a certain moment needed to decide whether they felt good about being there together.
As you might know, both Harry Reid and Glenn Beck are converts to the Church, each having found something profoundly helpful in the gospel and in the LDS community. I have heard each of them bear testimony to this fact. They weren't born into the Church: they CHOSE it, and they find peace and strength in their choice. (I also know that both of them meet a great deal of criticism from members of the Church, so I can only hope they can continue to find peace and strength in the community.)
I think I'll leave you for the moment with this thought experiment. If you don't know who Glenn Beck is, just think of the most vocal and uninhibited gun-totin' extreme anti-Obama Libertarian person you know. If you don't know who Harry Reid is, shame on you. I know you're busy, but you shouldn't be THAT busy.
Okay. Get back to me.
P.S. I know that some of you have begun to address this issue in your comments to previous posts. Andrea, Calvin, Graham, for example. And there are some pretty basic answers we all know. I just know that this is a day-to-day problem for me, so in my view, we can't think of it too often. I hear from many of you that you're reading the Book of Mormon with particular vigor at the moment. Some are relishing the New Testament, and we're all studying D&C this year. Anybody reading the OLD Testament? Feel free to send along favorite scriptures that address these issues.
Bottom line: What do you do with your emotions when you feel very strongly that someone else is WRONG and that someone is a brother or sister in the gospel? How do you love a nearby "enemy"? What will the Kingdom of God (say, in the millennium, on earth I mean) look like? Will we all agree on everything???? Are our disagreements merely a matter of perspective? Are they just "points of view"? Just toss these things around in your mind a bit?
Of course you all know that I am a bit more interested in that than I am in discovering the Ultimate Truth about Climate Change and What We Should(n't) Do About It, the answer to which is very important but seems to me is going to depend as much as anything else on your politics. As much as I care about ideas, I care more about people and relationship. (Is this a "feminine" thing?)
So here are some questions that have come to my mind as we took off into the climate thing:
1. How do we find truth (even veracity) in this Age of Information?
2. How do we trust, when Self-Interest replaces God as the ultimate guide to human behavior?
3. How are we godly together ("one") when our opinions put us at odds with one another, perhaps even passionately at odds?
To explore these questions, I propose that instead of thinking about how, oh, Christian and Mike might try to speak nicely to one another, we could imagine instead, say, that Glenn Beck and Harry Reid were to end up in the same high priests quorum.
Brother Harry and Brother Glenn would probably get along fine at a cannery assignment or during a disaster clean-up. (Neither would be very good with a chain saw, though.) But let's say they were sitting together in a priesthood lesson about Our Divinely Inspired Constitution. Or let's say the Becks and the Reids ended up in the same temple session one day and at a certain moment needed to decide whether they felt good about being there together.
As you might know, both Harry Reid and Glenn Beck are converts to the Church, each having found something profoundly helpful in the gospel and in the LDS community. I have heard each of them bear testimony to this fact. They weren't born into the Church: they CHOSE it, and they find peace and strength in their choice. (I also know that both of them meet a great deal of criticism from members of the Church, so I can only hope they can continue to find peace and strength in the community.)
I think I'll leave you for the moment with this thought experiment. If you don't know who Glenn Beck is, just think of the most vocal and uninhibited gun-totin' extreme anti-Obama Libertarian person you know. If you don't know who Harry Reid is, shame on you. I know you're busy, but you shouldn't be THAT busy.
Okay. Get back to me.
P.S. I know that some of you have begun to address this issue in your comments to previous posts. Andrea, Calvin, Graham, for example. And there are some pretty basic answers we all know. I just know that this is a day-to-day problem for me, so in my view, we can't think of it too often. I hear from many of you that you're reading the Book of Mormon with particular vigor at the moment. Some are relishing the New Testament, and we're all studying D&C this year. Anybody reading the OLD Testament? Feel free to send along favorite scriptures that address these issues.
Bottom line: What do you do with your emotions when you feel very strongly that someone else is WRONG and that someone is a brother or sister in the gospel? How do you love a nearby "enemy"? What will the Kingdom of God (say, in the millennium, on earth I mean) look like? Will we all agree on everything???? Are our disagreements merely a matter of perspective? Are they just "points of view"? Just toss these things around in your mind a bit?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Consensus?
I found this piece today in a news source I shall refrain from identifying. Let's just say that the source definitely would be guilty of ideology. The Cato Institute (cited in the source) is of course a Libertarian group. The same group that hailed Lawrence v. Texas as a return to the fundamental freedoms envisioned by the Founders. You just can't be sure where the ideology of Libertarians will take them. If you're seeing the world as either conservative or liberal, I mean. (Funny what has happened to words deriving from liber, isn't it?)
(Adam P: If you're reading this, why don't you weigh in on freedom and liberty and privacy and stuff.)
Anyway, can anybody verify the contents of this? I'm embarrassed to say that I don't follow this issue except through the opinions of others. I mean, I don't even read climatologists let alone evaluate them. From where I've been sitting this winter and spring, the world is definitely getting cooler. I've always been a stewardship/recycling/conserving/nature-loving kind of person. I was really glad when Geneva Steel shut down and stopped polluting the valley air. The carbon credits idea seems kind of stupid, or at least unworkable, to me. That's about it for me.
(Another aside: Interesting that when we read "with all due respect" we can be certain that disrespect is about to follow.)
Here it is:
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.” The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state: “We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University, U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas, University of Oklahoma, University of Colorado, and University of Missouri. Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
(Adam P: If you're reading this, why don't you weigh in on freedom and liberty and privacy and stuff.)
Anyway, can anybody verify the contents of this? I'm embarrassed to say that I don't follow this issue except through the opinions of others. I mean, I don't even read climatologists let alone evaluate them. From where I've been sitting this winter and spring, the world is definitely getting cooler. I've always been a stewardship/recycling/conserving/nature-loving kind of person. I was really glad when Geneva Steel shut down and stopped polluting the valley air. The carbon credits idea seems kind of stupid, or at least unworkable, to me. That's about it for me.
(Another aside: Interesting that when we read "with all due respect" we can be certain that disrespect is about to follow.)
Here it is:
Over 100 prominent scientists from more than a dozen countries — including a Nobel Prize winner — have signed a letter to President Barack Obama charging that his views on climate change are “simply incorrect.” The letter — sponsored by the Cato Institute — cites a statement Obama made in November: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
Under the headline, “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true,” the scientists state: “We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now…
“The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.”
The 115 signatories include Ivar Giaever, Ph.D., who shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for his work with superconductors at General Electric; John Blaylock, formerly with the Los Alamos National Laboratory; Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and William Gray, Ph.D., the respected hurricane expert at Colorado State University.
The signers include scientists at Princeton University, U.S. Naval Academy, University of Kansas, University of Oklahoma, University of Colorado, and University of Missouri. Among the countries represented by the signers are Britain, Canada, Italy, Norway, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina and South Africa.
A number of the scientists are current or former reviewers with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with climate change crusader Al Gore — and have since reversed their views on man-made global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
