It is socially unacceptable, generally speaking, to compare people to Hitler.
Despite this, Trump is starting to be compared off and on to Hitler. This seems excessive if you think of Hitler as the leader of Germany in WWII.
But if you think of him as Hitler, circa 1931, the comparison is rather apt. Both are polarizing characters that are gifted speakers who are collecting hurting, angry, hungry people and promising to solve all their problems if they would give in to their basest desires, accept hate, and follow him. Then, as now, there were hundreds of people whose lives were crushed under economic disaster that the governments wouldn't or couldn't fix, and those people were angry and desperate for change. A person who could sweep in and propose a solution was magical to them. Trump is not the result of decades of polarization, like people claim. Trump is the result of a single decade of economic ruin that the government has failed to fix despite their assurances that the economy is better and things are looking up. Trump is promising to stop lying to the people and fix things for them, so they aren't stuck in economic stagnation. Why wouldn't they follow him no matter how vile he is? It was the same for Hitler.
Watching Trump's rise to power this year has reminded me distinctly of an article I read in one of the old magazines in my antique book collection. A young man in 1931 met Hitler, listened to him speak, and reported on it for the LDS Church. In 1931, Hitler was not in power yet. He was in exactly the same position as Trump is, traveling the country and collecting followers.
The article is not easy to access anymore, but you can read it here: https://ia600309.us.archive.org/13/items/improvementera3501unse/improvementera3501unse.pdf
Go to "Adolf Hitler: The Man and His Ideas," on page 15 (pdf page, not magazine page, and finishing up on page 56-7, also pdf page, not magazine page).
In case you can't read it, here is the text: "Adolf Hitler The Man and His Ideas By Wendell C. Irvine
" PICTURE a crowd of some
four thousand people assembled
in a huge auditorium
in Oldenburg, Germany, on a Saturday afternoon of October, 1930. Women, and many of them wearing
costly apparel, are in the majority,
but well-built young men
in their early twenties are also strongly represented. Most of the
latter are dressed in the inevitable brown shirts, sand-brown belts and corduroy breeches of the German Fascisti. Four thousand people
sitting eager and tense with
expectation, four thousand pairs of eyes trained on the speakers' platform, and four thousand figures rising to their feet with one
accord as the next speaker is introduced and making the large hall reverberate with the thunderous
salutation, "Hoch! — Hoch! —
Hocht" A man not much over forty years, of slender build and
pleasing countenance stands before
the vast assemblage, raises his right hand in the Fascist salute, and
with a penetrating voice speaks: "Germans! I give you greeting!"
It is the voice of the "magician,"
of the German "hypnotist," and
its every tone and shade of quality seem to say—"Introducing Adolf
Hitler, spell-binder, par excellence, orator unexcelled, and Napoleon
of oral conflict!"
"It was on this occasion that I saw Hitler for the first time, and
during the half hour that he spoke
I formed my first impressions of him and the organization over which he presides. I believe I was
the only American in the audience, and I had come there prompted more by idle curiosity than personal interest, but inhaling the highly intensified atmosphere of hero worship radjiated by those around me, and,—my knowledge
of German permitting—listening
to the man himself, I, too, succumbed to his magic, fell under
the spell of his wand, and felt almost forced to agree with my
neighbor in saying that a new and
brighter star had appeared in the
political constellation of the world. A few hours later in my hotel room, where I was able to think
reasonably once more, I gave myself
up to analytical thought, and
concluded that Adolf Hitler wasn't
as great as Bismarck after all, that
the content of his speech that afternoon was inclined to border on
radicalism, and that his speech was
greatly enhanced by the ideal conditions
under which he spoke.
However, even in the face of my
sudden return to saneness, I was
forced to admit that he was the
greatest orator I had ever heard, and that while his personality was
not akin to greatness, it was a dominating, compelling force that would play a salient role in the unfolding of the new German history. Whether for good or evil,
it was a power that would be felt.
"GOING down to dinner that evening I was somewhat surprised to see an unusually large crowd in the lobby, and on making
inquiry as to the cause of the congestion I was informed that
Hitler and his contingent were
staying at this hotel. I jokingly remarked to the hotel attendant with whom I was talking that I
would like to meet this Herr Hitler. Without a moment's hesitation he
told me that he thought it might
be arranged, and not leaving me
time to protest, made his way over
to a group of Fascist leaders, brought one of them over to where
I was standing, and told him I was an American student who was
desirous of meeting Hitler if it could be arranged conveniently.
The Fascist lieutenant greeted me
with the precise military bow so often seen in Germany, and seemed
to think it his duty to entertain me for the moment. He gave me
a short outline of the political situation, and although his ideas were
decidedly a la Hitler, I gleaned information that was of great interest
to me inasmuch as I had now resolved to at least gain an
understanding of Fascism and what it meant to the German nation.
We had not been talking more than a very few minutes when Hitler himself, accompanied
by his various aides and body
guards, left the elevator and strode
across the lobby. My newly made
friend interrupted him in his march, saluted, and with marked
deference and respect asked if he
could be permitted to introduce "a young American scholar." (I take my bow.) And before I was
aware of just what was happening,
I was shaking the hand of Adolf
Hitler, the would-be Dictator of Germany, and answering the casual
questions which he politely asked. This whole incident did not take more than three minutes, but in that short time I availed myself of the limited opportunity
of studying the man at close range and tried, funny as it may sound,
to get an insight into his character.
"HITLER is a very handsome
man. Of medium height and
slender physique he does not make
an imposing figure, but his confident carriage, and the manner in which he holds his head up in the
air discount whatever physical
faults he might have. He has
straight black hair, a clear, browned
skin, and dark eyes that seem
to betray his every emotion. His
thin-lipped mouth is bordered by
a bristling Charlie Chaplin moustache,
and his jaw, which seems
out of proportion to the rest of
his features, is alone evidence of
the power, determination and resolution of the man. Had I not known to whom I was being introduced, I would have thought
the man before me to be a mild-mannered, intelligent member of
the upper middle classes, or perhaps a fairly successful business man. But instead of that, I had
met "Handsome Adolf,'5" the super-romantic hero of Germany's innumerable romantic women, the
recipient of countless "mash" notes and gifts from ladies of noble birth,
all of whom, meaning women in
general, he is said to detest. And
while he is a delightful figure of romance to the opposite sex, the men find in him the consummate
genius of leadership, hail him as
their champion, boast of his great courage, and hold his methods of
discipline in great respect. It is certainly an interesting paradox
that the man who awakens the romantic hero love in women, as exemplified
in the movie-star worship
of the members of the fair
sex, should at the same time arouse men from the bitterness of despair and hopelessness and cause them
to recognize him as a dominant
leader for whom they would gladly
go to war. Hitler, being a subtle artist, fully understands the
strings which he must pull to bring about the desired movements of
his marionettes. His greatest instrument and almost never failing friend is his remarkable gift of
oratory, and in discussions of a
political nature he is almost invincible.
A well-known German
military official has said of him:'
"If you are hostile to him you
Continued from
page 1
3
feel physically exhausted after resisting his talk. He takes control
of the conversation from the instant it begins and never lets up.'' We have considered the man more
or less from a human angle, now
let us regard the facts of his life which led up to his prominence.
"ADOLF HITLER was born in 1889, in the small border town of Braunau in upper Austria
of humble parents, and spent the
early part of his life there following
the trades of sign painting and carpentry, until, as a young
man, he moved to Munich, a distance of one hundred miles from
his home, where he began the study
of architecture. At the advent of
the world war, in 1914, he enlisted
as a private, and served with
distinction during the following
four years, being once gassed and
once wounded. At the conclusion
of the struggle he made his headquarters
in Munich once more, and
in 1922 his political career began.
Capitalizing upon his oratorical powers, he made impromptu
speeches in the beer-halls of Munich,
denouncing the post-war political
regime and painting a picture of a futuristic Utopia. He also told his beer garden clientelle that American banks are controlled 99% by Jews (Attention Messrs. Morgan!), flayed the Monarchists,
derided the Catholics, and treated
the Socialists and Republicans with
equally eloquent contempt. It was
not long before the name of Hitler was well known throughout Bavaria,
and it was a year later, that
Hitler, with the backing of the beloved General LudendorfF, walked
into a huge beer hall where a mass meeting was being held by
several town officials, fired a couple
of shots into the ceiling to gain
silence, and proclaimed the National
Revolution. He guaranteed
safety for von Kahr, the presiding
official, if he would accompany
them from the hall, and within a few minutes talked him into joining the movement of the revolutionists.
Hitler's forces filled the
streets, but the next day von Kahr
was visited by two decidedly anti-Hitler men in the persons of the Archbishop of Munich and Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, who succeeded in bringing him back to his
senses. As a result, the city police were called out to clear the streets. and a sharp machine gun skirmish ensued between them and a detachment of Hitler's forces commanded
by LudendorfF himself. The Hitlerites
were routed, and Hitler and
Ludendorff forced to flee from Munich.
They were both apprehended
however, and brought back for
trial. Hitler made a speech to the
jury, and for the first time his oratory was futile. He was sentenced to five years in prison by a weeping judge, and Ludendorff,
because of his great war record was
acquitted. Upon hearing the verdict,
Ludendorff, arrayed in a colorful uniform, and bearing all his decorations, arose to his feet and
said: "I consider that verdict an
insult to the uniform I wear and
a disgrace to the decorations of valor which the Fatherland has given me." The verdict remained
as given, and Hitler went to prison while Ludendorff was freed. It is said that the prison officials wanted
to give Hitler deaf prison guards
for fear he would make a speech
to them and gain his freedom.
"THE second and greatest stage of Hitler's political career began immediately after his release from prison, his sentence having
been commuted after one year's servitude. Beginning in Thuringia,—the
only province in which
he was still allowed to make a public address,—and aided by the conditions of the times, he began
to sow his political seed once more. After his conviction in Munich the world had laughed and proceeded
to forget the pretentious "fanatic," who had caused such a stir, but in 1930, when, aided by one of the most serious depressions of all time, Hitler again came before the public eye, worldly opinion stopped to ponder and consider his
case.
"In 1928 Hitler's party won 12
seats in the Reichstag, or less than
3 % of the seats in that body. In the September elections of 1930 the same party won 107 seats, or 20%
of the total number, and became
the second strongest party in the land. Hitler, who because of his service in the German army had
lost his Austrian citizenship, and who had been refused German citizenship, was unable to have a seat in the Reichstag, but he controlled
the movements of his party nevertheless.
The speaking ban having
been lifted, he, being unable to take part in the sessions of the
Reichstag, now spends his time going from one city to the other framing his political ideas in gilt-edged words, and arousing the admiring shout of the poor, unemployed
and desperate German citizen. He still preaches his pet sermon, but his powers of speech aid him in altering the form but not
the structure of his theories.
"AND so today, this "man without
a country" goes eternally "stumping," expounding his doctrines
of anti-everything except the Dictatorshp of Adolf Hitler. He
has 5,000,000 followers in Germany, who, when they are not
occupied in having street brawls with Communists, are aiding in the furtherance of the Hitler program. Hitler says: "Disenfranchise
the Jews; execute the
profiteers; expel the dirty alien; repudiate Versailles and reparations;
abolish department stores and force trade back to the small merchants; wipe away parasitical unearned incomes; BE GERMANS!"—and
these thoughts are echoed throughout all of Germany
by the five million adherents of
the Hitler faith. Hunger and depression stimulate them, and the
silver tongue of a political fanatic
acts as a drug upon their confused minds and bodies.
"IN testifying at the trial of three Reichswehr officers in Leipzig,
Hitler took the opportunity boldly
to outline his plans for the future. He stated that there would be a revolution, the Republic over-thrown, treaties repudiated, Dictatorship
set up, and that when
a tribunal of the people was
formed to judge those who were
responsible for the formation of
the Republic in 1918, "Germany
would see heads rolling in the sand!"
"Thus is the house of Hitler constructed.
But it is a house founded on depression and hard times, a house that the first wind of prosperity
will topple over, for even now it's foundation trembles under
the load above it. And its master? He too will fall where
he has dominated, but he will leave
his impression on the entire world
as a leader, as an organizer, as a
fighter. The greatest thing that could be said about him, however,
might well be inscribed on his tombstone
—
"Adolf Hitler—Orator." "
Sunday, March 06, 2016
Monday, February 29, 2016
Why I can't belong to a political party and feel right about myself
Most people I know belong to a political party.
Most people I know think I do, too. The liberal democrats I know think I'm a conservative republican. The conservative republicans I know think I'm a liberal democrat. Funny, right? This has gone on since I was in high school. Except back in high school everyone thought I was in the same party as they were, and now they all think I'm in the opposite.
Officially, I guess I do. I register as a Republican so I can vote in the primaries and participate in the caucuses. Tim registers as a Democrat for the same reason. But I switch parties to vote in the primaries that I think need voters the most (this year, someone needs to vote against Trump, so I'm a registered Republican).
But the reality is I'm neither. When I take political quizzes and tests, they place me dead center. On ISideWith.com, I agree between 60% and 75% percent with everyone but libertarians and green party candidates.
Why not? Why not pick a party? you might ask.
Well, most of the people I know pick a party and then buy into all that party's rhetoric, supporting all their stands carte blanche, and I can't do that.
I can't be a Republican because of this: Book of Mormon's admonition not to say, "They brought it upon themselves."
And this: Elder Holland's talk "Are We Not All Beggars?".
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-apostle-joins-other-faith-leaders-in-meeting-with-president-obama-on-immigration
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-members-encouraged-assist-refugees
I can't be a Republican or a Democrat because of this:
https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng
I can't be a Democrat because of this:
https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision
And this: My experience with both second- and third-wave feminism cannot jive with this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/a-plea-to-my-sisters?lang=eng
And this: https://www.lds.org/manual/building-an-eternal-marriage-teacher-manual/mothers-employment-outside-the-home?lang=eng
Most people I know think I do, too. The liberal democrats I know think I'm a conservative republican. The conservative republicans I know think I'm a liberal democrat. Funny, right? This has gone on since I was in high school. Except back in high school everyone thought I was in the same party as they were, and now they all think I'm in the opposite.
Officially, I guess I do. I register as a Republican so I can vote in the primaries and participate in the caucuses. Tim registers as a Democrat for the same reason. But I switch parties to vote in the primaries that I think need voters the most (this year, someone needs to vote against Trump, so I'm a registered Republican).
But the reality is I'm neither. When I take political quizzes and tests, they place me dead center. On ISideWith.com, I agree between 60% and 75% percent with everyone but libertarians and green party candidates.
Why not? Why not pick a party? you might ask.
Well, most of the people I know pick a party and then buy into all that party's rhetoric, supporting all their stands carte blanche, and I can't do that.
I can't be a Republican because of this: Book of Mormon's admonition not to say, "They brought it upon themselves."
And this: Elder Holland's talk "Are We Not All Beggars?".
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-apostle-joins-other-faith-leaders-in-meeting-with-president-obama-on-immigration
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-members-encouraged-assist-refugees
I can't be a Republican or a Democrat because of this:
https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion?lang=eng
I can't be a Democrat because of this:
https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng
And this: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision
And this: My experience with both second- and third-wave feminism cannot jive with this: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/a-plea-to-my-sisters?lang=eng
And this: https://www.lds.org/manual/building-an-eternal-marriage-teacher-manual/mothers-employment-outside-the-home?lang=eng
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Limits
Suppose for a moment that you are standing in a very large circle, and you are free to move around within that circle but at some point you reach the edge and can go no further. You are free, but by nature of your situation, you have limits.
I like to think that everyone (not just me) has limits. We can fill our lives with all kinds of things, and many things, but at some point we reach our limits and cannot go further unless we go back a little first.
To put it another way, imagine that you are asked to hold a token of some sort for every single thing you have in your life. The tokens are mostly small, and you have ones for work, one for each kid in your family, one for your calling, one for each hobby, one for each friend. As you add things to your life (friends, jobs, kids, stuff that has to be cared for), you eventually get to a point where you physically cannot hold anything more. Your arms get full. If you want to add another thing, you would have to first drop something.
So, hold that thought. I'll come back to it.
Shifting gears.
I find it fascinating that God put us here with the very most important things we have to do (eating, sleeping, drinking, etc) built into our systems as required and unavoidable. These things are not optional in life. How we do them is up to us, and can lead to great health and joy or great misery, but doing them at all is not really a choice.
Up until recently, having children was one of those things. It was mostly out of our control, and it was inevitable.
With that thought in mind, that women were just going to have babies with a little but not very much control over when and how many, suddenly the traditional family structure and rules make a whole lot of sense, don't they. Without birth control in the picture, it is actually desirable for men to marry the women who are bearing their children, and for the men to be the ones who are tasked with protecting and providing for their families, since the women were a little busy actually building the families. It even makes sense to women to be allowed to stay home and bear and nurse babies without the added burden of going to work (although historically most women didn't really have this privilege because their families were too poor, and everyone had to work).
Now, though, we have a choice on that matter. It might be one of those most important things, that God made inevitable for most of history, but we found having children hard work, and most people prefer to have some control over that. (And, actually, I think that's a good thing.) But it is interesting to think about the reality that it wasn't intended to be fully optional. We're not really designed for reproduction to be a choice, and recent research indicates that making it a choice and using that choice to strictly limit the number of babies we have is actually not very good for women's health or babies upbringing (people with more than 3 children can't helicopter parent--it's not possible--and are more likely to have one parent as a full-time stay-at-home parent).
Consequently, when we're filling our arms with stuff, children can be one of the things but can not be one of the things.
Okay, so change gears again, but all of this is going to tie together in the end (I promise).
Suppose that God is serious when He gives us instructions about how to fill our arms and our lives. Suppose that, like the Word of Wisdom, all the instructions He gives us are actually hints, rules, directions, and guidance to avoid pain and suffering, to keep societies and families stable, and to guide us to being happy. The world protests, of course, that God is doing it all wrong because it doesn't make sense according to our understanding of things, but since when was our understanding superior to God's? We haven't the ability to have the kind of vision and wisdom and knowledge He has. Our brains are not developed enough to even hold all the information we encounter in our own lives, let alone everything God knows.
So when He says--and makes it a matter of sacred covenant (and, previously, an inevitability)--that we should multiply and replenish the Earth, it makes sense that, despite the difficulty of actually doing that, and the despite the lack of desire most humans seem to have, perhaps this is not just God being a bully, but is actually for our own good.
Considering that God has said his work and his glory is to bring to pass "immortality and eternal life" for people, it should not be a surprise that many of the commandments actually deal with things that make families more stable. How did I jump from immortality and eternal life to families?
There are three requirements for immortality: you have to get a body, you have to die, and Jesus had to do His work. The Jesus part is done. The death part is inevitable. The getting a body part requires a woman to be willing to carry a baby and give birth to it. God's work and glory requires us to have families. It's not optional.
Eternal life requires a lot more. It still requires Jesus, but it also requires us to make constant small choices that lead us the right direction, punctuated by occasional large choices that set the path we're walking on--often dramatically, and with profound results. Where do we learn the lessons and get practice and feedback as we try to figure out how to make choices? In our homes, from our families. This is also not optional: Where and how we grow up has profound and far-reaching effects on us and our ability to make good choices.
No wonder God spends so much time and effort encouraging us and teaching us how to have and grow families. No wonder so many (dare I say all? I want to say all) of the commandments directly impact our ability to parent children (whether they are our own, our grandchildren, nieces and nephews, children in our ward, etc)--the health codes, the "social" rules, the 10 commandments: all of them lead us to better health, greater clarity of mind, increased abilities, a more stable and secure social environment, cultural stability. All of these exist to help God with His work and glory, which is to help people have stable families that can bring children into the world and teach them to function and make good choices.
Families and parenthood are sacred obligations and sacred privileges. But do we actually hold them sacred? Are we as offended when people degrade motherhood or try to break down families as we are when people desecrate garments or try to defile the temple? Usually not, which is sad. There is even a movement among the perpetually dissatisfied members of the Church complaining against the church's focus on families--these members believe the focus should be on individual salvation, not families. They complain that the focus on families is damaging to our ability to be saved as individuals.
But with this understanding that God's work and glory requires families, and with the idea that God knows that we can only hold so many things in our arms, and that our puny mortal lives are bound by limits of all kinds, I have spent the last few weeks thinking about some of the more controversial commandments.
The discussion, for example, of women and the priesthood. What if God is not belittling women or elevating men. What if He knows our arms can only hold so much, and He really would rather them be full of babies? What if He understood that our arms will get full one way or the other, and if He gave women the priesthood there would be one fewer baby in each family because the women's arms would be full already? And what if He would rather us do the work of the one more baby than the priesthood? That in addition to the reality that the priesthood ties men to the families in a way that is necessary and beneficial. What if, in His wisdom, God decided that only men having the priesthood is actually the very best way for His work to be accomplished? (Of course any reasons we have to explain this are just suppositions. We don't know why God has done this. We know men and women are equally capable of doing the kind of work the priesthood requires, but we also know that men actually can't physically have or nurse babies, even though they have their arms full parenting them, too.)
(I guess the real question, when all the discussion and "what ifs" boil away, is are we willing to go along and do the work God has assigned us, individually, even if it's not what we thought we'd be doing, are capable of, or want to do? That requires both faith and humility, and neither seems to be a natural state for most people.)
I heard some missionaries explain to a non-member once that men have the priesthood and women have motherhood, and I wanted to laugh because it was a wholly unsatisfying answer. Men have fatherhood, so doesn't that negate that reasoning? But I think the reason the answer is unsatisfying is we don't hold motherhood or family in the proper sacred light. We don't understand how vitally important it is, or what sacred means, or what motherhood actually is even though we all do it. It gets reduced to housecleaning and trying to survive on little sleep.
I'm not trying to demean fatherhood, of course. The role of the father, to protect and provide and love and care for his children and wife, is vital, too. Women so often agitate, though, to prove that they can also protect and provide. And they can! But that fills their arms. And what if God asked the men to protect and provide so that the women wouldn't have to, so that their arms would be less full so they could focus on having babies and raising them? Every job, every committee, every late night is one more thing in our arms, and perhaps God asked the men to take some of those things out of our arms whenever possible (and it's not always possible) so we'd have more space for His work in our arms, so that we wouldn't reach our limits too soon and at the expense of our children.
I have friends who, for economic reasons, have to have jobs. MANY friends, actually. And it is sad to hear them talk about the emotional exhaustion they have to deal with, and the stresses that accompany them even at home thanks to their jobs. Their families suffer for the moms arms being full. Another baby is not an option, even if the women want one. Being a calm, collected, focused mother is not an option because the limit has been reached, and there is no more emotional energy, no more "spoons" to go around.
How would God want His work done? That seems to be a key question that helps me wrap my head around the commandments and structures of the church. How would He want children to get bodies and to learn how to make choices? What environment would He ideally wish for every child?
I'm pretty sure ideally it would involve both male and female influence, siblings, and a stay-at-home parent who is not at her limit, and whose arms are not so full that she can't give the calm, steady, reliable time and attention she wants to give. The glory of the family system is that it is adjustable--God can send some kids (who need them) to smaller families, and some (who need them) to larger families. He can send some women (who need it) fewer children and some (who need it) more. He can give some people the chance to do children and a career. He can give some people the responsibility to be that second set of hands and that second trusting stable influence for children who are not their own, but who they love. There are roles and refinements for every soul within a family structure.
How would God want his work done? Apparently He wants individual salvation--immortality and eternal life--done in families. And if we keep that in mind, instead of focusing (as our culture does) on individuals' desires, needs, development, etc, a lot of the issues start to resolve themselves.
I like to think that everyone (not just me) has limits. We can fill our lives with all kinds of things, and many things, but at some point we reach our limits and cannot go further unless we go back a little first.
To put it another way, imagine that you are asked to hold a token of some sort for every single thing you have in your life. The tokens are mostly small, and you have ones for work, one for each kid in your family, one for your calling, one for each hobby, one for each friend. As you add things to your life (friends, jobs, kids, stuff that has to be cared for), you eventually get to a point where you physically cannot hold anything more. Your arms get full. If you want to add another thing, you would have to first drop something.
So, hold that thought. I'll come back to it.
Shifting gears.
I find it fascinating that God put us here with the very most important things we have to do (eating, sleeping, drinking, etc) built into our systems as required and unavoidable. These things are not optional in life. How we do them is up to us, and can lead to great health and joy or great misery, but doing them at all is not really a choice.
Up until recently, having children was one of those things. It was mostly out of our control, and it was inevitable.
With that thought in mind, that women were just going to have babies with a little but not very much control over when and how many, suddenly the traditional family structure and rules make a whole lot of sense, don't they. Without birth control in the picture, it is actually desirable for men to marry the women who are bearing their children, and for the men to be the ones who are tasked with protecting and providing for their families, since the women were a little busy actually building the families. It even makes sense to women to be allowed to stay home and bear and nurse babies without the added burden of going to work (although historically most women didn't really have this privilege because their families were too poor, and everyone had to work).
Now, though, we have a choice on that matter. It might be one of those most important things, that God made inevitable for most of history, but we found having children hard work, and most people prefer to have some control over that. (And, actually, I think that's a good thing.) But it is interesting to think about the reality that it wasn't intended to be fully optional. We're not really designed for reproduction to be a choice, and recent research indicates that making it a choice and using that choice to strictly limit the number of babies we have is actually not very good for women's health or babies upbringing (people with more than 3 children can't helicopter parent--it's not possible--and are more likely to have one parent as a full-time stay-at-home parent).
Consequently, when we're filling our arms with stuff, children can be one of the things but can not be one of the things.
Okay, so change gears again, but all of this is going to tie together in the end (I promise).
Suppose that God is serious when He gives us instructions about how to fill our arms and our lives. Suppose that, like the Word of Wisdom, all the instructions He gives us are actually hints, rules, directions, and guidance to avoid pain and suffering, to keep societies and families stable, and to guide us to being happy. The world protests, of course, that God is doing it all wrong because it doesn't make sense according to our understanding of things, but since when was our understanding superior to God's? We haven't the ability to have the kind of vision and wisdom and knowledge He has. Our brains are not developed enough to even hold all the information we encounter in our own lives, let alone everything God knows.
So when He says--and makes it a matter of sacred covenant (and, previously, an inevitability)--that we should multiply and replenish the Earth, it makes sense that, despite the difficulty of actually doing that, and the despite the lack of desire most humans seem to have, perhaps this is not just God being a bully, but is actually for our own good.
Considering that God has said his work and his glory is to bring to pass "immortality and eternal life" for people, it should not be a surprise that many of the commandments actually deal with things that make families more stable. How did I jump from immortality and eternal life to families?
There are three requirements for immortality: you have to get a body, you have to die, and Jesus had to do His work. The Jesus part is done. The death part is inevitable. The getting a body part requires a woman to be willing to carry a baby and give birth to it. God's work and glory requires us to have families. It's not optional.
Eternal life requires a lot more. It still requires Jesus, but it also requires us to make constant small choices that lead us the right direction, punctuated by occasional large choices that set the path we're walking on--often dramatically, and with profound results. Where do we learn the lessons and get practice and feedback as we try to figure out how to make choices? In our homes, from our families. This is also not optional: Where and how we grow up has profound and far-reaching effects on us and our ability to make good choices.
No wonder God spends so much time and effort encouraging us and teaching us how to have and grow families. No wonder so many (dare I say all? I want to say all) of the commandments directly impact our ability to parent children (whether they are our own, our grandchildren, nieces and nephews, children in our ward, etc)--the health codes, the "social" rules, the 10 commandments: all of them lead us to better health, greater clarity of mind, increased abilities, a more stable and secure social environment, cultural stability. All of these exist to help God with His work and glory, which is to help people have stable families that can bring children into the world and teach them to function and make good choices.
Families and parenthood are sacred obligations and sacred privileges. But do we actually hold them sacred? Are we as offended when people degrade motherhood or try to break down families as we are when people desecrate garments or try to defile the temple? Usually not, which is sad. There is even a movement among the perpetually dissatisfied members of the Church complaining against the church's focus on families--these members believe the focus should be on individual salvation, not families. They complain that the focus on families is damaging to our ability to be saved as individuals.
But with this understanding that God's work and glory requires families, and with the idea that God knows that we can only hold so many things in our arms, and that our puny mortal lives are bound by limits of all kinds, I have spent the last few weeks thinking about some of the more controversial commandments.
The discussion, for example, of women and the priesthood. What if God is not belittling women or elevating men. What if He knows our arms can only hold so much, and He really would rather them be full of babies? What if He understood that our arms will get full one way or the other, and if He gave women the priesthood there would be one fewer baby in each family because the women's arms would be full already? And what if He would rather us do the work of the one more baby than the priesthood? That in addition to the reality that the priesthood ties men to the families in a way that is necessary and beneficial. What if, in His wisdom, God decided that only men having the priesthood is actually the very best way for His work to be accomplished? (Of course any reasons we have to explain this are just suppositions. We don't know why God has done this. We know men and women are equally capable of doing the kind of work the priesthood requires, but we also know that men actually can't physically have or nurse babies, even though they have their arms full parenting them, too.)
(I guess the real question, when all the discussion and "what ifs" boil away, is are we willing to go along and do the work God has assigned us, individually, even if it's not what we thought we'd be doing, are capable of, or want to do? That requires both faith and humility, and neither seems to be a natural state for most people.)
I heard some missionaries explain to a non-member once that men have the priesthood and women have motherhood, and I wanted to laugh because it was a wholly unsatisfying answer. Men have fatherhood, so doesn't that negate that reasoning? But I think the reason the answer is unsatisfying is we don't hold motherhood or family in the proper sacred light. We don't understand how vitally important it is, or what sacred means, or what motherhood actually is even though we all do it. It gets reduced to housecleaning and trying to survive on little sleep.
I'm not trying to demean fatherhood, of course. The role of the father, to protect and provide and love and care for his children and wife, is vital, too. Women so often agitate, though, to prove that they can also protect and provide. And they can! But that fills their arms. And what if God asked the men to protect and provide so that the women wouldn't have to, so that their arms would be less full so they could focus on having babies and raising them? Every job, every committee, every late night is one more thing in our arms, and perhaps God asked the men to take some of those things out of our arms whenever possible (and it's not always possible) so we'd have more space for His work in our arms, so that we wouldn't reach our limits too soon and at the expense of our children.
I have friends who, for economic reasons, have to have jobs. MANY friends, actually. And it is sad to hear them talk about the emotional exhaustion they have to deal with, and the stresses that accompany them even at home thanks to their jobs. Their families suffer for the moms arms being full. Another baby is not an option, even if the women want one. Being a calm, collected, focused mother is not an option because the limit has been reached, and there is no more emotional energy, no more "spoons" to go around.
How would God want His work done? That seems to be a key question that helps me wrap my head around the commandments and structures of the church. How would He want children to get bodies and to learn how to make choices? What environment would He ideally wish for every child?
I'm pretty sure ideally it would involve both male and female influence, siblings, and a stay-at-home parent who is not at her limit, and whose arms are not so full that she can't give the calm, steady, reliable time and attention she wants to give. The glory of the family system is that it is adjustable--God can send some kids (who need them) to smaller families, and some (who need them) to larger families. He can send some women (who need it) fewer children and some (who need it) more. He can give some people the chance to do children and a career. He can give some people the responsibility to be that second set of hands and that second trusting stable influence for children who are not their own, but who they love. There are roles and refinements for every soul within a family structure.
How would God want his work done? Apparently He wants individual salvation--immortality and eternal life--done in families. And if we keep that in mind, instead of focusing (as our culture does) on individuals' desires, needs, development, etc, a lot of the issues start to resolve themselves.
Our lives belong to God
We have spent many years now trying to build Tim's career. It's gone this way and that, each step leading us closer to something, but we don't know what.
I have tried many, many times to force it into being something I could see because I like the idea that I can see where we're going and therefore work toward it. Every time I have chosen a goal and worked hard to make it happen, it has been a drastically wrong direction for Tim. It has been humbling to see myself doing my very best and being wrong so many times, over and over, as I tried to think my way forward and walk that way--and run into brick walls. Over and over and over. Consistently for the last 17 years, in fact.
But recently I have begun to think that I'm going about this all wrong.
We keep trying to follow the advice of people who should know, trying to build a business using good business advice like having a vision, setting goals, working toward those goals; being tenacious and good networkers and stubborn and flexible all at once; doing it "right" and being creative at the same time, adapting to the markets, providing a product people need, finding the intersection of talent, interest, and sellability....
None of it worked. I don't know if it ever works for anyone, but it didn't work for us. I kind of suspect all that advice was actually someone sitting down and saying, "Gosh, I made it big and I did this, so that must be the key," without any comprehension that they "got lucky." Or were blessed.
What I have concluded is that financial stability is a gift from God, even if you had to work really hard to get it. Most people are actually one serious accident away from ruin, and we have no control over that. But I digress.
What I was trying to get to was this new idea that is bouncing around my head.
I think the problem with our approach to Tim's career is that we assumed the career is Tim's. I mean, it's his body, his voice, his hours of labor, and his talent. And God gives us agency to figure things out for ourselves and determine the directions we want to go, right?
But I'm beginning to think it's not actually Tim's career. It belongs to God. Tim does the work, of course, that he can. But we are not really in charge of this, we don't really own this, and the outcome is not ours to control or to glory from (whatever that may be in the end). I've concluded that the only way out of the difficulties we've been drowning in for so long is to let go, stop fighting the currents to try to swim to where we want to be, and see where this river takes us. We can't really fight it anyway.
I am reminded of D&C 121:33: "What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints." Or from pushing Tim along this career, apparently.
I have tried many, many times to force it into being something I could see because I like the idea that I can see where we're going and therefore work toward it. Every time I have chosen a goal and worked hard to make it happen, it has been a drastically wrong direction for Tim. It has been humbling to see myself doing my very best and being wrong so many times, over and over, as I tried to think my way forward and walk that way--and run into brick walls. Over and over and over. Consistently for the last 17 years, in fact.
But recently I have begun to think that I'm going about this all wrong.
We keep trying to follow the advice of people who should know, trying to build a business using good business advice like having a vision, setting goals, working toward those goals; being tenacious and good networkers and stubborn and flexible all at once; doing it "right" and being creative at the same time, adapting to the markets, providing a product people need, finding the intersection of talent, interest, and sellability....
None of it worked. I don't know if it ever works for anyone, but it didn't work for us. I kind of suspect all that advice was actually someone sitting down and saying, "Gosh, I made it big and I did this, so that must be the key," without any comprehension that they "got lucky." Or were blessed.
What I have concluded is that financial stability is a gift from God, even if you had to work really hard to get it. Most people are actually one serious accident away from ruin, and we have no control over that. But I digress.
What I was trying to get to was this new idea that is bouncing around my head.
I think the problem with our approach to Tim's career is that we assumed the career is Tim's. I mean, it's his body, his voice, his hours of labor, and his talent. And God gives us agency to figure things out for ourselves and determine the directions we want to go, right?
But I'm beginning to think it's not actually Tim's career. It belongs to God. Tim does the work, of course, that he can. But we are not really in charge of this, we don't really own this, and the outcome is not ours to control or to glory from (whatever that may be in the end). I've concluded that the only way out of the difficulties we've been drowning in for so long is to let go, stop fighting the currents to try to swim to where we want to be, and see where this river takes us. We can't really fight it anyway.
I am reminded of D&C 121:33: "What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints." Or from pushing Tim along this career, apparently.
Our arms are puny, indeed.
So many times I've looked at Tim when we were both feeling sad about one thing or another and said, "This makes no sense. This should have happened, and the only way it didn't is if God was stopping it for some reason."
We have truly done all we can, and we certainly haven't been fighting against God. Our greatest desire is to serve Him. But we're going through life blind, same as everyone else. Except for one hiccup: most people have a career path laid out that is tried and true, proven and established. They feel inspired to become a doctor and there is a way you do that and a predictable outcome. You seek inspiration, it leads you to a road, and you follow that road the best way you know how. That's how most people's lives work.
That has not been true of Tim's career or our lives. There is no path. There is no predictable outcome. There are only steps. And darkness.
We have no idea where we are going.
We have hints. We sometimes get an idea that this might actually be a path we're walking on, even though we can't see the path-ness of it most of the time.
But seeing that this is actually God's career, and God's work, and that He apparently wants to use Tim's talents not for what we intend, but for what He intends, changes things for me. It leaves me with the terrifying and exhilarating idea that we don't have to be in charge--that we can just go along, one step at a time, doing the best we can to do what's right and follow the Spirit, and God can be in charge of where we end up. This requires a new level of faith for me, to actually let go that way while still working as hard as I know how.
So I was pondering this idea--how does this change things? What does this mean? Does it actually change anything in day-to-day life, given we were already trying to do right and go with God's way of doing things? Is it actually important to give God ownership of Tim's career, instead of it being Tim's? What is my role in this, since I don't really own Tim or his career anyway and this giving and taking all have to ultimately be Tim's choice? (Often Tim already knows this stuff and has taken care of it long before it dawns on me, which very likely is the case in this situation. Quite possibly he never did consider it "his" career in the first place.)
While thinking about these things, I sat down to rest and read the new Ensign magazine that came today. I can't even link to it online yet because it's March's issue, which officially hasn't been released yet. But there's this great article in it by Elder Christofferson called "Finding your Life." In it, he discusses at length the scripture that instructs us to lose our lives in order to find them.
It was a breath of fresh air for me. We love to tell the stories in the church of people who chose right and were blessed for it, almost to the point that we expect that things will go smoothly as long as we're choosing right. But Elder Christofferson points out, with great examples, that often choosing right leads to difficulty and sacrifice and suffering. Such has been the case for us, and it has been perplexing and frustrating to read the stories in the Ensign month after month after month that seemed to indicate we should immediately be blessed with what we desired or something better (or at least understanding and great peace) because we did what was right. But no. That's not often the case.
Which brings me to the part of the article that was so powerful to me. I'll just quote it outright, since I can't link to the text (you can listen to it here: https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/ces-devotionals/2014-ces-devotionals?lang=eng. The part I'm quoting here starts at 35:27, but includes more in the full speech than in the Ensign version).
Elder Christofferson says, "The priorities and interests we most often see on display around us (and sometime in us) are intensely selfish: a hunger to be recognized; an insistent demand that one's rights be respected; a consuming desire for money, things, and power; a sense of entitlement to a life of comfort and pleasure; a goal to minimize responsibility and avoid altogether any personal sacrifice for the good of another--to name a few.
"This is not to say that we should not seek to succeed, even excel, in worthy endeavors, including education and honorable work. Certainly, worthwhile achievements are laudable. But if we are to save our lives, we must always remember that such attainments are not ends in themselves but means to a higher end. With our faith in Christ, we must see political, business, academic, and similar forms of success not as defining us but as making possible our service to God and fellowman--beginning at home and extending as far as possible in the world.
"Personal development has value as it contributes to development of a Christlike character. In measuring success, we recognize the profound truth underlying all else--that our lives belong to God, our Heavenly Father, and to Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. Success means living in harmony with Their will."
(He goes on to talk about Joseph Smith, whose revelations brought them to Missouri, where the Saints suffered horribly. Obviously following God does not always put us into pleasant and easy circumstances.)
Since I have no real firm idea of where God wants us to end up, I suppose we get to work, and work hard, to do exactly what has been laid before us, and then simply let go, and trust that God will do with this career that doesn't belong to us whatever He wants. I hope that if we let Him, He will use us as tools to do His work, whatever that may be.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
The Wage Gap
I keep saying I'm anti-feminist. Really I am pro-woman, and I feel like the feminists are fighting their hardest to stop women from embracing womanhood.
And the discussion (or lack thereof) regarding the so-called "Wage Gap" is one of the things that's eating at me right now.
I have a friend who, for a grad school project, is trying with a group to "raise awareness" of the wage gap in Utah. They are sure that all Utah women are getting paid less than all Utah men. And that that's a bad thing.
But if you really look into the whole women-being-paid-less-than-men thing, you'll discover really quickly that what is happening is women are making different choices than men, and men who make similar choices (to put family instead of business first) are ALSO making less money than other men who put business first.
There are actually two things that are messing with the "wage gap" statistic:
1. Women more often choose jobs that pay less (like nursing or teaching).
and
2. Women make choices within their careers that put them on a lower-pay track, like choosing to work part time to care for children or choosing to take time off from working to have babies, or choosing approaches to their careers that give them more time at home.
In other words, the feminists are NOT condemning male bosses for paying women less (which is what they think they are doing). What they are really doing is condemning women for making feminine choices (caring choices, family-centered choices) rather than acting like men.
This just boils my blood. It is so degrading and unfair for women to be condemned for choosing to make less money in order to put more important things first.
Our society only puts money first. Success is defined purely by money, and as a result all women who choose to be paid less to have more satisfaction in their lives are being told they are doing it wrong.
Let's stop belittling women for their choices and start respecting them for it. Sure there is a gap between what women are being paid and what men are being paid, on average across all fields. But this is not discrimination, and this is not cruelty. This is a reflection of the kinds of choices women are making, and it would be a better discussion if we respect that in the first place, and support them in the second.
Because these women who are causing the pay gap? They are actually making the right choice. Fixing the pay gap would destroy families because it would require women to put money first instead of family first. And that is NOT worth it.
Every time I see a cute little card or a sound bite about the "wage gap," my blood boils a little more and I end up stomping around the house, forcing myself to not respond to whoever posted the stupid (and debunked) statistic once again.
Respecting women means we respect that women are capable of making the best choices for their own lives. Even if that results in fewer girls in engineering or a pay gap.
And, once again, I am left wondering why we aren't encouraging the men to put family first, instead of encouraging the women to stop putting family first and start trying to make more money.
Freakonomics covers the topic thoroughly and with real experts here: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/. It's well worth a read/listen.
And the discussion (or lack thereof) regarding the so-called "Wage Gap" is one of the things that's eating at me right now.
I have a friend who, for a grad school project, is trying with a group to "raise awareness" of the wage gap in Utah. They are sure that all Utah women are getting paid less than all Utah men. And that that's a bad thing.
But if you really look into the whole women-being-paid-less-than-men thing, you'll discover really quickly that what is happening is women are making different choices than men, and men who make similar choices (to put family instead of business first) are ALSO making less money than other men who put business first.
There are actually two things that are messing with the "wage gap" statistic:
1. Women more often choose jobs that pay less (like nursing or teaching).
and
2. Women make choices within their careers that put them on a lower-pay track, like choosing to work part time to care for children or choosing to take time off from working to have babies, or choosing approaches to their careers that give them more time at home.
In other words, the feminists are NOT condemning male bosses for paying women less (which is what they think they are doing). What they are really doing is condemning women for making feminine choices (caring choices, family-centered choices) rather than acting like men.
This just boils my blood. It is so degrading and unfair for women to be condemned for choosing to make less money in order to put more important things first.
Our society only puts money first. Success is defined purely by money, and as a result all women who choose to be paid less to have more satisfaction in their lives are being told they are doing it wrong.
Let's stop belittling women for their choices and start respecting them for it. Sure there is a gap between what women are being paid and what men are being paid, on average across all fields. But this is not discrimination, and this is not cruelty. This is a reflection of the kinds of choices women are making, and it would be a better discussion if we respect that in the first place, and support them in the second.
Because these women who are causing the pay gap? They are actually making the right choice. Fixing the pay gap would destroy families because it would require women to put money first instead of family first. And that is NOT worth it.
Every time I see a cute little card or a sound bite about the "wage gap," my blood boils a little more and I end up stomping around the house, forcing myself to not respond to whoever posted the stupid (and debunked) statistic once again.
Respecting women means we respect that women are capable of making the best choices for their own lives. Even if that results in fewer girls in engineering or a pay gap.
And, once again, I am left wondering why we aren't encouraging the men to put family first, instead of encouraging the women to stop putting family first and start trying to make more money.
Freakonomics covers the topic thoroughly and with real experts here: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/. It's well worth a read/listen.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Doing Too Much!
My current list of projects (which I have started and want to finish and which are currently sitting out waiting to be done--so not old projects that are on hold):
--Two scarves on the loom (with 3 more planned, and then a blanket)
--Repairing/rebuilding Dan's bed quilt
--A stack of clothing that needs simple repairs
--Entire Pre-K through 8 curriculum, every subject, and a website to post it on
--Entire learn-to-read set of activity books
--Stripping and refinishing my dining room table
--Rebuilding the laundry room so it holds clothes for 10 (instead of six); this requires first cleaning up at least part of the kids' room and reorganizing Tim's office, too
--Organize, sort, and fold every single washable item in the house (clothes, costumes, linens, etc)
--Teach Elijah how to make cookies by himself
--Repair the kitchen sink (which currently only can be turned on and off with a screwdriver)
Too Much! (Can you tell I've had my hands full of babies for a very long time and am anxious to get to the work that has been neglected?)
--Two scarves on the loom (with 3 more planned, and then a blanket)
--Repairing/rebuilding Dan's bed quilt
--A stack of clothing that needs simple repairs
--Entire Pre-K through 8 curriculum, every subject, and a website to post it on
--Entire learn-to-read set of activity books
--Stripping and refinishing my dining room table
--Rebuilding the laundry room so it holds clothes for 10 (instead of six); this requires first cleaning up at least part of the kids' room and reorganizing Tim's office, too
--Organize, sort, and fold every single washable item in the house (clothes, costumes, linens, etc)
--Teach Elijah how to make cookies by himself
--Repair the kitchen sink (which currently only can be turned on and off with a screwdriver)
Too Much! (Can you tell I've had my hands full of babies for a very long time and am anxious to get to the work that has been neglected?)
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Jack says...
Tonight we were discussing where each of the children was born. Jack said, "I was born at King Soopers." We tried to explain it to him, but he insisted: He was born at his favorite grocery store.
A few minutes later we were having an "ice cream time" and Jack got his cone first and wandered out. A few minutes later, he came back into the kitchen crying, his scoop of ice cream in one hand and his cone in the other. I did what I always do and put the scoop back onto the cone and handed it back to him. He said, "No, wash it. It got wet." I took the cone back. "How did it get wet?" I asked. "It fell in the potty!" he sobbed. He got a new cone, and I washed my hands....
A few minutes later we were having an "ice cream time" and Jack got his cone first and wandered out. A few minutes later, he came back into the kitchen crying, his scoop of ice cream in one hand and his cone in the other. I did what I always do and put the scoop back onto the cone and handed it back to him. He said, "No, wash it. It got wet." I took the cone back. "How did it get wet?" I asked. "It fell in the potty!" he sobbed. He got a new cone, and I washed my hands....
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Jack's singing
Jack is sitting alone in the kitchen, building with Trio blocks and singing his little heart out. Most of the rest of the family are in bed asleep, so he is completely unchecked.
His song is, "Song! That's the song about fire lips. Song! That's the song about fire lips." And sometimes, "That's the song about piwates!" Sometimes he adds an interlude of "Song song song!"
Fire lips?
His song is, "Song! That's the song about fire lips. Song! That's the song about fire lips." And sometimes, "That's the song about piwates!" Sometimes he adds an interlude of "Song song song!"
Fire lips?
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
This seems pertinent to the prophets issue
“It is a little dangerous for us to go out of our own sphere and try unauthoritatively to direct the efforts of a brother. You remember the case of Uzzah who stretched forth his hand to steady the ark. He seemed justified when the oxen stumbled in putting forth his hand to steady that symbol of the covenant.
“We today think his punishment was very severe. Be that as it may, the incident conveys a lesson of life. Let us look around us and see how quickly men who attempt unauthoritatively to steady the ark die spiritually. Their souls become embittered, their minds distorted, their judgment faulty, and their spirit depressed. Such is the pitiable condition of men who, neglecting their own responsibilities, spend their time in finding fault with others” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1936, 60). David O. McKay
This is an important point.
The entire "prophets are fallible therefore I don't have to obey" is actually a distraction. Really the issue is "The prophets said something I don't like.
What do you do about that?
The scriptures would indicate (repeatedly and at length and with many, many examples) that it's not really a good idea to reject the prophets when we disagree with them. They would also indicate that it's not a good idea to "steady the ark"--correct their mistakes yourself, as if it is our personal jobs to keep the Church on track (our track, obviously...).
Given the scriptural emphasis on listening to and obeying the prophets, it seems like it might be a bad choice to reject the prophets when they say something we don't like, no matter how we justify it (it was a mistake, or they're going to change that one, or that makes no sense therefore it isn't right, or whatever).
So what do we do?
Perhaps start with an understanding of God.
We know He knows everything.
We know He has power to do whatever he needs to do.
We know He loves us and is working for our good and our exaltation.
We know He has greater vision and greater capacity for vision than we do.
We know that we actually cannot comprehend what He can.
We know He has ways to communicate with us.
We know He gives us instructions, commandments, ordinances, etc., in order to help us.
We know He has ways to re-direct us when we're going wrong (call us to repentance and whatnot).
We know He sent Jesus to help us out and heal us so we could get through life, which is difficult and painful at its best.
Given what we know about God, we get to make a choice. Do we reject His servants? Do we ignore them? Do we try to agitate for reform as if God were not in charge? Do we point out how they are wrong now or all the mistakes they've made in the past? Do we work our hardest to discredit them so we don't have to feel guilty for not obeying? Do you stick to your ideas with the assumption that you really do know best and couldn't possibly be mistaken?
Or do we remind ourselves that God loves us, He knows far more than we are capable of comprehending, He actually can redirect us if we're heading the wrong way (like a good parent would, actually), and if we follow Him even when it doesn't make sense, the understanding can come? Do you assume that you might possibly be wrong?
What's the wisest course of action, pride or humility?
What do you do about that?
The scriptures would indicate (repeatedly and at length and with many, many examples) that it's not really a good idea to reject the prophets when we disagree with them. They would also indicate that it's not a good idea to "steady the ark"--correct their mistakes yourself, as if it is our personal jobs to keep the Church on track (our track, obviously...).
Given the scriptural emphasis on listening to and obeying the prophets, it seems like it might be a bad choice to reject the prophets when they say something we don't like, no matter how we justify it (it was a mistake, or they're going to change that one, or that makes no sense therefore it isn't right, or whatever).
So what do we do?
Perhaps start with an understanding of God.
We know He knows everything.
We know He has power to do whatever he needs to do.
We know He loves us and is working for our good and our exaltation.
We know He has greater vision and greater capacity for vision than we do.
We know that we actually cannot comprehend what He can.
We know He has ways to communicate with us.
We know He gives us instructions, commandments, ordinances, etc., in order to help us.
We know He has ways to re-direct us when we're going wrong (call us to repentance and whatnot).
We know He sent Jesus to help us out and heal us so we could get through life, which is difficult and painful at its best.
Given what we know about God, we get to make a choice. Do we reject His servants? Do we ignore them? Do we try to agitate for reform as if God were not in charge? Do we point out how they are wrong now or all the mistakes they've made in the past? Do we work our hardest to discredit them so we don't have to feel guilty for not obeying? Do you stick to your ideas with the assumption that you really do know best and couldn't possibly be mistaken?
Or do we remind ourselves that God loves us, He knows far more than we are capable of comprehending, He actually can redirect us if we're heading the wrong way (like a good parent would, actually), and if we follow Him even when it doesn't make sense, the understanding can come? Do you assume that you might possibly be wrong?
What's the wisest course of action, pride or humility?
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Much more clearly than I could say it
I've been struggling with how to say this all clearly, explaining why I still believe in prophets and choose to obey them.
This article, by my brother, sums up all my thoughts and in a coherent, succinct way.
Thank you, thank you Jon!
Now everyone please read:
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/disagreeing-with-lds-prophets-and-apostles-vs-losing-confidence-in-them/
This article, by my brother, sums up all my thoughts and in a coherent, succinct way.
Thank you, thank you Jon!
Now everyone please read:
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/disagreeing-with-lds-prophets-and-apostles-vs-losing-confidence-in-them/
Friday, January 15, 2016
One thing I missed about prophets
One thing I missed that my dad pointed out:
Who is to say that what I see as a mistake was actually a mistake?
Especially given the nature of continuing modern revelation. Just because a policy or doctrine or script or whatever got changed doesn't mean it was wrong when it started. Sometimes it just means the world changed.
Just because I disagree with or don't understand something, historical or present, doesn't mean it's a mistake or ever was. (It might have been; but it might not have been. Tim pointed out nobody has ever claimed the priesthood ban itself was a mistake. They only have clarified that the folk doctrines that sprung up to explain it were mistakes. So perhaps the priesthood ban was not a mistake--and the history and words of prophets who tried to end it and were told not to would bear this out. Perhaps there was something going on in the world at that time that made it a policy God wanted for a short time, just like He wanted polygamy for a short time. It doesn't mean polygamy was a mistake that it got cancelled eventually. It only means that God had finished whatever work He was doing with it.)
Also, I really feel strongly that it's worth repeating: claiming the prophets are human and fallible and therefore we don't HAVE to follow them assumes that while they are human and fallible and make mistakes, we are human but infallible and never make mistakes.
And that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Who is to say that what I see as a mistake was actually a mistake?
Especially given the nature of continuing modern revelation. Just because a policy or doctrine or script or whatever got changed doesn't mean it was wrong when it started. Sometimes it just means the world changed.
Just because I disagree with or don't understand something, historical or present, doesn't mean it's a mistake or ever was. (It might have been; but it might not have been. Tim pointed out nobody has ever claimed the priesthood ban itself was a mistake. They only have clarified that the folk doctrines that sprung up to explain it were mistakes. So perhaps the priesthood ban was not a mistake--and the history and words of prophets who tried to end it and were told not to would bear this out. Perhaps there was something going on in the world at that time that made it a policy God wanted for a short time, just like He wanted polygamy for a short time. It doesn't mean polygamy was a mistake that it got cancelled eventually. It only means that God had finished whatever work He was doing with it.)
Also, I really feel strongly that it's worth repeating: claiming the prophets are human and fallible and therefore we don't HAVE to follow them assumes that while they are human and fallible and make mistakes, we are human but infallible and never make mistakes.
And that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
Why I choose to trust the prophet instead of myself
I’ve been pondering the argument the liberal/progressive mormons are making about the prophets. Their argument is that we are duty-bound to research and get a spiritual confirmation of everything the prophets teach, and if we don’t feel right about it, then it’s probably the prophet who is wrong and not each of us. Because, you know, the prophets and apostles are human and therefore fallible.
They really are convinced this is right, but my gut says that’s not so.
Here are my reasons I’ve come up with that it doesn’t work to view prophets that way:
1. It’s too much work. Regular everyday humans in reality don’t want or need to get another spiritual confirmation about every single thing prophets and apostles say, much less research it all in detail (especially since the “research” the progressives mean is actually searching for reasons the prophets might be wrong, not why they might be right).
2. If we have received a confirmation that the prophet is, in fact, a prophet whose job is to bring us information from God, that should be sufficient for us to trust him and he won’t actually ask us to do something wrong, and if he asks us to do something stupid, we’ll be blessed for obedience more than rebellion.
3. How can a prophet call us to repentance if we are free to reject whatever words don’t “sound right” to us? Because asking people to repent never sounds right or they wouldn’t need to be called, they’d just do it.
4. You have to trust your grasp of revelation an awful lot to know for sure you know whose voice you are hearing. It’s too easy to answer your own prayers, especially if you really want something or want to be right.
5. There has to be a way for God to speak with authority. Otherwise, His voice becomes yet another equally valid competing voice clamoring for attention.
6. This is insisting that God be an expert at marketing and convince us of His ways; this is not God’s way because it becomes a matter of marketing and logic instead of faith and trust.
7. When society as a whole is going the wrong way, the wrong way feels normal and right. It’s familiar and comfortable and socially supported. So if the prophet says to go against that, it will never “feel right” and the research will never back it up. God has to be free to give us instructions that don’t “ring true” at first.
8. It’s supposed to be a confirmation that it’s right, not if it’s right.
9. What is the point of a prophet if we can pick and choose what we believe of what they say?
10. Trusting isn’t weak, once you know it’s a prophet.
11. If you embrace the “don’t trust” as the default (instead of “trust” as the default), you are looking to prove the wrong thing (that they’re wrong instead of that they’re right)
12. It is prideful to assume that your understanding of what is going on trumps God’s
13. If God can’t choose fallible humans to bring us His messages, what else can He do, since humans (especially sinning ones) can’t be trusted to hear the Spirit on their own
14. It takes a great deal of spiritual maturity and experience to get the kind of revelation the prophets just hand us. People just aren’t all there yet (even after years, I’m working on understanding “yes” and “no” still!). Most of us never will be. It would be silly of God to require that of every member in order to know which way to go.
15. We can’t always tell when we’ve lost the Spirit. Pride is sneaky that way. One of the hints we have is that our ideas are going against the Prophet’s advice. If we claim he is human and fallible and therefore we don’t need to listen, we lose that guidepost.
16. The prophets are supposed to be there to help us along, not make things more difficult or confusing. If we refuse to listen to them….well, let’s just say there are many scriptural examples warning us against that.
17. I’d rather go along doing all they ask me to do than risk rejecting the wrong advice. I trust they’ll clear up the mistakes eventually, but that’s not my job.
18. If you’ve already decided they are wrong about some things, or something, then what happens when they state unequivocally that it is God’s will? That is a position that is difficult to recover from.
19. If a person is a prophet and they are speaking for God, then what does it say about us if we reject it? It says we think we know more than God. Talk about hubris!
20. What is the point of having prophets if we aren’t supposed to listen to them unless it suits us?
21. The point of modern revelation was to deal with current problems as they arise. Which means sometimes we solve a problem to our liking and then God tells the prophets we’re wrong. And if we already like our answer, we’re likely to cut God’s out, especially if our echo chambers are encouraging that. It’s too hard to correct course if we don’t need to listen because the prophet might be wrong. It’s pretty much impossible to trust a leader who we are pretty sure might be wrong all the time. And that defeats the purpose of modern revelation. Course correction requires humility, and for us to hear that they are saying to we are looking the wrong way.
22. There are so many great blessings out there. Why waste time on this? This is the baseline, not advanced doctrine that you get to eventually. This is the starting point: What is a prophet and do we have one or not? IF we have one, why aren’t we begging to listen to them? Don’t we want to hear the word of God? Or do we only follow God when it is convenient and strokes our egos?
23. It’s too easy to be influenced too strongly by other people if we don’t have an anchor. And, as much as we like the idea, we can’t be our own anchors. That doesn’t work for ships and it doesn’t work for people. You can’t make yourself your own foundation. This just sounds an awful lot like a certain building that was in the air… The prophet is there to give us better access to the anchor that is Jesus, so we can hear His voice even when we are distressed, confused, or being yelled at by a thousand opposing voices. There must be a reliable way to find the truth even when our own minds and hearts are confused or can’t hear--because it’s folly to assume that our intentions will always be pure enough and our hearts always still enough and our minds always clear enough to hear the Spirit that clearly.
24. God asked the Prophet to lead the church. Not me. Not us. Not a community. Not a democracy. He asked the prophet to do it supported by 15 apostles. Why would He set up a system that we aren’t supposed to trust? This makes no sense.
25. There is that question of stewardship. I don’t even have the stewardship to get revelation regarding the direction the entire church is trying to go. There is a good chance God wouldn’t even answer that prayer if I ask because it’s not my stewardship. He would tell me what I need to do, but He’s not going to tell me what the entire church is supposed to do. Instead, He has asked me to trust the people He called to get that kind of revelation--those with the right stewardship. And that’s not me or you.
26. There cannot be two truths that are completely opposing. God cannot tell one person that homosexuality is not a sin (and the church will catch up and allow gay couples to be married in the temple if we just wait) and one person that it is a sin (and gay marriage is cause for excommunication) and still be God, because those things are at odds and God cannot lie or He cannot be God (we can’t trust a God who lies; having an untrustworthy God destroys religion entirely. There’s no point if we can’t trust Him). THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE IS MISTAKEN. Given the odds of a fallible prophet being mistake or a fallible me being mistaken, I’d put the money on me. The doctrine the progressives are teaching assumes that, while the prophet is fallible and can make mistakes, we individually are infallible and will never make mistakes. This is silly. It also leaves us with no authority.
27. God says his is a house of order. This doctrine is a foundation in chaos, not order. In an ordered system there must be an authority somewhere. Everyone cannot be their own authority, even if they are trying to find God themselves. If that worked, we would have never needed prophets in the first place!
28. The prophet’s job--his entire life and his calling--is to receive revelation for the Church and the World. My calling is to send the relief society email once a week. I think it’s safe to trust that someone whose JOB is to receive revelation for the Church might a) be able to do that, and b) actually do that. It’s silly to assume the prophets and apostles didn’t pray about _____ issue or that they never considered all the possibilities. This is the very thing they have been asked to do every single day. And Elder Nelson’s recent talk makes it very clear that the Brethren take this very seriously and do, actually, go through the appropriate, sacred, intense process. They make these decisions with way more discussion, input, exploration, fasting, prayer, and research than we ever could. Why not trust them? I think their process is superior to mine. I don’t have 14 other people fasting, praying, and discussing every single issue with me, catching me where I might be wrong, and coming to a fully unified conclusion with me. (And, if we trust their process, there is a lot of work involved in revelation--it’s not a matter of deciding what I’m comfortable with and assuming it “feels right” and therefore God spoke.)
29. I am furious when I take the time to give instructions to my children (sometimes through an intermediary) and they outright ignore that I said anything. Especially when they later complain that things went wrong as a result of their ignoring me. I suspect God feels the same way.
30. It makes more sense to me to be determined to do right and be right with God than to be right myself.
I guess what it boils down to is that I don't trust myself enough to get that kind of revelation. Especially since I've seen hundreds of times in my life that people who are trusting themselves over the prophets get "revelation" that leads them to do exactly opposite what the prophets are teaching--with disastrous results.
They really are convinced this is right, but my gut says that’s not so.
Here are my reasons I’ve come up with that it doesn’t work to view prophets that way:
1. It’s too much work. Regular everyday humans in reality don’t want or need to get another spiritual confirmation about every single thing prophets and apostles say, much less research it all in detail (especially since the “research” the progressives mean is actually searching for reasons the prophets might be wrong, not why they might be right).
2. If we have received a confirmation that the prophet is, in fact, a prophet whose job is to bring us information from God, that should be sufficient for us to trust him and he won’t actually ask us to do something wrong, and if he asks us to do something stupid, we’ll be blessed for obedience more than rebellion.
3. How can a prophet call us to repentance if we are free to reject whatever words don’t “sound right” to us? Because asking people to repent never sounds right or they wouldn’t need to be called, they’d just do it.
4. You have to trust your grasp of revelation an awful lot to know for sure you know whose voice you are hearing. It’s too easy to answer your own prayers, especially if you really want something or want to be right.
5. There has to be a way for God to speak with authority. Otherwise, His voice becomes yet another equally valid competing voice clamoring for attention.
6. This is insisting that God be an expert at marketing and convince us of His ways; this is not God’s way because it becomes a matter of marketing and logic instead of faith and trust.
7. When society as a whole is going the wrong way, the wrong way feels normal and right. It’s familiar and comfortable and socially supported. So if the prophet says to go against that, it will never “feel right” and the research will never back it up. God has to be free to give us instructions that don’t “ring true” at first.
8. It’s supposed to be a confirmation that it’s right, not if it’s right.
9. What is the point of a prophet if we can pick and choose what we believe of what they say?
10. Trusting isn’t weak, once you know it’s a prophet.
11. If you embrace the “don’t trust” as the default (instead of “trust” as the default), you are looking to prove the wrong thing (that they’re wrong instead of that they’re right)
12. It is prideful to assume that your understanding of what is going on trumps God’s
13. If God can’t choose fallible humans to bring us His messages, what else can He do, since humans (especially sinning ones) can’t be trusted to hear the Spirit on their own
14. It takes a great deal of spiritual maturity and experience to get the kind of revelation the prophets just hand us. People just aren’t all there yet (even after years, I’m working on understanding “yes” and “no” still!). Most of us never will be. It would be silly of God to require that of every member in order to know which way to go.
15. We can’t always tell when we’ve lost the Spirit. Pride is sneaky that way. One of the hints we have is that our ideas are going against the Prophet’s advice. If we claim he is human and fallible and therefore we don’t need to listen, we lose that guidepost.
16. The prophets are supposed to be there to help us along, not make things more difficult or confusing. If we refuse to listen to them….well, let’s just say there are many scriptural examples warning us against that.
17. I’d rather go along doing all they ask me to do than risk rejecting the wrong advice. I trust they’ll clear up the mistakes eventually, but that’s not my job.
18. If you’ve already decided they are wrong about some things, or something, then what happens when they state unequivocally that it is God’s will? That is a position that is difficult to recover from.
19. If a person is a prophet and they are speaking for God, then what does it say about us if we reject it? It says we think we know more than God. Talk about hubris!
20. What is the point of having prophets if we aren’t supposed to listen to them unless it suits us?
21. The point of modern revelation was to deal with current problems as they arise. Which means sometimes we solve a problem to our liking and then God tells the prophets we’re wrong. And if we already like our answer, we’re likely to cut God’s out, especially if our echo chambers are encouraging that. It’s too hard to correct course if we don’t need to listen because the prophet might be wrong. It’s pretty much impossible to trust a leader who we are pretty sure might be wrong all the time. And that defeats the purpose of modern revelation. Course correction requires humility, and for us to hear that they are saying to we are looking the wrong way.
22. There are so many great blessings out there. Why waste time on this? This is the baseline, not advanced doctrine that you get to eventually. This is the starting point: What is a prophet and do we have one or not? IF we have one, why aren’t we begging to listen to them? Don’t we want to hear the word of God? Or do we only follow God when it is convenient and strokes our egos?
23. It’s too easy to be influenced too strongly by other people if we don’t have an anchor. And, as much as we like the idea, we can’t be our own anchors. That doesn’t work for ships and it doesn’t work for people. You can’t make yourself your own foundation. This just sounds an awful lot like a certain building that was in the air… The prophet is there to give us better access to the anchor that is Jesus, so we can hear His voice even when we are distressed, confused, or being yelled at by a thousand opposing voices. There must be a reliable way to find the truth even when our own minds and hearts are confused or can’t hear--because it’s folly to assume that our intentions will always be pure enough and our hearts always still enough and our minds always clear enough to hear the Spirit that clearly.
24. God asked the Prophet to lead the church. Not me. Not us. Not a community. Not a democracy. He asked the prophet to do it supported by 15 apostles. Why would He set up a system that we aren’t supposed to trust? This makes no sense.
25. There is that question of stewardship. I don’t even have the stewardship to get revelation regarding the direction the entire church is trying to go. There is a good chance God wouldn’t even answer that prayer if I ask because it’s not my stewardship. He would tell me what I need to do, but He’s not going to tell me what the entire church is supposed to do. Instead, He has asked me to trust the people He called to get that kind of revelation--those with the right stewardship. And that’s not me or you.
26. There cannot be two truths that are completely opposing. God cannot tell one person that homosexuality is not a sin (and the church will catch up and allow gay couples to be married in the temple if we just wait) and one person that it is a sin (and gay marriage is cause for excommunication) and still be God, because those things are at odds and God cannot lie or He cannot be God (we can’t trust a God who lies; having an untrustworthy God destroys religion entirely. There’s no point if we can’t trust Him). THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE IS MISTAKEN. Given the odds of a fallible prophet being mistake or a fallible me being mistaken, I’d put the money on me. The doctrine the progressives are teaching assumes that, while the prophet is fallible and can make mistakes, we individually are infallible and will never make mistakes. This is silly. It also leaves us with no authority.
27. God says his is a house of order. This doctrine is a foundation in chaos, not order. In an ordered system there must be an authority somewhere. Everyone cannot be their own authority, even if they are trying to find God themselves. If that worked, we would have never needed prophets in the first place!
28. The prophet’s job--his entire life and his calling--is to receive revelation for the Church and the World. My calling is to send the relief society email once a week. I think it’s safe to trust that someone whose JOB is to receive revelation for the Church might a) be able to do that, and b) actually do that. It’s silly to assume the prophets and apostles didn’t pray about _____ issue or that they never considered all the possibilities. This is the very thing they have been asked to do every single day. And Elder Nelson’s recent talk makes it very clear that the Brethren take this very seriously and do, actually, go through the appropriate, sacred, intense process. They make these decisions with way more discussion, input, exploration, fasting, prayer, and research than we ever could. Why not trust them? I think their process is superior to mine. I don’t have 14 other people fasting, praying, and discussing every single issue with me, catching me where I might be wrong, and coming to a fully unified conclusion with me. (And, if we trust their process, there is a lot of work involved in revelation--it’s not a matter of deciding what I’m comfortable with and assuming it “feels right” and therefore God spoke.)
29. I am furious when I take the time to give instructions to my children (sometimes through an intermediary) and they outright ignore that I said anything. Especially when they later complain that things went wrong as a result of their ignoring me. I suspect God feels the same way.
30. It makes more sense to me to be determined to do right and be right with God than to be right myself.
I guess what it boils down to is that I don't trust myself enough to get that kind of revelation. Especially since I've seen hundreds of times in my life that people who are trusting themselves over the prophets get "revelation" that leads them to do exactly opposite what the prophets are teaching--with disastrous results.
Bottom line: IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY WORK. That's what common sense and a great deal of experience with "revelation" (which usually wasn't in the long run, even though the person was sure it was) have taught me. If you are getting revelation that tells you the opposite of what the Brethren are teaching, one of you is wrong. And my experience would lead me to put the money on the person who isn't called to be the prophet, even if human, fallible leaders have made mistakes in the past. Because human, fallible non-leaders have made a lot more.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
My house
Nobody is ever going to look at my house and say, 'My, what a lovely home!' And nobody is ever going to look at my house and say, 'Wow. You are an amazing housekeeper.' And nobody is ever going to look at my house and say, 'This looks fabulous! You always have things spotless and in their places.' And if anyone said my house looked like a magazine spread, I'd know they had mistaken me for someone else.
But a friend came to visit this week and after she left, she emailed me and said that despite having 8 kids, my house is so peaceful and has a calming influence, and she didn't want to leave, and her kids prayed the next day that they were so grateful to have been able to come to our house.
I had been feeling like such a failure for my housekeeping "skills" (hahaha). But, given the choice, I'd rather be praised for having created a calming, loving sanctuary where people feel safe and loved and rejuvenated and don't want to leave because of how they feel when they are here than being praised for having a "lovely home."
As wonderful as pretty spaces are, safe spaces and heart-lifting spaces are so much more valuable.
Perhaps I am not such a failure at houses after all.
But a friend came to visit this week and after she left, she emailed me and said that despite having 8 kids, my house is so peaceful and has a calming influence, and she didn't want to leave, and her kids prayed the next day that they were so grateful to have been able to come to our house.
I had been feeling like such a failure for my housekeeping "skills" (hahaha). But, given the choice, I'd rather be praised for having created a calming, loving sanctuary where people feel safe and loved and rejuvenated and don't want to leave because of how they feel when they are here than being praised for having a "lovely home."
As wonderful as pretty spaces are, safe spaces and heart-lifting spaces are so much more valuable.
Perhaps I am not such a failure at houses after all.
Jack says,
Jack, running in his new socks, came sliding up to me, "I'm so fast! I'm the gingerbread man!"
Me: "You also smell poopy. Are you a poopy gingerbread man?"
Jack: "No! Gingerbread men can't be poopy. They don't have a bum!"
Me: "You also smell poopy. Are you a poopy gingerbread man?"
Jack: "No! Gingerbread men can't be poopy. They don't have a bum!"
Jack says....
I was reading the computer today when Jack walked up next to me and said, "Can I bang the computer?" I, thinking he meant with his bare hand or a little toy, absently said, "Sure."
Then I looked up. Just in time, as he had a HAMMER in his hands!
Redirected him to the couch to do his banging there.
Note to me: Always look at a kid before you agree to let them do something.
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Jack says....
Jack: "Mom, we have to go to the seminary store. Because that's where my birthday lives. We have to get in the car and drive there. Because I'm poopy. So I can't go."
me: "Or we could just change your diaper."
me:
Friday, December 11, 2015
Jack says....
Jack, after working hard to get his shark costume on, "I got my shark jacket on. Now I'm a dolphin! Dolphins have bums." And then he walked away.
------
Jack, "I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Me: "What?"
Jack: "Daniel has a robot in his mouth. I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Daniel has a palate expander in the roof of his mouth. It looks like this:
------
Jack, "I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Me: "What?"
Jack: "Daniel has a robot in his mouth. I want to go to the doctor to get a robot in my mouth."
Daniel has a palate expander in the roof of his mouth. It looks like this:
I guess to Jack, it's a robot!
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
Jack says....
me: "Jack, are you poopy?"
Jack: "No. I'm Batman."
------
me: "Jack, let's get in the car to go to the store."
Jack: "But Daddy took da car."
me: "No, Daddy went in Dwight's car."
Jack: "Oh! So we can go in da blue car."
me: "Yes."
Jack: "Because Daddy went in da white car so we can go in da blue car because da white car is gone with Daddy and you fixed it!"
me: "Uh....the white van is still broken. Daddy went with his friend, Dwight in his car."
Jack: "Yes. In da white car. So we can take da blue car to da store."
------
Jack: "Mom, can we make these cakes?" (Holding a cake pan that has animal shapes in it)
Me: "Sure."
Jack, looking at the pan: "Giraffses are soft. But lions are scary scary scary! They could eat me eat me!"
Jack: "No. I'm Batman."
------
me: "Jack, let's get in the car to go to the store."
Jack: "But Daddy took da car."
me: "No, Daddy went in Dwight's car."
Jack: "Oh! So we can go in da blue car."
me: "Yes."
Jack: "Because Daddy went in da white car so we can go in da blue car because da white car is gone with Daddy and you fixed it!"
me: "Uh....the white van is still broken. Daddy went with his friend, Dwight in his car."
Jack: "Yes. In da white car. So we can take da blue car to da store."
------
Jack: "Mom, can we make these cakes?" (Holding a cake pan that has animal shapes in it)
Me: "Sure."
Jack, looking at the pan: "Giraffses are soft. But lions are scary scary scary! They could eat me eat me!"
Saturday, December 05, 2015
Gun control
Lots of talk about gun control lately.
Lots of passion involved from lots of people.
Lots of not getting to a decent conclusion from either side.
Why is that?
I think there are two problems.
1. There is a lot of stupid partisan politicking going on. Lots of people saying, "This is obvious" and "There _is_ no other solution." That's just plain not helpful. Lots of people rejecting each other's stats out of hand rather than thoughtful discussion.
2. Failure to define the problem. The problem has been defined as "guns" when really we're talking about multiple problems and guns are a thread that runs through them. The solutions to "guns" is different depending on what the problem is.
Terrorism is one problem, and you'd not solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Suicide by firearm is another problem, and you can solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Mass shootings by insane people who get angry at society are yet another problem, and it appears that greater attention paid to ammunition stockpiling might help red-flag some of these people (but not all).
Inner-city gang violence is another problem, and there are great programs, like Ceasefire, that appear to work if they get enough funding.
Until we have more research about the actual causes and courses of action to deal with these problems, "guns" is not going to get fixed, as far as I can tell. You have to deal with the overabundance of weapons in our society AND the whatever-it-is that convinces a person to shoot.
So I was going to write more but this guy did it for me, so go read this: http://www.meditations-on-life.com/american-politics/gun-control-arguments-pro-gun-control-vs-anti-gun-control/
Lots of passion involved from lots of people.
Lots of not getting to a decent conclusion from either side.
Why is that?
I think there are two problems.
1. There is a lot of stupid partisan politicking going on. Lots of people saying, "This is obvious" and "There _is_ no other solution." That's just plain not helpful. Lots of people rejecting each other's stats out of hand rather than thoughtful discussion.
2. Failure to define the problem. The problem has been defined as "guns" when really we're talking about multiple problems and guns are a thread that runs through them. The solutions to "guns" is different depending on what the problem is.
Terrorism is one problem, and you'd not solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Suicide by firearm is another problem, and you can solve that by getting guns out of people's houses.
Mass shootings by insane people who get angry at society are yet another problem, and it appears that greater attention paid to ammunition stockpiling might help red-flag some of these people (but not all).
Inner-city gang violence is another problem, and there are great programs, like Ceasefire, that appear to work if they get enough funding.
Until we have more research about the actual causes and courses of action to deal with these problems, "guns" is not going to get fixed, as far as I can tell. You have to deal with the overabundance of weapons in our society AND the whatever-it-is that convinces a person to shoot.
So I was going to write more but this guy did it for me, so go read this: http://www.meditations-on-life.com/american-politics/gun-control-arguments-pro-gun-control-vs-anti-gun-control/
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Caleb says....
So, I was helping Dan with math and tuned in to the other kids just in time to hear "adjusting the laws of physics..." come out of someone's mouth.
"What?" I said. "I tune out for just a minute and you're all adjusting the laws of physics on me?"
"Yes, I am adjusting the laws of physics," Caleb responded, "but in a controlled, fictional, nonexistent environment. You don't have to worry."
Am I relieved?
"What?" I said. "I tune out for just a minute and you're all adjusting the laws of physics on me?"
"Yes, I am adjusting the laws of physics," Caleb responded, "but in a controlled, fictional, nonexistent environment. You don't have to worry."
Am I relieved?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)