25 Random Things About Me

I just posted this as a note on my Facebook account.  One of my friends tagged me in his list saying "GNP confuses me. He rocks very hard though."  I can't imagine my list will leave him any less confused.

Once you've been tagged, you are invited to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 (or so) people to be tagged. Please tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.

*To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, then click post. Go onto your 'profile' page, and open the note. Then 'tag people in this note'.

1. I never used to understand people who were deeply religious - and secretly looked down on them. Now I'm one of them and can't get God out of my every thought (nor do I want to).

2. I'm a pretty serious perfectionist and wish I weren't so mediocre at being mediocre - but I'm improving over time.

3. I'm serially obsessive about stuff - being totally focused one something for a couple of hours, days, or weeks and then moving on to something new to focus on.

4. I've always wanted to dunk a basketball and do an unassisted pull-up. Perhaps I can get obsessed about working out and make those things happen.

5. I believe that everything happens for a reason. Others disagree. So even though I'm still dogmatic that everything in *my* life happens for a reason, I'm willing to acknowledge that chaos may rein in other people's lives (or at least appear to).

6. I love my wife more and more each day - as if that were possible. She's my soul mate and a true blessing in my life.

7. My wife refers to me as "Yahoo Serious" sometimes - because I'm too serious, not because I have long hair.

8. I hate the parable of the Prodigal Son. I identify with the responsible elder son.

9. I've always wanted to be more eccentric. Perhaps my eccentricity can be wanting to be more eccentric.

10. I miss having a creative outlet at work. I need to figure out how to justify having a creative department or a talent show at a biofuels startup.

11. I get along well with people but generally consider myself anti-social.

12. People have trouble figuring out my ethnicity. A co-worker calls me an International Everyman.

13. I have a fear of being stung by bees/wasps, getting burned while taking things out of the oven, and using toilets in public bathrooms. In my own defense, though, who in their right mind isn't afraid of using toilets in public bathrooms?

14. The Dallas Cowboys played in the first football game I watched as a kid. I was about 6 years old and living in Germany at the time. They've been my favorite team ever since - although I don't watch much football anymore.

15. I voted yes on Prop 8 but continue to go back and forth on whether I still agree with that decision.

16. Sometimes I lament the amount of stuff I've learned in my life that I've since forgotten. But perhaps I need to make space for new stuff to learn.

17. I aspire to being an early-bird but continue to be a night-owl.

18. I look forward to wearing magic underwear (GC's term, not mine) - not because it's magic but because of the commitments it would represent.

19. I enjoy spooning with my wife but sometimes her body-pillow gets in the way.

20. In the last couple years, I discovered I have the parents I always wanted.

21. I just met my paternal grandmother in India for the first time in my life. It was my best approximation of what it will be like to be reunited with family members in heaven.

22. I want to travel to lots of places around the world during my life. As a kid, I traveled all over Europe and the US/Canada with my family but don't remember much of it now. 

23. I've been writing in a blog for almost three years now (http://gnp30.blogspot.com/).

24. My favorite number is 24 and my favorite TV show is 24. Coincidence?

25. I hope to be the father that my kids deserve.

A message to my future self

This past weekend, you were baptized and confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Regardless of what happens in your life, remember always that your Heavenly Father loves you and He wants you and your family to return to live in his presence. You will surely experience peaks and valleys as you go through life - both spiritual and temporal. When things are going well, remember always that the many blessings in your life come from God, be thankful and humble for that, and re-double your efforts to serve the Lord and observe his Commandments. When things are not going well, remember always to put your full faith in the Lord, repent, and know of the great power of His atoning sacrifice. The Lord has helped you get this far. He has led you by the hand and answered your prayers. He will not abandon you unless you abandon Him. You can always return to Him. He will always take you back. Above all else, accept the will of God in your life and the lives of others and always strive to serve as an instrument of God's will on this earth; not for your own glory but for His. Our Heavenly Father has a plan for each of us and life works in a way that only He can fully comprehend.

If you ever doubt these things to be true, know with every fiber of your being that on this day and at this time you knew that they were true and summon strength from the fact that, for at least one fleeting moment, you were without doubt.

My Christmas Wish

This Christmas, my sincere wish is that the necessary healing and forgiveness will take place within my family and my wife's family that we might all be joyful to always be together as eternal families. This has been my consistent prayer over the last couple of days and my prayer to my Heavenly Father this morning at the Washington, DC temple. I have faith that this prayer will be answered, if not in this life then in the life hereafter.

The exact nature of my family's challenges and those of my wife's family are not appropriate to share in this post. A year and a half ago (see prior post), my brother-in-law JG gave a talk in which he said:

We may think that other people live blessed and charmed lives. What is more likely true is that those people keep their pain and suffering to themselves, and choose not to be miserable. It is interesting that whenever I get to know a charmed person well enough, I inevitably find that there are many troubles the person is dealing with below the surface. I have not yet found a person with whom I would change places, trading my troubles for their troubles. Our troubles our uniquely suited to help us develop.

The families I am a part of are no different in this regard. We have our troubles - significant troubles - but I believe that they are uniquely suited to help us develop. In the premortal life, we chose to come to this Earth to learn and to grow and to be challenged. We may have picked our parents - or perhaps they picked us - but I'm confident we had some say in the matter. There is an important reason why we are together as a family unit and why, at this point in our lives, we face an important decision regarding how we want our family unit to go forward - whether we want to choose to fight to stay together or whether we will choose to drift apart. Right now, I think most family members would choose the latter option. Reconciliation - true, heartfelt, joyful reconciliation - seems almost impossible. It would be almost foolish to hope for, as much as we might wish for it in our hearts. But, this Christmas, as we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, I testify that our Savior lives, that He loves each of us, and, through His atoning sacrifice, we may be forgiven of ours sins. Let us follow His supreme example and forgive ourselves and our loved ones and come together as a family.

Let me take a moment to be clear on a couple of key points. First, I know I am speaking in religious terms (and specifically LDS terms) when I speak of eternal families, premortal existence, and Jesus Christ. For those of you who do not believe in these things, please focus on the spirit of what I'm saying and not on the specific terms I'm using to articulate it. Independent of our individual religious beliefs, my wish remains the same - that healing and forgiveness may occur and that we may be joyful to be families (independent of whether or not you believe those families transcend death). Second, when I speak of forgiveness, I am not saying that we need to forget what has happened in the past or pretend that everything is ok when it's not. I'm also not saying that we shouldn't maintain appropriate boundaries, take necessary precautions, or take action when loved ones transgress against us. I am not saying that others do not need to take responsibility for what they have done or how they continue to act; or that others will not be judged on the totality of their lives. What I am saying is that we need to free up and put to better use the energy once consumed by holding grudges, harboring resentments, and nursing unhealed wounds. We need to rediscover the strengths we have always had and relocate our limitless capacity to understand and accept other people and ourselves.

My brother-in-law DE is fond of the scripture "the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). I would agree. I am not saying we need to "air our dirty laundry" to the whole world to see. I don't think that would be appropriate. But I do feel strongly that there needs to be open and honest communication among family members - between parents and children and between spouses - regarding the truth of the past and the present. I believe this is essential to the healing process. A couple years ago, I spent two full days asking my parents very personal, sensitive, and penetrating questions about the past. I know that experience was quite challenging and emotional for my parents. I know I dug up old memories and "family secrets" they had carefully buried over the years. And I know they likely still live with scars from those "interviews". But I can say, without any reservation, that those discussions were transformational for me. The entire way I viewed my parents changed over those two days. At a time that I was ready to abandon my relationship with my parents, I gained a conviction that I wanted them in my life and the lives of my children. I was reminded - or more aptly discovered - how deeply they love me. And I forgave them for pain I carried around in my heart for many years. I thank them - from the bottom of my heart - for fighting for our family (even though at the time it probably didn't feel that way to them). The lines of communication have since closed a bit - certain topics, for example, are explicitly off-limits - but I am hopeful the lines of communication will open back up even if that causes occasional discomfort. I am also hopeful that there will be open lines of communication within my wife's family (and extended family) that the truth might make them free.

One quick message specifically to my parents and my wife's parents. You are children of parents as well and I know you have unresolved issues with your own parents (or your in-laws). Healing with your children can only be complete and everlasting if you also heal your relationships with your parents (whether they are living or not). None of us can change our past but we each have control over how we will let the past infiltrate our present and affect our future decisions.

In terms of why I believe this Christmas wish will be answered, I will quickly share a couple of personal experiences from the last few days. Shortly after I arrived here in Bethesda, I decided to do some raking so my father wouldn't need to do it this past weekend. My parents have a large lot and a great number of trees - hence many leaves to be cleared. In the midst of this project, I was thinking about my family and my wife's family and the seed of this post formed and become clear. At one point, I felt compelled to pray that healing might come to our families. Right after that, without any prompting from me, my mother, wife, and two sons came out to help me rake. Working as a family (my father was at work), we finished the project just as it was getting dark. There is no way I could have completed this project on my own and I took the rest of my family coming out when they did as a sign that my prayer had been heard.

Yesterday morning, I began fasting for my trip to the Washington temple today. Right after I began fasting, I felt that I wouldn't be able to make it through. I felt sick, lightheaded, and unable to focus. This fast was much harder than the ones before it. But, I resolved that I would complete the fast as planned. This morning, I felt fine - quite well actually. When I offered my prayer at the temple, I received the same confirmation I received at the Oakland temple (see prior post). I also don't think it's a coincidence that one of the missionaries at the Visitor's Center quoted the same scripture to me and my wife that I quoted to my mother the other night (Alma 7:9-12). I took this as a sign that healing and joy would indeed come to my family and my wife's family over time but that there would be challenges and discomfort along the way and that we would each need to resolve to overcome those challenges.

Finally, when I first came out to DC for this visit, I had no idea what I was supposed to get out of visiting this temple. The first morning we were here, my wife and my father had a "run-in" (and subsequent discussion) that got me thinking about all of this. It continues to amaze me to see how the Lord works through others in our lives.

As with all of my recent spiritual experiences, you could argue that I am reading into these events more than I should or that it's all wishful thinking. And, you might be right. But it doesn't change the strength of my convictions or my belief that our families are worth fighting for and that we will only find true happiness if we heal ourselves and heal our relationships with one another.

With that, Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

First Vision

Last Saturday (December 1), I visited the Oakland and Sacramento LDS temples (see prior post for rationale). The most significant outcome of those visits was gaining a personal testimony of Joseph Smith's First Vision and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. When I bore my testimony last Sunday in front of the congregation (see prior post for rationale), I mentioned that I had previously intellectually known (or at least didn't actively disbelieve) these things but now knew in my heart that they were true.

Many of you probably don't know what the "First Vision" is so let me attempt to give some brief background - more here. When Joseph Smith was 14 years old, he was trying to decide which Christian denomination to join. While reading the Bible, he came across James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him". Joseph decided to put this promise to the test. In the Joseph Smith History 1:12-13, it says:

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James direct, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

On a spring day in 1820, he prayed in a grove of trees to know which church was true. God the Father and Jesus Christ, "two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description," appeared and spoke with him. In the Joseph Smith History 1:17-19, it goes on to say:

17 One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other - This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) - and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

So, basically, Joseph Smith is visited by God and Jesus Christ and told that he shouldn't join any of the churches of that day and that he should await further instructions from on high. This is a fantastic story and one that many people have a very hard time accepting. As I mentioned earlier, I didn't disbelieve that Joseph Smith had this First Vision or that he was a prophet of God, but I also didn't have a burning conviction that they were true either.

On Friday night, my brother-in-law DE came over and we watched a movie. After he left, I decided to pray that I would get something out of the temple visits the next day. As I did so, I had a visceral experience that I couldn't explain at the time. I had the feeling of pressure pushing down upon me but also an aura or force field around me as well. I also remember pleading with God to stay with me during this experience. After I was done praying, I remember thinking "that was an odd experience" but I didn't read into it any more than that.

The following day, I visited the Oakland temple in the morning. At the visitor center, they were showing the movie "Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration". One of the missionaries had told me that I should definitely check it out if I had a chance. During the movie, they visually depicted the First Vision, including this part described in the Joseph Smith History 1:15-16:

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction - not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being - just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

I didn't know about this dark initial part of the First Vision at the time so it took me by surprise when I saw it on screen. But I immediately connected with it, though, given my "odd experience" the night before. It was then and there that I knew in my heart that the First Vision took place as Joseph Smith had described and that he was a prophet of God. Honestly, this was the last thing I was expecting to get out of the day but I can't deny it either.

Shortly after the movie ended, I decided to offer a short prayer outside the temple with my sister-in-law HG. It was a chilly, windy, cloudy day. When we sat down and I began my prayer, the sun came out from behind the clouds and shone down on me and HG. I remember the warmth it brought and the intensity of the light through my eyelids. I actually paused at one point to soak it all in and then abruptly ended the prayer because any further thoughts exited my mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Lord was showing favor for me in this moment. If anything, it reminded me of an experience about a week prior. My brother-in-law TR got laid off unexpectedly from his job just before Thanksgiving. I decided to fast that he might find a new job and that this experience might help him in his life someway. I decided to fast from 1pm on Wednesday, November 21 (the day before Thanksgiving) to 3pm on Thursday, November 22 (Thanksgiving day). I decided to skip dinner and breakfast since I had a business lunch already scheduled that Wednesday and it had been months in the making. I also didn't want to skip the Thanksgiving lunch/dinner that my brother-in-law DE was preparing. That Wednesday afternoon, I decided to start my fast with a prayer. I didn't want to do it at work so I went for a short walk. I got about 5 or 6 blocks from my office and found a quiet spot in an industrial complex. It was a bright California day and I remember the warmth and brightness of the sun as I prayed to begin my fast that it might help TR find a new position. TR hasn't found a new job yet but perhaps the later experience at the Oakland temple was God's way of telling me he had heard my prayer and that my fast would help TR in some small way. [Aside: I fasted on December 1 as part of the temple visits.]

That's everything for the Oakland temple. The Sacramento temple visit was much less eventful. HG and I drove 2 hours from the Oakland temple to the Sacramento temple and arrived around 2:30 or 3pm. It's a small temple and there is no visitor's center or anything like that. I had one suggestion for someone to speak with at the Sacramento temple but he wasn't available. So HG and I walked around the grounds - which aren't that big and I'd seen them before when I visited the open house for this temple last August (see prior post). HG had visited the open house as well and shared her observation that she had felt a noticeable difference between the Sacramento temple during the open house compared with other temples she had been in. Basically, her observation was that temples are just beautiful buildings until they are dedicated. I thought that was an interesting insight and one that I'll file away for future reflection.

I'm curious to see what the Washington, DC and Rexburg temples have in store for me. Just as I'm composing this part of the post, an email came in regarding my missionary work talk (see previous post). It says:

True to your comments on missionaries converting themselves, one of the times that I felt a true acceleration in my conversion was during my first Christmas on my mission. I cannot pinpoint the moment exactly, but I remember feeling completely overcome with a sudden understanding of why we (as a people) were celebrating: We have a Savior! I was filled with such joy and thankfulness at the thought of the Messiah. It seemed to sink deeper into my understanding, and for a time, I was truly overwhelmed with joy and relief. Then, it deepened further, and I was impressed with the sense of responsibility I had to share that understanding. It was a crowning moment for me to suddenly realize that I was a missionary preaching of Christ on Christmas. It felt so right.

It's not lost on me that I'll be visiting the DC temple right around Christmas. So, if I had to guess, I would say that visit may provide a deeper understanding of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. But I've been dead-wrong with my other predictions so I suspect I'll get something else out of the visit. I think the feeling of surprise is part of what drives home for me that the messages I'm taking away from these experiences are genuine and not a result of "wish fulfillment" or "delusion". God knows how my mind works and is tailoring his message so I can recognize and accept it.

There are some additional implications of my "First Vision" experience but it's late so I'll save them for another post. As DE says, good night and good luck.

I'm all in

Part one of the "temple tour" is complete. For those of you who like to cut to the chase, here are the key takeaways. I now know that I know. I will bear my testimony of that at the December 2 fast & testimony meeting (even though I won't be a member at that point). Future temple visits and discussions will focus on (a) how to maintain and deepen my testimony & commitment once I come out of the "honeymoon period" with the Church and (b) how to be ready for what will be asked of me. As an aside, if there was any doubt before, I have officially lost my mind - but it's a very good thing.

I'm guessing at least one of you is interested in the details so here you go. Today, I visited the Fresno temple with my wife's uncle (GH) - see previous post for rationale. I fasted for the visit - which was both easier and harder than I had predicted - although the level of difficulty is mostly irrelevant since fasting was asked of me so I didn't have any choice in the matter. During the visit, I met the President of the California Fresno Mission along with the First Counselor of the Fresno Temple (FCF, who also happened to have served as a Mission President in Australia and whose birthday is the day after I'm planning to be baptized). The Fresno Mission President (PB) was formerly the Stake President in Utah for my sister-in-law NR (the one who led to my first spiritual experience with the Church 14 years ago) and her husband. He also happened to know the California San Francisco Mission President (who I met with 8 days ago) and called him prior to my visit. GH's great-grandfather joined the Church in October 1830 - 6 months after it was established - and probably knew Joseph Smith personally. And, during the visit, I also happened to meet a couple who are friends of my mother-in-law and father-in-law from a number of years ago. All purely coincidence? I personally don't think so but others can make their own judgments.

In terms of the visit itself, GH and I met PB outside of the Temple at 11am. I asked GH to start us off with a prayer - which he graciously accommodated. We chatted for a little bit before entering the lobby of the Temple. PB introduced me to FCF and the three of us talked for about a half hour. During that conversation, PB and FCF talked about different aspects of temples along with various Church beliefs. After awhile, they asked me if there were any specific questions they could answer and I said "no". In fact, I said that, as they were talking, I felt that they were "preaching to the converted" and that perhaps that feeling was the point of my visit to this particular Temple. Making that statement was basically when I knew that I knew. [As an aside, if you haven't heard or read the "Knowing That We Know" talk from the last General Conference, definitely check it out if you're interested in building a personal testimony.]

After this discussion with FCF, PB and I took a short walk around the grounds. We talked about the "Knowing That We Know" talk. I also told him that I have a feeling that God will ask a great deal from me - especially given the stature of people he is sending to me now - and that thought was both humbling and scary. Specifically, I'm concerned that I won't have the right level of enthusiasm (or attitude) at the time (due to other considerations in my life like work or family) and/or that I won't have the ability to live up to the calling. PB had some very helpful and comforting insights in this regard. He shared that he has had callings of his own that he feared his wasn't qualified for or that there had been a mistake in the revelation that had been received - but in all of those instances, God had given him the strength and ability that he needed to fulfill his responsibilities.

I hate to make a gambling analogy is the context of religion but it's been in my head all day. Both during and after the visit, the phrase "I'm all in" kept going through my mind. I was taking all my chips and making this bet, this leap of faith, on the Church. There are still a number of things I don't know about the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc but I'm betting all my chips. I'm "all in" at this point.

That's everything for the Temple visit itself. During the 3-hour drive home, I had time to reflect on what had happened today. During that drive, I came to some additional conclusions (that I believe are at the prompting of the Spirit). First, I have three more temple visits before I get baptized (Sacramento, Oakland, and DC). Given the fact that I now have a testimony, what am I supposed to get out of those others visits? I don't know for sure but I believe one aspect of that is trying to answer two questions: (a) how to maintain and deepen my testimony & commitment once I come out of the "honeymoon period" with the Church and (b) how to be ready for what will be asked of me. In terms of the first question, I was talking to my brother-in-law JG last night and he compared a testimony to a marriage. In his case, he was comparing the question "when did you know that you know?" to "when did you know that you love your wife?" But that got me thinking more broadly about testimony and commitment building in the context of marriage. In particular, I was thinking about how many people have the misconception that if you find the right person to marry, everything else should come totally naturally and that you'll live "happily ever after". In reality, having a strong marriage takes a lot of work, particularly after you get past the excitement of the "honeymoon period" and settle into regular, day-to-day life. At that point, it becomes easy to take the marriage for granted and invest your energies in other areas of your life when in reality the marriage needs more (not less) attention at each subsequent stage.

And, second, I decided to bear my testimony at the next fast & testimony meeting on Sunday, December 2. That is coincidentally the day after I'm planning to visit the Sacramento and Oakland temples. While potentially odd (since I won't be a member at that point), the rationale is multi-fold: (a) serve as a forcing function and test of my testimony, (b) help reinforce or build the testimony of others, and (c) help ward off evil. This last element may not be immediately obvious. Multiple people have told me that Satan works hardest on people during the period in between when they decide to be baptized and when the baptism actually occurs. Given the long delay between now and January 19, I may be especially exposed in that regard. Which also means that I can most use the help and support of others - hence the public proclamation on December 2 (and a similar proclamation and request for help here in this blog).

One final thought. I would have never requested that GH have a stroke and almost die (multiple times). But I am personally grateful that happened in his life. Had it not, I would have never taken a personal interest in GH and his wife PH - and today's experience wouldn't have been possible. At some point in the future, it's possible that I still would have gained a testimony of the Church. It's possible that I would come to know that I know. But I personally believe that it was supposed to happen today in this way - that in the grand scheme of things all of these things (including GH's health struggles) have happened for a reason. And at least today, that reason was to help me build my testimony. So I am grateful for that and continue to be in awe of the interconnectedness of our lives.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

January 19, 2008

I'll warn you in advance that some of you will read this entry and think I've lost my mind. Others will read it and think it's cool. You're all right. I'll also warn you in advance that this entry will be pretty long. For those of you with short attention spans, here are the key takeaways. I've set Saturday, January 19, 2008 as my date to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Between now and then, I'm going to visit the Fresno, Sacramento, Oakland, and DC temples to help build my testimony.

Now, for those of you with a little time on your hands, let me give you all the gory details. As I discussed in a previous post, I've been officially investigating the LDS Church for the last month and a half based on a seemingly random chain of events that reminded me of an experience I had 14 years ago. During the last six weeks, I've had various meetings with the missionaries along with other ward members. I've been reading the Book of Mormon (BOM) for the last 10 days based on not wanting to be outdone by an 11-year old (see post). And I've been praying consistently while reading the BOM - mostly to get something out of the reading but also to find answers to my questions.

Going into this process, I wouldn't have guessed I'd end up at this point so quickly. There was even a point with the missionaries where I was planning to "take a break" from further discussions but changed my mind during the meeting in which I was going to deliver that message. I've had swings (sometimes within the same day) from thinking I was ready to be baptized right then to thinking it would never happen. So it hasn't been a perfectly smooth process but that's probably by design.

In terms of the tipping point, it was a rapid set of events over a 48 hour period. Last Friday, I had a meeting with the missionaries. I had taken the day off from work to catch up on personal matters - mostly this blog. As you may have noticed, I had a flurry of seven blog entries that day, including four about Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. As it turns out, the President of the San Francisco Mission joined the missionaries for this meeting. We ended up talking for 2 hours (a typical meeting is supposed to be 45 minutes) and I only ended the conversation because I was very late for some dinner guests at home. We covered a wide range of topics during that meeting, including PK giving me an overview of structure and chronology of the BOM. Given his obvious deep knowledge of the material, I posed all my "hard" questions to him and he had immediate responses. I got the distinct impression that there was no (doctrinal) question I could ask him that he wouldn't have a good answer for. In addition to his depth of knowledge, I was also impressed with PK's obvious depth of character. He seemed to have a genuine desire to find the truth wherever it may be - having read, for example, the Qur'an and scriptures of other faiths. He also had a genuine interest in serving others and spreading the Gospel.

During this meeting, the missionaries asked "you seem ready, what's holding you back from being baptized?" Based on the flow of the conversation, it was a fair and logical question. My response was that I'd like to believe that I'm the type of person who does what he says he's going to do. So if I make certain covenants with God, I'm going to keep them. But I wouldn't make that decision lightly. Also, I hadn't finished reading the BOM yet so I didn't see the harm in getting to the end of the process - even if it meant waiting to make the decision for another 30, 60, or 90 days (or more). Who knows, maybe I'd find something in the BOM that I wouldn't be able to get comfortable with - although I didn't think that was likely. The missionaries and the Mission President were very understanding and didn't apply any pressure. They just asked the question and left it at that.

On the way home and later that evening, I thought about the baptism discussion I'd had and what was holding me back. I read over the baptismal interview questions on page 206 of Preach My Gospel - also see here. After reading through these questions a couple of times and thinking about it, I sent the following email to JW:

Subject: Believe vs willing to believe

Hi JW,

I had another good meeting with the missionaries today. And PK was able to join us too. I'm reading through the baptismal interview questions on page 206 of Preach My Gospel - specifically the first two:

(1a) Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father?
(1b) Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
(2a) Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith?
(2b) Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God?

For 1a, my answer would be yes. For 1b, 2a, and 2b, my answer would be that I'm willing to believe those things since I don't have a compelling reason not to believe them. Is that sufficient at this stage of the game? Or is "believe" the moral equivalent of "know with certainty" in this context ( e.g., do you know with certainty that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?). Trying to understand the bar from the Church's perspective and independently reconcile that with my own bar for entering into covenants with God.

One of the questions the missionaries asked me was what's holding me back from being baptized. This difference between belief (and knowing with certainty) vs being willing to believe (but not knowing with certainty) is one of the main things holding me back so thought I'd solicit your opinion on the matter. To the extent it makes a difference, when I say "know with certainty", I implicitly mean "know in my heart" as opposed to purely "knowing in an intellectual way".

Thanks,
GNP

It was late at that point so I ended up leaving my stuff out and going to bed. The next morning, I went to put Preach My Gospel (still open to the baptismal interview questions) away in my backpack. As I did, page 4 of the October 2007 issue of Ensign stared back at me. Many weeks ago I had opened the magazine to the first article but hadn't had time to read it. So the magazine had been sitting in my backpack ever since, still open to that article. On the opposing page (and the side facing me as I opened my bag) was a picture of Christ being baptized by John the Baptist. Now, the magazine wasn't the only thing in my backpack. It was part of a big stack of papers and books but it just so happens that I went to insert Preach My Gospel into my bag at the place in the stack where this picture was staring back at me right in the face. You could certainly chock that up to random coincidence but I don't believe in random coincidences (see post). I took this as an unmistakable sign that, despite my reservations (that I had expressed the night before), I was supposed to be baptized. So I got the ball rolling in my mind regarding what date I should pick, etc.

But this still left me with an obvious problem. Even though I received this sign I was supposed to be baptized, it didn't magically change the fact that the strength of my testimony hadn't changed in 8 hours while I had been sleeping. The day unfolded without much more drama - just a variety of activities with the kids. That night, my wife and I went to an 80's party at a friend's house. As we were leaving the party, I saw on my Treo that I had received a reply from JW to my email. I was hoping he'd let me off the hook and say that being willing to believe was enough, but alas he's not that type of guy. He's one of those people who tells you what you don't want to hear but know is true. The gist of his response was that the interview questions are asking about your personal testimony and that I should continue to read the BOM and pray about it to build mine. For encouragement, he cited D&C 112:10: "Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers."

We get home from the party and I decide to make some further progress on the BOM. I was in the middle of some challenging chapters in 2 Nephi by Isaiah and honestly not getting a lot out of it. Even though I had prayed before opening the BOM for assistance focusing on the material and assessing its truth, I couldn't help thinking about JW's response about building my testimony. For awhile, people had been suggesting varying forms of fasting and prayer to know what I should do (or know whether the BOM was true). I had this picture in my head of going off by myself at some point for some solitude and prayer to get me over the hump. Similar to Joseph Smith in the woods or Jesus in Gethsemane, I was going to go off into nature to pray and find answers to my questions. But, in my mind, I was going to go on the hike or was going to sit around some place scenic. In the midst of reading the BOM, I got an overwhelming feeling (message) that I was supposed to go to temples rather than nature to build my testimony. I stopped what I was doing and dwelled in the moment. What I specifically took away was that I was supposed to visit the Fresno temple with my wife's uncle this Saturday (during a previously scheduled visit), visit the DC temple while visiting my parents for Christmas and New Years, and visit the Sacramento and Oakland temples somewhere in between.

Now, let's be clear about a couple of things. At the time (and even now), it's not at all clear to me what I'm supposed to do or what I'm supposed to learn by going to these temples. Also, I feel totally ridiculous every time I tell anyone this part of the story because (a) it's not clear why God would instruct me to do this and (b) he instructed me to visit multiple buildings that I can't even enter. For those of you who are fans of the movie Pee Wee's Big Adventure, it feels like being told to pack my bags for San Antonio so I can find my bike in the basement of the Alamo when the Alamo doesn't have a basement to begin with. That said, I'm not questioning this instruction in any way and made plans to following morning to visit these four temples. When God tells you to do something (or at least you believe that to be true), you do it, no questions asked.

[Aside #1: I was also tempted to book a flight to visit the Salt Lake temple to see the statue of Christ in the visitor center there. It's one of my few childhood memories from an around-the-country trip we took one summer. But I don't believe it was part of the official guidance so I'll do it another time.]

[Aside #2: The purpose of visiting the Fresno temple may already have become clear. My wife's aunt and uncle are friends with the Fresno Mission President and he will be joining us for my visit to that temple. So I assume that could be the reason I was meant to go to that temple - but I could be wrong.]

[Aside #3: One hypothesis I had is that perhaps God is instructing me to go to these temples precisely because I can't go into them. Effectively, I'd go to these places and all I'd take away from them is a disappointment of not being able to go inside. And then have that motivate me to make changes in my life - including being baptized - so that I could enter the temple down the road.]

[Aside #4: My sister-in-law HG was joking the other night that I must be going for a world record in terms of how many missionaries (and Mission Presidents) I can have involved in my conversion. So far I've met with three missionaries in the ward and my wife's sister NR got me on this path in the first place 14 years ago during her mission in Chile. Then there's the San Francisco Mission President and soon to be the Fresno Mission President. And presumably I'll end up talking with one or more missionaries at each of the Sacramento, Oakland, and DC temples. Crazy.]

Ok, back to Saturday. I get this personal revelation and decide to go to bed. That night, I have a dream about a house burning down and being reduced to rubble. You could argue this doesn't mean anything (and you might be right) but I interpreted it as follows. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis makes the analogy of imagining yourself as a house that God will rebuild into a palace that He will live in personally (see post). People also refer to confirmation (following baptism with water) as "baptism with fire". So I interpreted this dream (the picture of which is still in my head even now) to mean that God is going to burn down my house (figuratively) and build me back up exactly how he wants me (and for his purpose). A couple of reactions that morning: (1) "enough already, I get it, I'm supposed to get baptized", (2) I'll personally end up in a better place in my life long-term but the burn-down and rebuild process is going to be really unpleasant and I hope God gives me the strength to get through it, and (3) God isn't messing around, he's got plans for me independent of what I might otherwise want or what would be personally easy for me; but I better accept God's plan and callings when the time comes regardless of what else I have going on.

So that's the scoop. Now, you may have one more question in your mind so let me answer it. Why January 19, 2008? Is there something special about that date? The short answer is no. I needed a date in the new year so I'd have time to visit the DC temple over the holidays. I also needed to build in time for the baptismal interview to occur once I got back. And I wanted my sister-in-law NR to be at the baptism (since she got me on the path 14 years ago) and that Saturday worked for her family. So I booked a flight out for her and locked in the date with the missionaries. But otherwise, there's nothing special about the date other than it being the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed (of Islam) in 570 AD (according to Today in History) - but that had absolutely nothing to do with it (although it is an intriguing "coincidence").

As I mentioned in the opening, some of you (if you got this far in the post) will think I've lost my mind and others will think this is all very cool. It's up to you to make that judgement for yourself. All I can say is that this sequence of events holds personal significance to me - so much so that I've decided to be baptized into a particular Church (on the assumption / faith that my testimony will grow sufficiently in the meantime) and also blindly do a "temple tour" without knowing in advance what I'm supposed to do at each location when I get there. What I do know, however, is that if I ever get asked to do a talk on "the Lord works in mysterious ways", I'll definitely have plenty of material. =)

PS - You're all invited to the baptism and/or confirmation if you want to attend. But certainly do not feel compelled to be there. I know you'll all be there in spirit.

Jesus Christ

I've believed in God for awhile now but it's only been recently that I've started to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as opposed to just a prophet or a spiritual leader. The change came about from reading the following passage in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

[Now] comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was part of God, or one with God; there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhestitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was God whose laws were broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unpredudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Seems like sound logic to me. Now, the more interesting question is what are all the implications of taking that step from not fully believing in Jesus Christ to believing in Jesus Christ? What about the Atonement? What about the Resurrection? What about the Godhead?

Faith and the Scientific Method

I'm a big fan of the scientific method and try to apply this methodology as much as possible in my life. For those of not entirely familiar with this approach, here is a brief description from Wikipedia:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

The approach can be summarized in these seven steps:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

This morning, I was thinking that there's no reason you couldn't apply this same approach to exploring questions of faith. The real difference is that prayer and personal revelation would serve as the experiment and experimental data - thus limiting the generalization of the results to others and the ability for others to indepently reproduce and verify the results. But, in the case of faith, all that matters (in my opinion) is personal belief in the results. The other thing that's important to keep in mind is that the experiment only worked "in your hands" and that similar results should not necessarily be expected in others' hands (i.e., if someone else were to follow the same procedure and prayer, they may not receive the same personal revelation or may even receive contradictory results). Therefore, it is important to limit the intepretation of the results to one's own (personal) faith and not feel threatened if others have faith in different beliefs. Otherwise, the seven steps above can be applied iteratively to arrive at one's own world view and belief system.

Note: the obvious flaw in this logic arises if you believe that everyone should have the exact same world view and belief system but I don't personally believe that.

The Language of God

I just finished reading an excellent book called The Language of God (also see this interview in the SF Chronicle). The author was the head of the Human Genome Project and attempts in his book to reconcile science and religion. In particular, he focuses mainly on the debate around Darwin's theories of evolution. Collins supports a position called theistic evolution (or what he calls BioLogos). Specifically, a typical version of this worldview rests upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

Collins goes on to say:

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.

This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.

It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.

Thankful

Seeing as it's Thanksgiving, I thought it would be fitting to see a post regarding what I am thankful for this year. There are so many blessings in my life. I am quite lucky compared to most. I have a wonderful, supportive wife; two sweet, energetic sons; a brother and a sister-in-law near-by who are great supports to me and my family; loving parents and in-laws; a new job that I'm excited about; and good friends. I also have many material comforts that I too often take for granted (warm home, plenty of food to eat, financial security, etc). I couldn't really ask for more ... well, maybe instant knowledge of everything I need to learn for work. =) This is a really good part of my life and I am very thankful for that.

Got hobbies?

I don't have any hobbies. I aspire to having hobbies but I really don't have any. A while ago, I created a list with my wife of hobbies I might want to take up at some point - including swimming, basketball, golf, biking, tennis, fine arts performances, sporting events, volunteer work, learning a musical instrument (piano), and getting into fantasy football. No progress on any of those fronts but it's a good list nonetheless.

I also created a list of things I wanted to learn more about - including statistics, game theory, complexity theory, auto maintenance, the environment, energy/alternative energy, culture of obesity, sleep patterns, and open source software. Some progress here - especially related to the environment and alternative energy (but there's plenty more to learn).

And one more list for good measure. At one point, I was thinking about taking a 3-6 month sabbatical from work. Some of the ideas I had for activities were visiting NYC, going to a fitness camp, taking a bike tour, getting some personal training, getting into yoga, going to India, going to Boston and Nantucket, doing some volunteer work, getting more into religion, and catching up with people. With the new job, I guess the sabbatical will need to wait a couple more years.

Since I found the lists, figured I'd share ... but the level of progress is a little depressing.

Progress

A friend of mine AC sent me an email today about my blog. Specifically, he said:

I just got through two days straight of reading through it. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to view it as a whole collection, but you get the sense of immense personal growth in the period you’ve been writing this. Your belief in God seems to have gone from tentative to certain (and now you’re dealing with issues of religious theology pre-assuming God). It’s amazing. Keep it up!

A couple of quick reactions. Wow, two straight days of reading! Amazing my blog could hold his attention for that long - or maybe he just powered through it since he's my friend. Regardless, I'm very impressed and feel very loved. =) Thanks AC, hopefully you got something out of the blog personally.

In terms of the whole collection, no, I haven't had a chance to go back and read through prior entries. I'm sure it would be fascinating to do that sometime. Interesting that AC saw so much growth / progress in such a short period of time (roughly six months). When you're going through a change personally (whether it's losing weight or deciding what to do about religion), you often lack sufficient distance (or objectivity) to really gauge how much progress (if any) you're really making. So it's great to get an outside perspective and some positive feedback.

Myers-Briggs

I've taken the MBTI personality test a couple of times now. Each time, I've gotten a different result. My first year of business school (roughly 8 years ago), I was ISFP. The following year, I was INFP. When I took the test today, I was INFJ. You could either say that the test isn't particularly good at pinpointing my type - with the only commonalities across all three tests being I(ntroversion) and F(eeling) - or that my type has changed over time. I actually believe the latter since everytime I've done the test the results have resonated with me at the time. If you have a moment, read through the description of INFJ and let me know if you agree with the assessment.

Hinduism - part 1

As I mentioned in my world view post, my father is Hindu and my mother is Christian. I recently decided to learn more about Hinduism. My mom sent some information to me and my brother via email. I also read the chapter on Hinduism in The World's Religions, watched the first two tapes of the Bill Moyers special "The Wisdom of Faith with Huston Smith", and read the Wikipedia entry on Hinduism. I won't try to describe all Hindu belief or practicce here. I'm certainly no expert based on this limited investigation. Rather, I'll just focus on the things that I've learned so far that were most meaningful or surprising to me. I suspect I will return to Hinduism again and incorporate many of its philosophies and practices into my world view. Hindus believe that the goals of spiritual life can be attained through any religion so long as the religion is practiced sincerely. So, even if I ultimately go down the Christian route, it doesn't mean I'd need to forego the insights and teaching of Hinduism (see this mission in India that my grandfather was a member of later in his life).

One immediate misconception I had about Hinduism is that it's polytheist. This brief essay does an excellent job of distinguishing between Brahman (the unique Godhead of Hinduism who has no other and no second, "thou before whom all words recoil"), Iswara (the all powerful Almighty which is the subject of all religions), and other deities such as Kali. The logic chain is fascinating to me:

The difficulty with this concept [Brahman] is this; there is no subject-object relationship in this context, Brahman cannot be the object of cognition, since Brahman has no second. In fact nothing can be predicated about Brahman without delimiting the infiniteness of Braham. So Hindu Vedanta, with a mathematical precision, has postulated that the moment one wants to think of Brahman as an object of thought, one has already delimited Brahman and is only thinking of Iswara, , otherwise called saguna Brahman – Brahman with attributes. Iswara is the all powerful Almighty which is the subject of all religions. It has all the supreme qualities of Brahman – if Brahman could be said to have qualities or attributes – and, in addition, it could be the object of our thought process. By its very nature all names and forms suit it. The Vedic logic here is really very subtle, interesting and should be enjoyed as such. It has no name or form and therefore it could be called by any name and could be given any form. The concept of idol worship is the practical implementation of this unique logic of Hinduism. Hinduism has the daring to carry the rationale of this to its logical conclusion and hence it is we find a plethora of gods and goddesses in the Hindu framework.

To oversimplify, there is a single, infinite God (Brahman) but that God can manifest itself in a number of lesser, finite forms (Iswara and deities) that are easier for man for understand and relate to. These lesser forms, however, do not diminish or compete with "THAT" which "permeates everything in the world".

But what is Hinduism all about? Huston Smith says "if we were to take Hinduism as a whole - its vast literature, its complicated rituals, its sprawling folkways, its opulent art - and compress it into a single affirmation, we would find it saying: You can have what you want. This sounds promising, but it throws the problem back in our laps. For what do we want? It is easy to give a simple answer - not easy to give a good one. India has lived with this question for ages and has her answer waiting. People, she says, want four things." The first two (pleasure and success) form the Path of Desire and the second two (duty and liberation) form the Path of Renunciation (see excerpts from The World's Religions or this Web page for more detail).

I've been thinking a lot about the Path of Desire and the Path of Renunciation today. Specifically, I think I'm transitioning from one path to another. In some ways, I've been doing it my whole life but never realized it until now. It would explain a lot. I've always felt that I was meant to do something great in this life. Given our cultural stereotypes, I had always associated that material wealth and power (the second half of the Path of Desire). But it's really not that. It's about serving my fellow man, about making a difference in this world (whether that's the environment or something else). I might remain in the business world but it takes on a very different complexion when viewed through the lense of duty rather than success.

Our society (on a whole) is so focused on pleasure and success that you get sucked into it. I've wondered why I can't embrace it more fully. It's actually quite uncomfortable and alienating - especially here in Silicon Valley. But I've probably had multiple lifetimes to really enjoy (and suck dry) the Path of Desire. I've had my fill and now I find it wanting.

There's so much more to say about Hinduism, including the eternal within us (Atman-Brahman), the way to God through knowledge (Jnana yoga), karma, non-attachment, etc. More to come in subsequent posts.

Letting go of Max

Our first cat Max passed away a little over a year ago (the day before AJ's first birthday). He wasn't that old by indoor cat standards but cancer took his life prematurely. My wife and I were with Max when he passed into the next life. We actually made the decision to end his suffering and put him to sleep (see this early post that included this decision and my belief in prayers being answered). Max was cremated and his ashes sat on our dresser for the last year. We had always planned on spreading his ashes somewhere scenic but we never got around to it. With the one year anniversary of his death, we decided it was time to finally set him free.

Today (fittingly Memorial Day), we went over to Shoreline Park and spread Max's ashes by the water where the birds like to congregate. It was a beautiful day and I think that Max would have approved of the location (see these photos). My wife and I walk at Shoreline regularly so we'll get to visit him often. And there is plenty of wildlife activity there to keep him busy when we're not around. Since he was an indoor cat, we never let him go outside on his own. Now, he's finally free to explore the great outdoors to his heart's content.

While we said our final goodbyes today, I actually let Max go a number of months ago. After his death, I thought I was ok with his passing but I wasn't. There were still many things left unsaid and unresolved. Finally, one night, I decided to pray about it. For whatever reason, I really struggled with it. I couldn't bring myself to start. I couldn't figure out what to say. After about 10-15 minutes of this, I decided to focus on my breathing. Eventually I didn't notice my breathing and my mind went completely clear. I knew it was time to begin so I did. I told God that I needed to let Max go and I needed Max to let me go. I also asked to speak to Max for a moment. I genuinely believe that God opened a channel for me directly to wherever Max was. I said some things to Max that needed to be said (and cried heavily in the process). Then I could tell that the signal was fading so I wrapped things up. Afterwards, I was completely spent. I simply laid on the ground (in the dark) for probably 20 minutes. This was the second time I've felt God's direct presence (see this post for the first time about 12 years ago).

Max was a special creature and my family was very lucky to have him in our lives. We still love him and look forward to being reunited with him at some point in the future.

Nanosolar

I'm taking another online course through Foothill College. This time the topic is nanotechnology. The Wikipedia states that "nanotechnology comprises technological developments on the nanometer scale, usually 0.1 to 100 nm [1nm = one billionth of a meter or the width of approximately ten hydrogen atoms] ... Nanotechnology is any technology which exploits phenomena and structures that can only occur at the nanometer scale, which is the scale of several atoms and small molecules." The course overview defines nanotechnology as "the study, design, creation, synthesis, manipulation, and application of functional materials, devices, and systems through control of matter and energy at the nanometer scale". And the United States' National Nanotechnology Initiative (per Glenn Fishbine) defines it as follows: "Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range, to provide a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale and to create and use structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size. Nanotechnology research and development includes manipulation under control of the nanoscale structures and their integration into larger material components, systems and architectures. Within these larger scale assemblies, the control and construction of their structures and components remains at the nanometer scale."

Nanotechnology sits at the nexus of physics, chemistry, biology, material science, computer science, and many other scientific and technical disciplines - its multi-disciplinary nature is a distinguishing characteristic of nanotechnology. As Ratner points out, "the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology may explain why it took so long to develop. It is unusual for a field to require such diverse expertise. It also explains why most new nano research facilities are cooperative efforts among scientists and engineers from every part of the workforce."

At a business and economic level, the worldwide annual industrial production in the nanotech sectors is estimated to exceed $1 trillion ten to fifteen years from now and will require about 2 million nanotechnology workers (according to M.C. Roco ,Chair, WH/NSTC/Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSEC), and Senior Advisor, NSF). Nanotechnology has applications in a variety of fields including semiconductors, electronics, energy/power, and life sciences. Many people believe that nanotechnology will have an equivalent or greater impact on society in the years to come than computers and telecommunications have had in the last three decades. The NNI has even dubbed it "The Next Industrial Revolution"

My interest in nanotechnology stems from wanting to help solve the global energy crisis and save the planet from the continued effects of global warming (see this post or this one). One area of research and commercial application that is especially interesting to me is solar cells. For my midterm paper, I did a technology review of solar cell technology and a local startup company called Nanosolar (paper available for download in PDF format). Nanosolar, along with a handful of other companies, are trying to apply nanotechnology and manufacturing process innovations (such as roll-to-roll printing) to dramatically drive down the cost of solar cells while either maintaining or improving their current power efficiency. We all need Nanosolar (or some other company in this space) to succeed. By 2050, carbon dioxide levels will be roughly three times pre-industrial levels and will only level-off if we can generate approximately 15 terawatts of energy (roughly the entire worldwide energy production today!) from non-carbon sources. That's a tall order and pretty soon I suspect I'll be working more directly on making it a reality.

Everything happens for a reason

This past Wednesday was AJ's birthday. I decided to take the day off from work but ended up getting sick the night before. I was able to make it to AJ's party but I spent most of the day in bed. That sort of turn of events would normally bother me but it didn't that day. I had a sense it was happening for some reason beyond my comprehension and I simply accepted it. It was an interesting feeling.

In my world view post, I stated that one of my spiritual beliefs is that "everything happens for a reason – even if the reason isn’t immediately apparent." A couple of weeks later, I did a post on good and evil that included Zoroastrianism and free will. I've been thinking about this topic a little more since then and I'm beginning to converge on a concept I like that's ironically based on computer chess. Let me explain.

When I was at MIT, one of our programming assignments was to write a computer chess program. The way that a computer plays chess is that it looks at all the permutations of moves it could make along with all the permutations of moves the opponent could make in response and scores each board configuration. Also, like the best human chess players, the computer looks a number of moves ahead - so it might be willing to sacrifice a piece now to maximize its advantage in the future.

So here's the concept. What if all human beings on Earth are part of an elaborate multi-player game of computer chess? God's objective is to get as many people as possible to use their free will to choose good over the long term. At each moment of time, God looks at all the permutations of moves that he can make. He can change environmental factors (like the weather) and also plant ideas into each person's head. Let's say the Devil can plant ideas in people's heads as well. Now, God looks at all the moves he can make at that instant in time along with all the choices that people could make in response and looks ahead an infinite number of moves (scoring each board configuration relative to his objective). He then makes a move with each person simultaneously. An instant later, each person makes their move in response - using their free will to embrace or ignore God's suggestions (or the Devil's suggestions) or do something entirely different. With these decisions made, entire sets of possible future outcomes are eliminated but others are created. Then God picks his next set of moves and the process continues instant by instant.

Now, the thing that is interesting is that God can plant ideas in one person's head about someone else and the decisions that one person makes can influence the circumstances or outcomes of other people. So it's an impossibly complex analysis / optimization problem to perform in real-time - as there would be an infinite number of permutations to consider. But God conceivably has infinite computing / parallel-processing capacity and could actually pull this off. Also, in chess, both players share the same objective. In life, individual people might be trying to optimize for a different outcome than God. Therefore, when considering the range of moves that people might make, God would need to probability-weight the person's set of possible actions. The only way to accurately do this would be to know what's in (or could develop in) the person's mind and heart - which only an omnipotent God could know.

Coming back to everything happening for a reason, something bad (or good) could happen in my life now because it's relevant to a situation 2,000 moves in the future. Alternatively, something could happen in my life now not for my benefit but for the benefit of someone else. It might be important that other person observe and learn from my life now since it will be relevant to them 1,856 moves in their future.

None of this explains (1) why people have free will in the first place and (2) why the Devil exists and why God allows him to persist and influence human beings, but it does potentially explain events that might otherwise seem random to us. Also, it might begin to explain why bad things happen to good people. For example, in chess, you may choose to sacrifice a piece to lure the other player in. In life, God may give people hardships to prepare them for future challenges or to motivate them to seek his fellowship. Or he might actually give one person a hardship to act as a wake-up call to a number of other people (either direct acquaintances or people who hear of the hardship second-hand). Again, he's maximizing a (very) long-term, not short-term outcome.

Just a theory at this point. Needs more work and refinement. Feedback very welcome!

My church

My brother made an interesting observation last night. He said that in the absence of a particular religion or church, this blog is my church, my way of communing spiritually with other people. How very true and very insightful.

Semantics

I've commented a number of times in this blog regarding pride. There was a set of articles in InTouch magazine regarding the importance of humility (articles here). Probably the most interesting passage from one of the articles is1 Peter 5:6-7:

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.

Now there is a lot of richness in the English language for a reason and the words "pride" and "proud" can mean a number of things. So I think it's helpful to be as precise as possible regarding what I think my issue is. The Random House Dictionary defines "pride" and "proud" as:

Pride: 1. too high an opinion of one's importance or superiority; 2. dignified self-respect; 3. gratification arising from one's accomplishments or possessions; 4. arrogant behavior; 5. something that a person is proud of; 6. a company of lions

Proud: 1. thinking well of oneself becuase of one's accomplishments, possessions, etc; 2. feeling honored, as by a distinction conferred on one; 3. governed in one's words or actions by self-respect; 4. inclined to excessive self-esteem; 5. promoting a feeling of pride; 6. stately or majestic [syn. 1. self-satisfied; 4. haughty, overbearing, vain]


While we have the dictionary out, let's look up some more words that may be relevant to this discussion (in alphabetical order) ...

Arrogant: 2. making unwarrantable claims to superior importance; 2. haughty or overbearing

Conceit: 1. an exaggerated estimate of one's own ability, importance, etc [syn. 1. egotism, self-esteem, vanity]

Condescend: 1. to lower oneself to do something; 2. to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position

Confidence: 1. full trust; 2. self-reliance, assurance, or boldness; 3. a confidential communication

Dignity: 1. formal, grave, or noble bearing, conduct, or speech; 2. nobility or elevation of character; 3. elevated rank, office, station, etc.

Egocentric: regarding the self as the center of all worldly things

Egoism: 1. the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one's personal interest; 2. conceit or self-esteem

Egotism: 1. excessive and objectionable reference to oneself, in conversation or writing; 2. self-conceit or boastfulness

Egotrip: an act undertaken primarily to satisfy one's vanity or self-image

Pompous: 1. making an ostentatious display of dignity or importance; 2. ostentatiously lofty or high-flown

Self-important: having or showing too high an opinion of one's own worth

Self-respect: proper esteem for the dignity of one's own character

Self-righeous: smugly confident of one's own righteousness

Smug: contentedly confident of one's ability or correctness [syn. complacent, conceited, self-satisfied]

Superior: 1. above the average in excellence or intelligence; 2. of higher grade or quality; 3. greater in quantity or amount; 4. higher in rank or position; 5. showing a consciousness of superiority to others; 6. not yielding or susceptiable: to be superior to temptation

Vain: 1. excessively proud or concerned about one's own appearance or achievements; 2. unsuccessful or futile; 3. without real value or worth


That's quite a list of words - most of which I don't think apply. So, let's be precise. I think my issue is primarily feeling superior and secondarily being egocentric. In the first InTouch article, it says that some people "give the appearance of humility through [their] outward actions while inwardly harboring thoughts of spiritual superiority toward others." That's my issue precisely - acting humble on the outside but feeling superior to others on the inside. That's then combined with egocentrism in that I feel like I'm the only one grappling with certain issues - or at least grappling with them at a certain level or in the "right" way. Combine these two things and it's no surprise why I'm reluctant to ask for help or to pray. On some level, I feel like I'm above it all (even assistance from God). This is all changing a bit but it's going to be a long, long road.

Good and Evil

I'm about a third of the way through the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. JG mentioned this book to me in the context of a talk he gave at his church (see this post). While discussing "Turning to Christ During Times of Loss or Despair", JG contrasted how God and the Devil would want us to react in times of loss or despair. I thought the approach was an interesting one and asked JG how he had thought on the concept. As part of explaining his thought process, JG mentioned the Screwtape Letters so I decided to check it out. So far it's been a fascinating read and I'm sure it will lead to a number of posts on this blog.

For those of you not familiar with this book, it's a series of letters from Screwtape, a professional devil and self-described under-secretary of the department of temptation, to his newphew Wormwood, a junior temptor. Screwtape provides a series of directives and plans through which Wormwood may subvert and twist human strivings toward love, charity, and wisdom, manipulating the human soul to his own diabolical ends. In the course of providing this guidance to Wormwood, Screwtape indirectly provides a number of insights into the human psyche and the nature of God and religion. As Lewis puts it in the preface to the book, the book's purpose "was not to speculate about diabolical life but to throw light from a new angle on the life of men."

One interesting place to start is who or what the Devil is. Earlier in the the preface to the book, Lewis says:

The commonest question [I receive] is whether I really "believe in the Devil." Now, if by "the Devil" you mean a power opposite to God and, like God, self-existent from all eternity, the answer is certainly No. There is no uncreated being except God. God has no opposite. No being could attain "perfect badness" opposite to the perfect goodness of God; for when you have taken away every kind of good thing (intelligence, will, memory, energy, and existence itself) there would be none of him left.

The proper question is whether I believe in devils. I do. This is to say, I believe in angels, and I believe that some of these, by the abuse of their free will, have become enemies to God and, as a corollary, to us. These we may call devils. They do not differ in nature from good angels, but their nature is depraved. Devil is the opposite of angel only as Bad Man is the opposite of Good Man. Satan, the leader or director of devils, is the opposite, not of God, but of Michael.

I like this explanation. It makes sense and it also doesn't violate monotheism. It does not answer the question, however, of why there is evil in the world if God (being entirely good) is without equal. In the religion course I took, the instructor talked about the concept of Ethical Dualism in the context of Zoroastrianism (a religion that predates Judaism). Specifically, he said:

Ethical Dualism is a creative and psychological approach to the problem of evil. Basically, it states that evil is not part of the universe itself, which is good because it is created by God who is good. Rather, humans make evil a reality as a result of their choices. In other words, evil enters time and history with the human race. Philosophically this means that evil is the price of freedom. In order to be free, we must have the ability to make choices and in order to choose between good and evil there must be opposites to choose from. But evil does not spring into reality until it is made present by human choice. Good and evil in this world become matters of function and not substance. They do not have any substance outside the realm of man's thought, word, and deed. This gives humans quite a bit of power; power which has not been used so wisely in many cases.

Zoroaster believed that “no one can be just neutral; in every area of life, day by day, everyone must decide which lord he or she will side with, the Lord of Light or the Lord of the Lie”. My faith in humans definitely varies over time. Most of the time, I believe that most people are inherently good and given a choice between good and evil, they will naturally side with good. But some of the time, I believe that people lose sight of that choice and they don’t consciously side with good. In the absence of that conscious, intentional choice for good (which is basically an implicit decision against good), it’s very easy for evil to creep in. Perhaps it’s just gossiping or cutting someone off on the road. Perhaps it’s getting so caught up in our own needs that we lose sight of the needs of others. But without resolve, without a committed decision to move the world toward good, it’s hard to make much meaningful, sustainable progress in that direction.

It is an interesting question why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would give humans free will in the first place. It would seem to run counter to the notion that God is all-powerful. How can God both create humans and be all-powerful but not have the ability to override a person’s free will to pursue evil in the world? Why is “free will so important that even God must respect it”? On some level, it just doesn’t compute. Then again, if you were the creator, what fun would it be to create players in a game and then control their every movement on the board? It would be much more interesting to establish a set of rules, establish a starting configuration of players, and then see what unfolds. The fun would be in the uncertainty of the outcome of the game. In that context, you could argue that God has created an elaborate game on Earth in which the goal is to get as many people as possible to consciously choose a relationship with God, to choose a relationship and commitment to good. But the only way that game can enfold in a non-deterministic way, for it to be fun for its creator to observe, is for people to have “opposites to choose from”.

Zoroastrianism says that the world was created for the purpose of attracting evil “in order that it may be brought into God’s world through the choices humans make when they choose righteousness instead of sin”. If you accept that, you could view the world as a huge proving ground where people earn their right to have a relationship with God by exercising their free will to side with good over evil (rather than people having a preordained, inherent right to have a relationship with God simply because they are a human being). This all seems to make sense on some rational level but it still seems odd to me that God would create man, give him/her free will, and then put him/her on the Earth just to test their resolve towards good when God could have just as easily pre-wired humans to be good in the first place and just side-step the whole free will thing to begin with.

Coming back to the Screwtape Letters for a moment, Screwtape helps shed some light on this topic in one of his letters to Wormwood. In talking about God, he says (and remember this is a devil talking):

He really does want to fill the universe with a lot of loathsome little replicas of Himself - creatures whose life, on its miniature scale, will be qualitatively like His own, not because He has absorbed them but because their wills freely conform to His. We want cattle who can finally become food; He wants servants who can finally become sons. We want to suck in, He wants to give out. We are empty and would be filled; He is full and flows over. Our war aim is a world in which Our Father Below has drawn all other beings into himself; the Enemy wants a world full of beings united to Him but still distinct ...

You may have often wondered why the Enemy does not make more use of His power to be sensibly present to human souls in any degree He chooses and at any moment. But you now see that the Irresistible and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo. For His ignoble idea is to eat the cake and have it; the creatures are to be one with Him, but yet themselves; merely to cancel them, or assimilate them, will not serve ...

He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs - to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such [difficult] periods, much more than during the [joyous] periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature he wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. We can drag our patients along by continual tempting, because we design them only for the table, and the more their will is interfered with, the better. He cannot "tempt" to virtue as we do to vice. He wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be decieved, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.

People have been trying to figure out the nature of good and evil since the beginning of time. I'm not going to figure it out in just one post - or ever. But some food for thought.