This is the second section of Mere Christianity. I've already posted one excerpt from this section (see post). Here are others that I marked:
If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?" But then that threw me back into another difficulty.
My arugment against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning...
To be bad, [the Bad Power] must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for the children. It is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things - resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself. That is why Dualism, in a strict sense, will not work...
Enemy-occupied territory - that is what this world is...
What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the idea that they could "be like gods" - could set up on their own as if they had created themselves - be their own masters - invent some sort of happiness for themselves outside of God, apart from God. And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history - money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery - the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy...
The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter...
Now repentence is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent. And here comes the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person - and he would not need it...
But though I cannot see why it should be so, I can tell you why I believe it is so. I have explained why I have to believe that Jesus was (and is) God. And it seems plain as a matter of history that He taught His followers that the new life was communicated in this way. In other words, I believe it on His authority. Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine percent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of blood on authority - because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.
This last point about authority is an important one. With many aspects of religion, I've historically taken the position that I won't believe them unless I can independently verify their truth. But I don't take that approach in so many aspects of my life. That's not to say that I don't ask questions or maintain a healthly level of skepticism, but I'm also willing to take a lot of information at face value based on other people's authority in the matter. Recently, I've tried to shift my headset from "I don't believe it until something causes me to believe" to "I believe it until something causes me not to believe". So there are many aspects of the LDS faith, for example, that I don't have a strong testimony of but I'm willing to believe the time-being (until and unless I find some reason not to believe).
Friday, November 02, 2007
Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
During a trip to Brazil about a month ago, I had the opportunity to read Mere Christianity all the way through. As I mentioned in my previous post (and a couple others), C.S. Lewis is certainly a persuasive salesman for God and specifically Christianity. The first section of his book is entitled "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe". Here are some excerpts that I marked while reading:
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in...
Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them...
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others...
You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts...
Let us sum up what we have reached so far. In the case of stones or trees or things of that sort, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything except a way of speaking. When you say that nature is governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way. The so-called laws may not be anything real - anything above and beyond the actual facts which we observe. But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else - a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey...
Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? For his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In this same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it...
If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions...
Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong...
When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sorts of facts I have been describing. Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind that law, and that you have broken the law and put yourself wrong with that Power - it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will not doubt consult people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts - to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think is true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through the dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth - only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, dispair.
I found the discussion of Right and Wrong as an objective standard quite interesting and useful. Not sure if I'm really doing it justice here but would encourage anyone with some time on their hands to read the entire book - or at least the first 40 pages.
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in...
Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them...
The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others...
You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts...
Let us sum up what we have reached so far. In the case of stones or trees or things of that sort, what we call the Laws of Nature may not be anything except a way of speaking. When you say that nature is governed by certain laws, this may only mean that nature does, in fact, behave in a certain way. The so-called laws may not be anything real - anything above and beyond the actual facts which we observe. But in the case of Man, we saw that this will not do. The Law of Human Nature, or Right and Wrong, must be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour. In this case, besides the actual facts, you have something else - a real law which we did not invent and which we know we ought to obey...
Anyone studying Man from the outside as we study electricity or cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would never get the slightest evidence that we had this moral law. How could he? For his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about what we ought to do. In this same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it...
If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions...
Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I am not yet within a hundred miles of the God of Christian theology. All I have got to is a Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong...
When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense until you have faced the sorts of facts I have been describing. Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind that law, and that you have broken the law and put yourself wrong with that Power - it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. When you have realised that our position is nearly desperate you will begin to understand what the Christians are talking about. They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God. It is an old story and if you want to go into it you will not doubt consult people who have more authority to talk about it than I have. All I am doing is to ask people to face the facts - to understand the questions which Christianity claims to answer. And they are very terrifying facts. I wish it was possible to say something more agreeable. But I must say what I think is true. Of course, I quite agree that the Christian religion is, in the long run, a thing of unspeakable comfort. But it does not begin in comfort; it begins in the dismay I have been describing, and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through the dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth - only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, dispair.
I found the discussion of Right and Wrong as an objective standard quite interesting and useful. Not sure if I'm really doing it justice here but would encourage anyone with some time on their hands to read the entire book - or at least the first 40 pages.
RFP for my soul
A couple of months ago, I was talking to a friend of mine and mentioned an analogy I had developed awhile ago regarding a "RFP for my soul". For those of you who haven't spent time in business and/or procurement, a RFP is a "request for proposal" and large organizations use them to solicit bids and proposals from multiple vendors when they are sourcing products and services. For example, my father works for a company that helps the government source billions of dollars of telecommunications services through this mechanism. In my case, I asked the question "what if I issued an RFP for my soul?" After all, my soul is worth billions of dollars too (at least to me). So why not go through a similar procurement process for an organized religion?
Now, for those of you who have had the pleasure of writing RFPs or responding to RFPs as I have, you know that they are typically these enormous documents that cover a lot of ground. Also, sometimes, rather than answer a question directly, the response is "see the attached whitepaper" or something like that. In the context of religion, I could envision a process where I drafted a set of questions like "does God exist?" or "what is the nature of God?" and all of the responses I would get would be "see the enclosed book(s)". Then I'd have to pour through the Bible or Qur'an or Gita or Book of Mormon to find the answers to my questions and enter into a contractual relationship with whatever vendor seemed to have the best product and most fit my set of requirements. The obvious issue here is that it would take a very long time to do an exhaustive examination of all of these books and all of these religions. I could devote my whole life to the task and potentially reach no definitive conclusions or reach a perfect truth of God.
In response to this, my friend reminded me that RFPs are very rarely won or loss on objective merit or examination of the RFP responses. Obviously the product or service has to meet some minimum set of requirements but, beyond that, salesmanship tends to predominate (for better or worse). So my friend suggested that I recruit good salesmen for each religion and approach it that way. C.S. Lewis is one good salesman for Christianity. Huston Smith is another who I have referenced in the past in the context of the world's religions.
Would be interested in others' opinions on this topic. How do you know when to pick a religion and just go with it? Or when does it make sense to do the exhaustive, RFP-like evaluation before making the selection? My opinion is that you just know when something is right for you even if you haven't done an exhaustive search of all the possibilities. For example, my wife and I met at the beginning of my freshman year of college and she was my first serious girlfriend. Even though I didn't do an exhaustive search of every possible spouse, I have no doubt in my mind that she's the one for me. I just know. So I would suspect you reach a similar point with religion even if you haven't investigated all the other options to a similar degree.
Now, for those of you who have had the pleasure of writing RFPs or responding to RFPs as I have, you know that they are typically these enormous documents that cover a lot of ground. Also, sometimes, rather than answer a question directly, the response is "see the attached whitepaper" or something like that. In the context of religion, I could envision a process where I drafted a set of questions like "does God exist?" or "what is the nature of God?" and all of the responses I would get would be "see the enclosed book(s)". Then I'd have to pour through the Bible or Qur'an or Gita or Book of Mormon to find the answers to my questions and enter into a contractual relationship with whatever vendor seemed to have the best product and most fit my set of requirements. The obvious issue here is that it would take a very long time to do an exhaustive examination of all of these books and all of these religions. I could devote my whole life to the task and potentially reach no definitive conclusions or reach a perfect truth of God.
In response to this, my friend reminded me that RFPs are very rarely won or loss on objective merit or examination of the RFP responses. Obviously the product or service has to meet some minimum set of requirements but, beyond that, salesmanship tends to predominate (for better or worse). So my friend suggested that I recruit good salesmen for each religion and approach it that way. C.S. Lewis is one good salesman for Christianity. Huston Smith is another who I have referenced in the past in the context of the world's religions.
Would be interested in others' opinions on this topic. How do you know when to pick a religion and just go with it? Or when does it make sense to do the exhaustive, RFP-like evaluation before making the selection? My opinion is that you just know when something is right for you even if you haven't done an exhaustive search of all the possibilities. For example, my wife and I met at the beginning of my freshman year of college and she was my first serious girlfriend. Even though I didn't do an exhaustive search of every possible spouse, I have no doubt in my mind that she's the one for me. I just know. So I would suspect you reach a similar point with religion even if you haven't investigated all the other options to a similar degree.
Important people
About a month ago, I picked up a copy of Rules for Renegades in the SFO airport. I had heard about the book and wasn't planning to read it but I happen to know the author and had a long flight ahead of me. On a whole, the book wasn't terribly useful. Then again, I've read more than my fair share of self-help and entrepreneurship books so I think the book would likely be very useful to many other people. One excerpt really resonated with me, though.
Some of my past fears included attending events where I felt inadequate (not important enough) and ignorant about socializing with superpowerful people ... I adopted an illusion that I too was a player, powerful and famous, and willed my palms to be dry and warm. I asked a lot of questions. I was confident. And the result was that now I can meet anyone, speak before any size crowd, and hold my own ...
You'll always resonate with someone. When you do, ask the two most important networking questions: How did you get started in your field? What's your ideal customer? We all love to talk about ourselves, and these questions will not only help you form a connection with this person but will also tell you how to help him or her.
I wouldn't say I'm that great in networking situations. To be honest, in a lot of situations, I'm not genuinely interested in getting to know the people there. With the superpowerful, I often don't think I have anything in common with them or that I'm not in their same league. But the more I've met these people, the more I've come to realize that they're mostly like the rest of us. They have personal problems like everyone else, have their own set of dreams and fears, and don't have enough time to do everything they want to do (like most people). These people certainly have more resources (money, power, etc) at their disposal but that too can be a mixed blessing.
At any rate, an area for improvement for me. I'll make it #534 on the list. =)
Some of my past fears included attending events where I felt inadequate (not important enough) and ignorant about socializing with superpowerful people ... I adopted an illusion that I too was a player, powerful and famous, and willed my palms to be dry and warm. I asked a lot of questions. I was confident. And the result was that now I can meet anyone, speak before any size crowd, and hold my own ...
You'll always resonate with someone. When you do, ask the two most important networking questions: How did you get started in your field? What's your ideal customer? We all love to talk about ourselves, and these questions will not only help you form a connection with this person but will also tell you how to help him or her.
I wouldn't say I'm that great in networking situations. To be honest, in a lot of situations, I'm not genuinely interested in getting to know the people there. With the superpowerful, I often don't think I have anything in common with them or that I'm not in their same league. But the more I've met these people, the more I've come to realize that they're mostly like the rest of us. They have personal problems like everyone else, have their own set of dreams and fears, and don't have enough time to do everything they want to do (like most people). These people certainly have more resources (money, power, etc) at their disposal but that too can be a mixed blessing.
At any rate, an area for improvement for me. I'll make it #534 on the list. =)
Skin color and Race
I'm currently in the middle of 2 Nephi in the Book of Mormon. In 2 Nephi 5:21, it says the following in regards to the Lamanites: "And [the Lord] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them." When I first read this, the first question that came to mind was does this mean that people who are not "white and exceedingly fair and delightsome" are not favored by God and shouldn't interbreed with those who are? That would be one literal interpretation. The other question that came to mind is whether this is justification for the period in time up until Official Declaration 2 that withheld the priesthood based on race or color. Based on those conversations that I've had with my wife and her sister HG, it sounds like this passage and others like it have given others pause too.
Regarding question #1, some have said this passage is racist and proof that the Book of Mormon (BOM) is a work of man. I haven't gotten this far in the BOM yet but apparently the Lamanites become favored later on over the Nephites. Some (like my wife's uncle) say that disproves the argument that man (Joseph Smith) introduced this passage for cultural / racist reasons since it would be seem odd that "black" people would later be favored over the "white / fair" people if the whole book is being written by a racist. HG actually said that she looked into these passages extensively in college and never came to a completely satisfactory answer other than to say that the collective record is inconclusive and a mystery that will be explained more fully to her after this life.
Regarding question #2, HG said that this passage and the priesthood being withheld based on race or color are unrelated. One interesting point she made (which like the last one she hasn't fully reconciled) is that God has had different "favored peoples" at different points in time. For example, for a long time in Jewish tradition, the Levites were the only group that could hold the priesthood. My personal opinion is that the priesthood was withheld from certain groups for more worldly, practical reasons. The first edition of the BOM was published in 1830 - 31 years before the outbreak of the Amercian Civil War. Almost immediately, Mormons were persecuted by other groups for their religious beliefs (and the practice of polygamy, abandoned since 1890). If they then also extended the priesthood to people of color, the church likely would have come under attack from other groups as well. The LDS church was almost wiped out as it was. Layer another battle front onto it and the church may not have survived. So I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that President Kimball received the revelation he did until well after the civil rights movement.
Now, just to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that these cultural, worldly considerations make any of this right. We also now the world isn't perfect and that improper, non-ideal things happen in it. In the grand scheme of things, I think that's by design to make us collectively strive for something better. Also, in the grand scheme of things, I personally believe that God makes these transient inequities right in the afterlife. So, even if certain people aren't treated fairly on Earth or are otherwise victimized, I think that serves some larger purpose we don't fully understand and that everything becomes "fair" later on.
Anyway, additional thoughts or perspectives on any or all of this very welcome.
Regarding question #1, some have said this passage is racist and proof that the Book of Mormon (BOM) is a work of man. I haven't gotten this far in the BOM yet but apparently the Lamanites become favored later on over the Nephites. Some (like my wife's uncle) say that disproves the argument that man (Joseph Smith) introduced this passage for cultural / racist reasons since it would be seem odd that "black" people would later be favored over the "white / fair" people if the whole book is being written by a racist. HG actually said that she looked into these passages extensively in college and never came to a completely satisfactory answer other than to say that the collective record is inconclusive and a mystery that will be explained more fully to her after this life.
Regarding question #2, HG said that this passage and the priesthood being withheld based on race or color are unrelated. One interesting point she made (which like the last one she hasn't fully reconciled) is that God has had different "favored peoples" at different points in time. For example, for a long time in Jewish tradition, the Levites were the only group that could hold the priesthood. My personal opinion is that the priesthood was withheld from certain groups for more worldly, practical reasons. The first edition of the BOM was published in 1830 - 31 years before the outbreak of the Amercian Civil War. Almost immediately, Mormons were persecuted by other groups for their religious beliefs (and the practice of polygamy, abandoned since 1890). If they then also extended the priesthood to people of color, the church likely would have come under attack from other groups as well. The LDS church was almost wiped out as it was. Layer another battle front onto it and the church may not have survived. So I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that President Kimball received the revelation he did until well after the civil rights movement.
Now, just to be absolutely clear, I'm not saying that these cultural, worldly considerations make any of this right. We also now the world isn't perfect and that improper, non-ideal things happen in it. In the grand scheme of things, I think that's by design to make us collectively strive for something better. Also, in the grand scheme of things, I personally believe that God makes these transient inequities right in the afterlife. So, even if certain people aren't treated fairly on Earth or are otherwise victimized, I think that serves some larger purpose we don't fully understand and that everything becomes "fair" later on.
Anyway, additional thoughts or perspectives on any or all of this very welcome.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
1 Nephi
I finished reading 1 Nephi tonight so I am now 53 pages (10%) through the Book of Mormon (BOM). Over the last four days, that's an average of 13.25 pages per day. At that rate, I'd finish the BOM in 40 days (December 5). Now, obviously the point here isn't to go for speed and forego comprehension. So, if it takes 60 or 80 or 100 days to get through the BOM, so be it. The important thing is to get something out of the experience and also judge for myself whether I believe in the book (or not). My wife, however, will appreciate the math above because I tend to do that with other books and she finds it amusing (and likely a bit ridiculous).
In terms of the content itself, I had two posts along the way (here and here). Regarding the tree of life, there is greater explanation regarding the meaning behind the tree of life in 11:22-27, 11:35-36, 12:16-18, 15:23-24, and 15:26-30. In short, the tree of life is the love of God, the rod of iron is the word of God, and the great and spacious building is the pride of the world.
At chapter 4 of 1 Nephi, there is a puzzling story of God (via the Spirit) directing Nephi to kill someone:
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.
Laban had been after Nephi's family and was also withholding plates of brass that had important information on them about Nephi's family and other direction from God. So, this is somewhat self-defense in the sense that if Nephi didn't kill Laban, Laban would have killed Nephi and his family at some point. But it's also not really self-defense in the sense that Laban is drunk on the ground, posing no immediate threat to Nephi, and yet Nephi chops off his head in cold blood. And that wouldn't be that hard to accept other than the fact that he does it at the specific direction of the Spirit. With respect to the plates of brass, you could also argue the ends justify the means ("It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief") and I get that. But it seems like there was probably a better way to accomplish this goal - especially if God's going to get directly involved. It's one thing if it's man making due with a bad situation but you'd assume God has more tools at his disposal and/or a better solution available to him that getting someone drunk and then having someone else behead him with his own sword. Asked the missionaries about this and they didn't have a great answer. Asked HG about this as well and she didn't have a great answer either. You can argue that this took place in Old Testament times (eye for an eye, etc) excerpt for the fact that if God is "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever" (1 Nephi 10:18) then the same God that's involved here (in roughly 600 BC) is the same God that operates today. Anyway, if others have good explanations, would love to hear them. I wouldn't say this passage diminishes my faith but it did take me a bit by surprise.
There are multiple references to the abominable church of the devil (see, for example, 13:3-9, 13:26-28, 13:32, 14:1-17, and 22:23). At first I thought this was a literal reference to a particular faith or church (which would have been troubling), but my sister-in-law HG informed me that Church officials have gone on the record saying that these passages are metaphorical and refer to anything worldly that takes one's attention away from God or otherwise corrupts His teachings.
In 15:11, it says "If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you". That's a comforting thought.
In 17:45, it says "Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God". So true.
And, in 19:6, it says "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself". This admission that errors may exist in the record given weakness "according to the flesh" is good to hear (at least for me personally) relative to other concerns I've raised on this topic in the past (see this post, for example).
On a whole, I think it's too early to really say what I think of the BOM and whether reading it will lead me to be baptized or not. I'll just need to continue this process and see how it goes with the remaining 90% of the book (ignoring D&C and the Pearl of Great Price which are another whole set of reading). Reactions or thoughts very welcome in the meantime.
In terms of the content itself, I had two posts along the way (here and here). Regarding the tree of life, there is greater explanation regarding the meaning behind the tree of life in 11:22-27, 11:35-36, 12:16-18, 15:23-24, and 15:26-30. In short, the tree of life is the love of God, the rod of iron is the word of God, and the great and spacious building is the pride of the world.
At chapter 4 of 1 Nephi, there is a puzzling story of God (via the Spirit) directing Nephi to kill someone:
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.
Laban had been after Nephi's family and was also withholding plates of brass that had important information on them about Nephi's family and other direction from God. So, this is somewhat self-defense in the sense that if Nephi didn't kill Laban, Laban would have killed Nephi and his family at some point. But it's also not really self-defense in the sense that Laban is drunk on the ground, posing no immediate threat to Nephi, and yet Nephi chops off his head in cold blood. And that wouldn't be that hard to accept other than the fact that he does it at the specific direction of the Spirit. With respect to the plates of brass, you could also argue the ends justify the means ("It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief") and I get that. But it seems like there was probably a better way to accomplish this goal - especially if God's going to get directly involved. It's one thing if it's man making due with a bad situation but you'd assume God has more tools at his disposal and/or a better solution available to him that getting someone drunk and then having someone else behead him with his own sword. Asked the missionaries about this and they didn't have a great answer. Asked HG about this as well and she didn't have a great answer either. You can argue that this took place in Old Testament times (eye for an eye, etc) excerpt for the fact that if God is "the same yesterday, to-day, and forever" (1 Nephi 10:18) then the same God that's involved here (in roughly 600 BC) is the same God that operates today. Anyway, if others have good explanations, would love to hear them. I wouldn't say this passage diminishes my faith but it did take me a bit by surprise.
There are multiple references to the abominable church of the devil (see, for example, 13:3-9, 13:26-28, 13:32, 14:1-17, and 22:23). At first I thought this was a literal reference to a particular faith or church (which would have been troubling), but my sister-in-law HG informed me that Church officials have gone on the record saying that these passages are metaphorical and refer to anything worldly that takes one's attention away from God or otherwise corrupts His teachings.
In 15:11, it says "If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you". That's a comforting thought.
In 17:45, it says "Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God". So true.
And, in 19:6, it says "Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself". This admission that errors may exist in the record given weakness "according to the flesh" is good to hear (at least for me personally) relative to other concerns I've raised on this topic in the past (see this post, for example).
On a whole, I think it's too early to really say what I think of the BOM and whether reading it will lead me to be baptized or not. I'll just need to continue this process and see how it goes with the remaining 90% of the book (ignoring D&C and the Pearl of Great Price which are another whole set of reading). Reactions or thoughts very welcome in the meantime.
Burial
I was in Houston, Texas a couple of weeks ago. While driving down the highway, I passed a cemetary and it caused me to ask my wife where she would want to be buried. Note: someone else was driving while I sent the email on my Treo. Her response was: "I would say wherever you and the boys are settled. If the boys are grown and moved away, then wherever you are settled. I actually don't care - I think grave sites are for the survivors. Where do you want to be buried?" It's a good question. I've always pictured being buried by a lone tree up on a hill. Perhaps that's cliche. Maybe it's from a movie. Not sure. But that's how I've always pictured my final resting spot.
I was also thining about cremation. I've always wanted to fly so having my ashes dispersed from a plane or helicopter could be cool. Cremation caused me to think, however, about the LDS belief in resurrection and whether having a cremated body would get in the way of that. My sister-in-law's response to that question was: "I believe Church leaders have stated we recommend against it because the spirit and body will reunite. However, God will still have no problem putting it all back together even if you do cremate. So no strong stance [by the Church]."
I suppose donating my body to science is another option. Kind of noble but not nearly as nice for me than being by a tree or flying through the air. Then again, I'd be dead at that point so what do I care? As my wife put it, "I think grave sites are for the survivors" so I'd go along with whatever they choose.
I was also thining about cremation. I've always wanted to fly so having my ashes dispersed from a plane or helicopter could be cool. Cremation caused me to think, however, about the LDS belief in resurrection and whether having a cremated body would get in the way of that. My sister-in-law's response to that question was: "I believe Church leaders have stated we recommend against it because the spirit and body will reunite. However, God will still have no problem putting it all back together even if you do cremate. So no strong stance [by the Church]."
I suppose donating my body to science is another option. Kind of noble but not nearly as nice for me than being by a tree or flying through the air. Then again, I'd be dead at that point so what do I care? As my wife put it, "I think grave sites are for the survivors" so I'd go along with whatever they choose.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
What's really mine?
I've been wondering recently what in this life is really mine. One way to answer that question would be any or all of the following: my body, my skills, my soul, my material possessions, my job, my purpose, my accomplishments, my family. And, from most people, you probably wouldn't get much disagreement over those answers since it is the traditional way that people think about this question. But the more I personally think about it, the less I see that is really mine. You could argue that all of those things I listed are gifts from God and that anything good that flows from them is also a gift from God. In some ways, I am more of a custodian or trustee than an owner. And that bugs me on some level since I want there to be things that I can call mine, just mine, that I have exclusive dominion over.
The only thing I can come up with that falls into that category is my free will or agency. That's something that, based on how God has setup the system, is mine and can't be taken away or overridden by God. But, here's the rub, I'm supposed to use that free will to make decisions that align with God's commandments such that the outcome is exactly the same as if I didn't have free will to begin in. And, if I choose to do otherwise, I'm supposed to use my free will to repent and ask for forgiveness for those sins. So, in reality, if I am faithful and choose to do what I'm supposed to do, I'm basically left with nothing that is really mine. Perhaps that's the true test: we need to consciously choose to give up everything in this life to obtain everything we might want in the next life.
Right now, I'm not racing out to do that. I'm not pleading with God to take away my sins. If anything, I want to hold onto them. I'm hoarding them. I used my free will to get my sins. They're mine, all mine. They're all I have in this world.
The only thing I can come up with that falls into that category is my free will or agency. That's something that, based on how God has setup the system, is mine and can't be taken away or overridden by God. But, here's the rub, I'm supposed to use that free will to make decisions that align with God's commandments such that the outcome is exactly the same as if I didn't have free will to begin in. And, if I choose to do otherwise, I'm supposed to use my free will to repent and ask for forgiveness for those sins. So, in reality, if I am faithful and choose to do what I'm supposed to do, I'm basically left with nothing that is really mine. Perhaps that's the true test: we need to consciously choose to give up everything in this life to obtain everything we might want in the next life.
Right now, I'm not racing out to do that. I'm not pleading with God to take away my sins. If anything, I want to hold onto them. I'm hoarding them. I used my free will to get my sins. They're mine, all mine. They're all I have in this world.
Yesterday, today, and forever
I'm sure there are passages like this all over the Bible and the Book of Mormon but I liked the following passages from 1 Nephi 9 and 1 Nephi 10.
1 Nephi 9:6
But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is.
1 Nephi 10:18-19
18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.
Given where I am right now, the last part about "he that diligently seekth shall find and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them" is a comfort.
1 Nephi 9:6
But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words. And thus it is.
1 Nephi 10:18-19
18 For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.
19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.
Given where I am right now, the last part about "he that diligently seekth shall find and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them" is a comfort.
Tree of life
I was talking with the missionaries yesterday and JW said that his 11-year old read the Book of Mormon in 53 days by committing to read 10 pages per day. Not to be outdone by an 11-year old (pesky pride), I was thinking today that I should do the same and read the Book of Mormon between now and the end of the year. Only time will tell if I make good on that (recall I also decided awhile ago I was going to read the Bible cover-to-cover and quit 25 pages into Genesis), but tonight I read the first ten chapters in 1 Nephi (18 pages). In chapter 8, there is a discussion of the tree of life that stood out for me:
19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.
20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.
21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.
22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.
23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.
24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.
25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.
28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.
29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.
30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.
31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.
32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.
33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.
Earlier in the chapter, Nephi says in verses 10-12: "And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit."
So, to sum things up, we have this fruit that will make you happy, it's the best fruit you've ever tasted, and not surprisingly lots of people are interested in having a taste. Some people get lost along the way, some people effectively spit it out after they taste the fruit, and a lot of people choose to mock those seeking the fruit (and cause people to either turn away from their quest or regret their decision having achieved their goal).
It's this "spacious building ... filled with people, both old and young, both male and female ... their manner of dress exceedingly fine" that I fear the most right now. I haven't reached a point in my knowledge, understanding, convictions, or testimony yet that I can withstand any form of mocking or pointing of fingers - or at least I don't know that I've reached that point - so I'm reluctant to "go public" and invite this form of scrutiny. That being said, I'm writing about this in my blog and inviting you all to read it but it's a friendly audience and even if you ask questions or disagree, I know it's done in the spirit of love and trying to help rather than mocking or pointing of fingers.
19 And I beheld a rod of iron, and it extended along the bank of the river, and led to the tree by which I stood.
20 And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron, even to the tree by which I stood; and it also led by the head of the fountain, unto a large and spacious field, as if it had been a world.
21 And I saw numberless concourses of people, many of whom were pressing forward, that they might obtain the path which led unto the tree by which I stood.
22 And it came to pass that they did come forth, and commence in the path which led to the tree.
23 And it came to pass that there arose a mist of darkness; yea, even an exceedingly great mist of darkness, insomuch that they who had commenced in the path did lose their way, that they wandered off and were lost.
24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.
25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.
26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.
27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.
28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.
29 And now I, Nephi, do not speak all the words of my father.
30 But, to be short in writing, behold, he saw other multitudes pressing forward; and they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.
31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.
32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads.
33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.
34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.
Earlier in the chapter, Nephi says in verses 10-12: "And it came to pass that I beheld a tree, whose fruit was desirable to make one happy. And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen. And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit."
So, to sum things up, we have this fruit that will make you happy, it's the best fruit you've ever tasted, and not surprisingly lots of people are interested in having a taste. Some people get lost along the way, some people effectively spit it out after they taste the fruit, and a lot of people choose to mock those seeking the fruit (and cause people to either turn away from their quest or regret their decision having achieved their goal).
It's this "spacious building ... filled with people, both old and young, both male and female ... their manner of dress exceedingly fine" that I fear the most right now. I haven't reached a point in my knowledge, understanding, convictions, or testimony yet that I can withstand any form of mocking or pointing of fingers - or at least I don't know that I've reached that point - so I'm reluctant to "go public" and invite this form of scrutiny. That being said, I'm writing about this in my blog and inviting you all to read it but it's a friendly audience and even if you ask questions or disagree, I know it's done in the spirit of love and trying to help rather than mocking or pointing of fingers.
Friday, October 26, 2007
The Business Traveling Parent
Over the last month or so, I've been doing a lot of business travel. My wife got me the book The Business Traveling Parent: How to Stay Close to Your Kids When You're Far Away the other day at the library and I read it on one of my flights. Quick read with some good ideas. I scanned the ones that seemed like they'd work best for my family (download). On this last trip to DC, I did the letter on itinerary swap, hotel stationary, postcard, and story book over the phone ideas and it seemed to go well with the kids. If others have suggestions, please let me know.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Truth
In response to a prior post, my brother pointed me to the Wikipedia page on truth and asked me what I believe is truth. This is one of the benefits of having a blog like this and putting myself out there. It encourages people to share ideas or questions that they probably wouldn't otherwise bring up.
On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."
In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."
In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.
In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.
Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.
I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)
On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."
In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."
In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.
In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.
Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.
I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)
Shift Happens
My father forwarded me a cool presentation today (download). The theme is how fast the world is moving forward in terms of knowledge and work environment due to exponential growth of computers and communications. It is a paradigm shift. The slides were presented at the DISA (DoD IT and Telecom Agency) conference by Lt. General Croom. If you have a couple of minutes, check out the preso. I found it quite thought-provoking.
Hallway and rooms
My brother-in-law DE is especially fond of this passage from Mere Christianity (at the end of the preface) so I thought I'd share it with everyone:
I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions – as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “Do I like this kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.
I think there's some truth in this. While discussing my intention to investigate the LDS Church in a prior post, I mentioned the benefit of community as it pertains to organized religion. That is one aspect of the room vs the hallway that C.S. Lewis is describing above. Using Lewis' metaphor, right now I'm in the hallway and I'm peaking my head into the LDS room, leaning my weight into the door frame, but resisting the momentum to go all the way in. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts and whether I poke my head into any other rooms before finally picking one. I think it's a question of "when" not "if" at this point and I suspect that Lewis will be right when he says that when I do get into my room, I will find that the long wait has done me some kind of good which I would not have had otherwise.
I hope no reader will suppose that “mere” Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions – as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. In plain language, the question should never be: “Do I like this kind of service?” but “Are these doctrines true: Is holiness here? Does my conscience move me towards this? Is my reluctance to knock at this door due to my pride, or my mere taste, or my personal dislike of this particular door-keeper?”
When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house.
I think there's some truth in this. While discussing my intention to investigate the LDS Church in a prior post, I mentioned the benefit of community as it pertains to organized religion. That is one aspect of the room vs the hallway that C.S. Lewis is describing above. Using Lewis' metaphor, right now I'm in the hallway and I'm peaking my head into the LDS room, leaning my weight into the door frame, but resisting the momentum to go all the way in. It will be interesting to see how long that lasts and whether I poke my head into any other rooms before finally picking one. I think it's a question of "when" not "if" at this point and I suspect that Lewis will be right when he says that when I do get into my room, I will find that the long wait has done me some kind of good which I would not have had otherwise.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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?
[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?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Falling on grenades
I was talking with my brother-in-law DE last night and he made a useful analogy regarding the Atonement. Specifically, he was talking about soldiers who go into battle and find themselves in situations where someone sacrifices themselves to protect the rest of their troop - specifically falling on a live grenade to shield others from the explosion. He talked about the soldiers who survive that experience - the fact that they're glad to be alive but also how they now have a debt they can never fully repay to their fallen comrade. That simple analogy really helped me connect with the concept of the Atonement (thanks DE!). Perhaps others will also find it helpful.
Update (10/7/07): One other thing I found useful about that conversation is that we discussed the fact that there are many situations in which I would be willing to lay down my life (or endure suffering) but comparatively fewer situations in which I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my sons' lives - as God did with his Son.
Update (10/24/07): Since I got asked about this the other day, let me quickly point out that I'm not saying here that this is everything there is to say about the Atonement. All I'm saying is that this analogy was one way that I was able to viscerally connect with the concept of the Atonement in a way I wasn't able to in the past.
Update (10/7/07): One other thing I found useful about that conversation is that we discussed the fact that there are many situations in which I would be willing to lay down my life (or endure suffering) but comparatively fewer situations in which I'd be willing to sacrifice one of my sons' lives - as God did with his Son.
Update (10/24/07): Since I got asked about this the other day, let me quickly point out that I'm not saying here that this is everything there is to say about the Atonement. All I'm saying is that this analogy was one way that I was able to viscerally connect with the concept of the Atonement in a way I wasn't able to in the past.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Alma 22
My sister-in-law BE suggested that I read Alma 22 in the Book of Mormon. She said it's one of her favorites and it wasn't on the list that had been suggested to me. Checked it out but it didn't resonate as much with me (at least right now) as Alma 32 (see prior post). There was one part, however, that did stand out:
15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.
16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.
Bowing down before God is certainly one of my challenges at the moment (see prior post) so I certainly have a lot of growth to go before I "may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day."
15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.
16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.
Bowing down before God is certainly one of my challenges at the moment (see prior post) so I certainly have a lot of growth to go before I "may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day."
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
James 1:5 and Proverbs 3:5-6
A new friend of mine SJ recommended that I read James 1:5 and Proverbs 3:5-6 (in addition to a number of other passages of the Bible). For those of you not familiar with James 1:5, here it is:
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
That is the NIV version (according to BibleGateway.com). The King James Version (again, according to BibleGateway.com) is:
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.
And the version in my NRSV HarperCollins Study Bible is:
If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.
So all three versions say basically the same thing (if you lack wisdom, ask God and he'll give it to you) but, as an aside, I do find it interesting sometimes how much passages can vary from one translation of the Bible to another.
For those of you who don't have Proverbs 3:5-6 committed to memory, here is the NIV version:
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Here again, the gist is that we should look to God for understanding (wisdom) and trust that he'll keep us on the right path.
On some level, life isn't so complicated if you're willing to trust in God and look to him for guidance rather than thinking we're in control. I suppose that's a no-brainer for a lot of people but both of these passages got me thinking - especially since it's hard for me to ask God for guidance (even though I've basically accepted at this point that my life is part of His plan and that all of the things that happen in my life both good and bad are largely due to that plan).
Update (9/23/07): One similiar scripture from JW: Doctrine and Covenants 112:10 "Be thou humble and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers."
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
That is the NIV version (according to BibleGateway.com). The King James Version (again, according to BibleGateway.com) is:
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.
And the version in my NRSV HarperCollins Study Bible is:
If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.
So all three versions say basically the same thing (if you lack wisdom, ask God and he'll give it to you) but, as an aside, I do find it interesting sometimes how much passages can vary from one translation of the Bible to another.
For those of you who don't have Proverbs 3:5-6 committed to memory, here is the NIV version:
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Here again, the gist is that we should look to God for understanding (wisdom) and trust that he'll keep us on the right path.
On some level, life isn't so complicated if you're willing to trust in God and look to him for guidance rather than thinking we're in control. I suppose that's a no-brainer for a lot of people but both of these passages got me thinking - especially since it's hard for me to ask God for guidance (even though I've basically accepted at this point that my life is part of His plan and that all of the things that happen in my life both good and bad are largely due to that plan).
Update (9/23/07): One similiar scripture from JW: Doctrine and Covenants 112:10 "Be thou humble and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Investigating the LDS Church
Interesting example (from my perspective) of things happening for a reason. Two weeks ago, I decided to set a weight loss goal of fitting into a pair of size 33 jeans. In the course of writing that post, it made me think of a statement my brother-in-law had made and I decided to also set a goal of deciding what I want to do with organized religion. But the religion goal was almost entirely "oh by the way" compared to the weight loss goal. Then, a couple of hours later, a friend of mine innocently posts a comment on my blog asking me "what [I] hope to get out of organized religion?" A fair enough question. That got me thinking about why I'd potentially want to take things to the next level with organized religion. In the course of thinking about this question, two things came to mind: (1) community and (2) eternal families. Regarding community, I've read in a couple of different places (like this article on ExploreFaith.org) that a relationship with God can most richly be experienced in a community of like-minded believers. Conversely, everyone being too like-minded can also be a problem (see this past post) but I think there's something to be said for community. Regarding eternal families, I've always felt that my relationship with my wife and kids would transcend this world - or at least I'd like to believe it will.
Now, I was planning to send my friend an email with this explanation (and possible post it on my blog) but decided to go looking for an explanation of eternal families that I could share with him. I figured it would be easy to find and I'd be done in 5-10 minutes. Since I knew the LDS Church believed in this concept, I decided to look there. At the time, I wasn't aware that the LDS Church has a monopoly (so to speak) on this belief. At any rate, I figured there would be a page on the LDS web site that succinctly summarized this belief. After viewing a bunch of videos and reading a bunch of pages, I surprisingly couldn't find what I was looking for. The concept was mentioned in multiple spots but there was nothing that would summarize the concept for someone not familiar with the rest of the LDS beliefs.
Now, here's the interesting thing. In the cause of looking for this phantom page, I did come across a page that included a quote from the Book of Mormon: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost?” (Moroni 10:4).
In one of my earliest posts (link), I mentioned the following experience:
My belief in God actually happened quite suddenly when I was 19. My wife (then girlfriend) and her family are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the Mormon Church as it’s more commonly referred to. As my wife’s sister was preparing for her mission to Chile, I began talking to her about religion in general and the Mormon faith in particular. Specifically, I asked her how someone goes from not believing in God to believing. Her simple answer to that question is that you pray about it – you read a particular faith’s doctrinal materials (e.g., the Bible) and ask God whether that faith is “true”. So, that’s what I did. One night I read portions of the Book of Mormon and kneeled down by my bed to pray about it. At first, my mind was very chaotic and I couldn’t focus on what I wanted to say to God. But, moments later, my mind become very clear and I felt peaceful. The feeling didn’t last long and I wasn’t “saying” anything at the time, but that brief moment solidified my belief in God. My interest in God had been growing over time and there were certainly seeds planted prior to this, but that one moment, that feeling of peace was the tipping point.
Ironically, the moment that solidified my belief in God in general did not solidify my belief in the Mormon Church in particular – although the genesis of that pivotal prayer was reading the Book of Mormon. At the time, I was simply seeking the existence of God – something larger than myself. I wasn’t ready for more than that and God didn’t proactively offer it up.
In reality, the question that I asked God that night wasn't "do you exist?" but "is this true?" (after reading the passage of the Book of Mormon above). For a whole variety of reasons (that I won't get into), I've applied revisionist history to that event since an answer to the latter question has farther reaching implications than the former.
So, here I am. In the course of about eight hours, I decide to buy some skinny jeans, set a "by the way" religion goal, a friend of mine asks me an innocent question, I go looking for a simple explanation, don't find it, get reminded of an experience 14 years ago, and view the significance of that experience through a new set of eyes. It's hard for me to believe that's a random set of events.
Now, you might ask the question "if you're sure you had this experience 14 years ago, why aren't you rushing out and getting baptized as quickly as possible?" and that's also a fair question. One answer is "it's already been 14 years, what's another couple of months?" Another answer is "this happened 14 years ago so let's not be too hasty about what it means". That being said, I am taking it seriously and trying to decide for myself what it means for me.
In terms of investigating the LDS Church, one person I spoke with suggested that I begin with the following sections of the Book of Mormon:
Introduction
2 Nephi -- Chapters 2, 31, 32, 33
Mosiah -- Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18
Alma -- Chapters 5, 7, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41
3 Nephi -- Chapters 1, 11, 18, 19, 27
Ether Chapter 12
Moroni Chapter 10
If there are others people would suggest, please post a comment or send me an email directly. Also, I mentioned to this same person that I've never personally connected with any of the Mormon missionaries I've met in the past. When I asked if there is a "self-study" version of the missionary lesson, the person suggested Preach My Gospel (one of the manuals that missionaries use). My sister-in-law HG let me borrow her copy and I've read the whole thing (except the chapters on time management and finding people).
So, there you have it. We'll see where this investigation leads but that's the "back story" for those who are interested.
Now, I was planning to send my friend an email with this explanation (and possible post it on my blog) but decided to go looking for an explanation of eternal families that I could share with him. I figured it would be easy to find and I'd be done in 5-10 minutes. Since I knew the LDS Church believed in this concept, I decided to look there. At the time, I wasn't aware that the LDS Church has a monopoly (so to speak) on this belief. At any rate, I figured there would be a page on the LDS web site that succinctly summarized this belief. After viewing a bunch of videos and reading a bunch of pages, I surprisingly couldn't find what I was looking for. The concept was mentioned in multiple spots but there was nothing that would summarize the concept for someone not familiar with the rest of the LDS beliefs.
Now, here's the interesting thing. In the cause of looking for this phantom page, I did come across a page that included a quote from the Book of Mormon: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost?” (Moroni 10:4).
In one of my earliest posts (link), I mentioned the following experience:
My belief in God actually happened quite suddenly when I was 19. My wife (then girlfriend) and her family are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the Mormon Church as it’s more commonly referred to. As my wife’s sister was preparing for her mission to Chile, I began talking to her about religion in general and the Mormon faith in particular. Specifically, I asked her how someone goes from not believing in God to believing. Her simple answer to that question is that you pray about it – you read a particular faith’s doctrinal materials (e.g., the Bible) and ask God whether that faith is “true”. So, that’s what I did. One night I read portions of the Book of Mormon and kneeled down by my bed to pray about it. At first, my mind was very chaotic and I couldn’t focus on what I wanted to say to God. But, moments later, my mind become very clear and I felt peaceful. The feeling didn’t last long and I wasn’t “saying” anything at the time, but that brief moment solidified my belief in God. My interest in God had been growing over time and there were certainly seeds planted prior to this, but that one moment, that feeling of peace was the tipping point.
Ironically, the moment that solidified my belief in God in general did not solidify my belief in the Mormon Church in particular – although the genesis of that pivotal prayer was reading the Book of Mormon. At the time, I was simply seeking the existence of God – something larger than myself. I wasn’t ready for more than that and God didn’t proactively offer it up.
In reality, the question that I asked God that night wasn't "do you exist?" but "is this true?" (after reading the passage of the Book of Mormon above). For a whole variety of reasons (that I won't get into), I've applied revisionist history to that event since an answer to the latter question has farther reaching implications than the former.
So, here I am. In the course of about eight hours, I decide to buy some skinny jeans, set a "by the way" religion goal, a friend of mine asks me an innocent question, I go looking for a simple explanation, don't find it, get reminded of an experience 14 years ago, and view the significance of that experience through a new set of eyes. It's hard for me to believe that's a random set of events.
Now, you might ask the question "if you're sure you had this experience 14 years ago, why aren't you rushing out and getting baptized as quickly as possible?" and that's also a fair question. One answer is "it's already been 14 years, what's another couple of months?" Another answer is "this happened 14 years ago so let's not be too hasty about what it means". That being said, I am taking it seriously and trying to decide for myself what it means for me.
In terms of investigating the LDS Church, one person I spoke with suggested that I begin with the following sections of the Book of Mormon:
Introduction
2 Nephi -- Chapters 2, 31, 32, 33
Mosiah -- Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 18
Alma -- Chapters 5, 7, 32, 34, 36, 37, 41
3 Nephi -- Chapters 1, 11, 18, 19, 27
Ether Chapter 12
Moroni Chapter 10
If there are others people would suggest, please post a comment or send me an email directly. Also, I mentioned to this same person that I've never personally connected with any of the Mormon missionaries I've met in the past. When I asked if there is a "self-study" version of the missionary lesson, the person suggested Preach My Gospel (one of the manuals that missionaries use). My sister-in-law HG let me borrow her copy and I've read the whole thing (except the chapters on time management and finding people).
So, there you have it. We'll see where this investigation leads but that's the "back story" for those who are interested.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Alma 32
JW read my previous post regarding faith and the scientific method and suggested that I read Alma 32 in the Book of Mormon. Specifically, the following passages parallel what I discussed in my post (although the entire chapter is good):
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
I really like this passage as I think it can be applied to an investigation of any particular faith, not just the LDS Church. I especially like Alma 32:27 ("But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words"). I certainly have a desire to believe and have more than a particle of faith. So I'll hold on to that, conduct the experiment, and see where it leads me.
26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?
36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.
I really like this passage as I think it can be applied to an investigation of any particular faith, not just the LDS Church. I especially like Alma 32:27 ("But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words"). I certainly have a desire to believe and have more than a particle of faith. So I'll hold on to that, conduct the experiment, and see where it leads me.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
YRG
I've known a bunch of people who are into yoga and I've tried it a couple of times myself but I just couldn't get into it. Awhile back, I saw an article on the Weight Watchers site regarding the YRG Workout. YRG stands for Yoga for Regular Guys and it was developed by former pro wrestler Diamond Dallas Page (DDP). I was intrigued enough to order the DVD but I was worried it would probably be a waste of money. Thankfully it's turned out to be the real deal. The workout is intense (I'm seriously tired and sweaty by the end) and DDP brings a cool personality/edge to the program. His approach definitely makes yoga much more enjoyable and accessible to "regular guys". I've done the workout about three or four times now and each time I tell myself I should do it more often. Perhaps it will turn into my secret weapon for fitting into my skinny jeans. =)
33
I turned 33 just over two months ago. As many of may recall, I set a goal to reach a weight of 195 pounds by that birthday and barely made it (see post). I also signed up for Weight Watchers Online (see post) but I haven't really gotten into it. So I was trying to think of some new weight loss goal and decided to go with the "skinny jeans" approach rather than the "pick a target weight" approach. Toward that end, I bought a pair of size 33 jeans the other day. The jeans are a bit on the pricey side (ok, more than a bit) but I picked this brand since they also have a line of jeans based on my favorite HBO show Entourage. The pair of jeans I bought isn't from that line (since I didn't like any of the colors / styles) but that's how I ended up with this company. I suppose the other side-benefit of the jeans being expensive is that it will provide additional motivation to fit into them so I can get some use out of the investment. As many of you might know, it's hard for me to spend money on clothes. Just doesn't seem like the best use of money relative to other investment options.
In terms of how much of a "sketch goal" this is, I have a pair of 36-waist jeans and they're very baggy. I also have a pair of 35-waist jeans that fit but also have a bit of room in them. My best guess is that I'm a size 34 1/2 right now. So getting into a size 33 pair of jeans would represent going down roughly 1.5 to 2 pant sizes. The size 33 also have the nice coincidence of being the same number as my age - I love little symbolic connections like that. =)
Speaking of symbolic connections, I figure I'll set one more goal while I'm at it. Before I turn 34 next year, I'd like to figure out what I'm doing with organized religion. After this past birthday, my brother-in-law said to me: "did you know that Jesus was crucified when he was 33?" At the time, I said to myself that was a sign I should go the next step and try to figure things out further. But then I put the thought out of my mind. But it has lingered long enough that I think I need to do something about it. Not exactly sure what the "exit criteria" are for this goal but I'll figure it out as I go. If I were going to "affiliate" with a particular organized religion at this point, it would probably be the LDS Church but that's certainly not a given at this stage of the game.
I suppose if all goes well I'll be wearing my skinny jeans to a church function sometime in the next 10 months. =)
The Most-Praised Generation Goes to Work
There was a WSJ article back in April that I had told my wife about regarding how "uber-stroked kids are reaching adulthood -- and now their bosses (and spouses) have to deal with them" (see PDF for those of you without an online WSJ subscription). At the time I was too busy to blog about this so I read the article and simply set it aside. But my wife asked me about it the other day so I tracked down the article again. Here are some excerpts:
You, You, You -- you really are special, you are! You've got everything going for you. You're attractive, witty, brilliant. "Gifted" is the word that comes to mind. Childhood in recent decades has been defined by such stroking -- by parents who see their job as building self-esteem, by soccer coaches who give every player a trophy, by schools that used to name one "student of the month" and these days name 40. Now, as this greatest generation grows up, the culture of praise is reaching deeply into the adult world. Bosses, professors and mates are feeling the need to lavish praise on young adults, particularly twentysomethings, or else see them wither under an unfamiliar compliment deficit...
Certainly, there are benefits to building confidence and showing attention. But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented...
Employers say the praise culture can help them with job retention, and marriage counselors say couples often benefit by keeping praise a constant part of their interactions. But in the process, people's positive traits can be exaggerated until the words feel meaningless. "There's a runaway inflation of everyday speech," warns Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in Valley Stream, N.Y. These days, she says, it's an insult unless you describe a pretty girl as "drop-dead gorgeous" or a smart person as "a genius." "And no one wants to be told they live in a nice house," says Dr. Sapadin. "'Nice' was once sufficient. That was a good word. Now it's a put-down."
And my favorite quote (describing the attitude of earlier generations): "Yes, I get recognition every week. It's called a paycheck." =)
I have to admit that I'm a praise-junkie - although not nearly as much in the last couple of years. I also have to admit that I struggle with the right balance of praise / positive-feedback with my kids. On the one hand, you want to be supportive and recognize their accomplishments but you also don't want to get carried away about every little thing.
You, You, You -- you really are special, you are! You've got everything going for you. You're attractive, witty, brilliant. "Gifted" is the word that comes to mind. Childhood in recent decades has been defined by such stroking -- by parents who see their job as building self-esteem, by soccer coaches who give every player a trophy, by schools that used to name one "student of the month" and these days name 40. Now, as this greatest generation grows up, the culture of praise is reaching deeply into the adult world. Bosses, professors and mates are feeling the need to lavish praise on young adults, particularly twentysomethings, or else see them wither under an unfamiliar compliment deficit...
Certainly, there are benefits to building confidence and showing attention. But some researchers suggest that inappropriate kudos are turning too many adults into narcissistic praise-junkies. The upshot: A lot of today's young adults feel insecure if they're not regularly complimented...
Employers say the praise culture can help them with job retention, and marriage counselors say couples often benefit by keeping praise a constant part of their interactions. But in the process, people's positive traits can be exaggerated until the words feel meaningless. "There's a runaway inflation of everyday speech," warns Linda Sapadin, a psychologist in Valley Stream, N.Y. These days, she says, it's an insult unless you describe a pretty girl as "drop-dead gorgeous" or a smart person as "a genius." "And no one wants to be told they live in a nice house," says Dr. Sapadin. "'Nice' was once sufficient. That was a good word. Now it's a put-down."
And my favorite quote (describing the attitude of earlier generations): "Yes, I get recognition every week. It's called a paycheck." =)
I have to admit that I'm a praise-junkie - although not nearly as much in the last couple of years. I also have to admit that I struggle with the right balance of praise / positive-feedback with my kids. On the one hand, you want to be supportive and recognize their accomplishments but you also don't want to get carried away about every little thing.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Family meetings
Every Sunday morning, we have a family meeting. It's a tradition that my wife started a couple of months ago and so far it's been a big success. I'd certainly advocate the tradition for any family - whether they have kids or not. The meetings are a built-in time to check in, connect as a family, and discuss pertinent ideas or issues. For our meetings, the stated purposes are:
- To give compliments
- To help each other
- To solve problems
- To plan family activities
The kids (particularly JD) really seem excited and empowered by the meetings. Some of the topics JD has asked to discuss are how we can show people we love them, what we can do if someone is not being nice, and how we can keep loving each other even if we have an argument. For each topic, we brainstormed a set of possible solutions and then posted a sign on the door. For example, on April 22, we came up with this set of suggestions if someone isn't being nice:
- Move away, run away, or leave
- Tell the person how it makes you feel
- Tell the person it's not ok to not be nice
- Make an angry face
- Use words. Ask the person if something is wrong, why they're not being nice, and how you can help them feel better.
- Don't have to be not nice back.
Regarding how we can keep loving each other even if we have an argument, here's the list we came up with on May 13:
- Be nice
- Say "sorry"
- Play a game
- Say "I love you"
- Give a kiss
- Be good
- Give a hug
- Be nice and love
- Read a book
- Share a toy
Prior to having kids (and especially after JD and AJ were born), my wife and I had family meetings of our own where we could discuss how things were going for each other and how we could support each other better. We still try to have those "adult-only meetings" once a week - usually while taking a walk - and it makes a big difference in our marriage.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Post frequency
For awhile now, I've felt like I've been neglecting my blog - or at least not tackling the same depth of issues I did in the past. The graph to the right proves out that my post frequency is way down from where it was when I first started this blog. Many of the original posts were focused on religion, spirituality, and balance since those were the issues I was struggling with the most. I wouldn't say that I have them totally figured out but I feel I'm in a much better place than when I first started the blog. So, if post frequency is a reflection of level of struggle, I suppose it's not entirely a bad thing that my post frequency is down. That being said, the more practical reason that I'm not posting as much that is work is very busy and it's hard to squeeze in other forms of self-reflection like this (which isn't a good thing). One of these days I'll get back to the harder issues. For now, I'll do my best to post when I can.
The Marshmallow Test
In one of the venture blogs I read, there was an interesting post that referenced the "marshmallow test". Specifically, there was a test done back in the early 1960s by Walter Mischel with 400 four-year olds at Stanford University.
Children were put in a room by themselves with a two-way mirror and filmed. On the table in the room was a marshmallow. The researcher then told each child that, “I’ve got to leave for about 10 minutes. You can eat this marshmallow now if you want. Or if you wait till I get back, you can have two marshmallows when I get back.” Some of the kids were pretty determined to wait; one child actual licked the table all round the marshmallow but avoided the marshmallow itself. Some could wait a few minutes only. Others gobbled it down immediately. The researchers continued to track these children throughout their school careers and into early adult life.
The results were dramatic. Those who had deferred eating the marshmallow for 15-20 minutes in order to get the bigger prize just a few minutes later were more socially competent, personally effective, self-assertive and better able to cope with the frustrations of life. They were less likely to go to pieces, freeze, regress under stress or become rattled and disorganized when pressured. They embraced challenges, and pursued them instead of giving up even in the face of difficulties; they were more self-reliant and confident, trustworthy and dependable; they took initiative and plunged into projects. This group even scored on average 210 points higher on their SAT.
I doubt the marshmallow test was ever administered to me when I was four years old but I suspect I would have been one of the kids that would have waited it out and gotten two marshmallows at the end. Sometimes I worry I'm a little too focused on delayed rewards, that I'm always investing for the future (for monetarily and career-wise) rather than enjoyed the present. But I suppose that's just how I'm wired.
I'm kind of tempted to administer the marshmallow test on my kids. I'm pretty sure JD would wait (even a year ago when he was four). I'm less sure about AJ but he's only three right now so it's a little hard to judge. That being said, he does pretty well with delayed rewards (e.g., if you do X now, you'll get Y tonight) so he'd probably be in the same camp as JD.
Children were put in a room by themselves with a two-way mirror and filmed. On the table in the room was a marshmallow. The researcher then told each child that, “I’ve got to leave for about 10 minutes. You can eat this marshmallow now if you want. Or if you wait till I get back, you can have two marshmallows when I get back.” Some of the kids were pretty determined to wait; one child actual licked the table all round the marshmallow but avoided the marshmallow itself. Some could wait a few minutes only. Others gobbled it down immediately. The researchers continued to track these children throughout their school careers and into early adult life.
The results were dramatic. Those who had deferred eating the marshmallow for 15-20 minutes in order to get the bigger prize just a few minutes later were more socially competent, personally effective, self-assertive and better able to cope with the frustrations of life. They were less likely to go to pieces, freeze, regress under stress or become rattled and disorganized when pressured. They embraced challenges, and pursued them instead of giving up even in the face of difficulties; they were more self-reliant and confident, trustworthy and dependable; they took initiative and plunged into projects. This group even scored on average 210 points higher on their SAT.
I doubt the marshmallow test was ever administered to me when I was four years old but I suspect I would have been one of the kids that would have waited it out and gotten two marshmallows at the end. Sometimes I worry I'm a little too focused on delayed rewards, that I'm always investing for the future (for monetarily and career-wise) rather than enjoyed the present. But I suppose that's just how I'm wired.
I'm kind of tempted to administer the marshmallow test on my kids. I'm pretty sure JD would wait (even a year ago when he was four). I'm less sure about AJ but he's only three right now so it's a little hard to judge. That being said, he does pretty well with delayed rewards (e.g., if you do X now, you'll get Y tonight) so he'd probably be in the same camp as JD.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
First day of kindergarten
Today was JD's first day of kindergarten. It seemed to go well. The program is dual immersion English-Spanish and 90% of the instruction in kindergarten is in Spanish (but becomes 50/50 by fifth grade). So I think JD was a little mentally exhausted by the end of the day (with all the Spanish being thrown at him) but that was part of the point of putting him in this program. He probably wouldn't be challenged by a regular kindergarten program given where he is right now with reading, math, and verbal communication.
Anyway, I took the day off so I could take JD to school in the morning and pick him up at lunchtime. Given work, I don't know how often I'll be able to do that for him so I figured this was a good day to make it happen. Who knows if it made any difference to JD (he just ran right into class and started exploring the classroom; no clinging or hesitation) but it was a symbolic gesture on my part. It was my way of saying to him that he's important to me and that I want to support him - even if I can't be there all the time.
As luck would have it (or perhaps everything happens for a reason), one of the energy blogs I follow had a personal post today. In it, the blogger (who has a full-time job and family) was discussing the fact that his blog is taking up too much of his time and putting a strain on his family. This excerpt resonated with me:
This past week, my 11-year-old son watched a movie that he really liked. I told him, "Yeah, I have been meaning to watch that with you." He then looked at me, and asked "But why didn't you?"
I know I'm making choices in my life that prevent me from doing every little thing with my kids (or my wife). But I certainly don't want to get to one of these gut-wrenching moments when it becomes perfectly clear your priorities have been in the wrong place for a long while. Hopefully this forum of people can keep me honest in that regard and I can do enough stuff along the way to be an integral part of my kids' lives while also accomplishing something meaningful in other parts of my life (particularly my marriage and career).
Anyway, I took the day off so I could take JD to school in the morning and pick him up at lunchtime. Given work, I don't know how often I'll be able to do that for him so I figured this was a good day to make it happen. Who knows if it made any difference to JD (he just ran right into class and started exploring the classroom; no clinging or hesitation) but it was a symbolic gesture on my part. It was my way of saying to him that he's important to me and that I want to support him - even if I can't be there all the time.
As luck would have it (or perhaps everything happens for a reason), one of the energy blogs I follow had a personal post today. In it, the blogger (who has a full-time job and family) was discussing the fact that his blog is taking up too much of his time and putting a strain on his family. This excerpt resonated with me:
This past week, my 11-year-old son watched a movie that he really liked. I told him, "Yeah, I have been meaning to watch that with you." He then looked at me, and asked "But why didn't you?"
I know I'm making choices in my life that prevent me from doing every little thing with my kids (or my wife). But I certainly don't want to get to one of these gut-wrenching moments when it becomes perfectly clear your priorities have been in the wrong place for a long while. Hopefully this forum of people can keep me honest in that regard and I can do enough stuff along the way to be an integral part of my kids' lives while also accomplishing something meaningful in other parts of my life (particularly my marriage and career).
Done having kids
People sometimes ask me whether we're planning to have any more kids. My immediate answer is "we're done". Most people are actually quite surprised (and amused) by how immediate the response is. But I'm quite content with the two boys I have and really don't want to go through the baby phase again. I was thinking about this today since we were over at my sister-in-law's house and I was hanging out with her new baby. Her son is totally mellow, quite cute, and loves to a warm body to cuddle up to. But, when I was holding him, I definitely wasn't thinking "wouldn't it be nice to have another kid". Instead, I was thinking about how great it is that my boys are growing up and getting increasingly independent.
From what I understand, a number of dads start to really get into their kids when they hit four years old or so. At that point, you can do more interactive stuff and communicate a lot better. So I suppose my situation isn't much different. Regardless, if my parents want any more grandkids, they'll need to depend on my brother because we're done. =)
From what I understand, a number of dads start to really get into their kids when they hit four years old or so. At that point, you can do more interactive stuff and communicate a lot better. So I suppose my situation isn't much different. Regardless, if my parents want any more grandkids, they'll need to depend on my brother because we're done. =)
The Pragmatic Path to Agnosticism
A friend of mine has a great thread going over on his blog (Running Naked) that explores his path from Catholicism to Aethism to Agnosticism. So far, he's published 4 of the 5 essays: Get Thee Behind Me Jesus!, The Shiny Ball of Atheism, Survival of the Holiest, and The Fundamentalist Atheist. So far, I've really enjoyed the series (along with all his other posts) and look forward to the final installment. If you have some time, I'd highly recommend reading this series.
Amendment (8/22/07): Here is a link to the final installment in this series.
Amendment (8/22/07): Here is a link to the final installment in this series.
Bit Literacy
A friend of a friend wrote a great book called Bit Literacy. I've previously written about a tool called Gootodo (see post). This book takes things a step further and outlines all the skills and strategies one needs to be successful in this digital, information-intensive age. The book's a quick read so I'd highly recommend it. In my case, I found the first part of the book (about email purges and getting to-do's organized) most useful. The rest of the book was all stuff I already know and do. Then again, my life is more bit-intensive than most.
After reading the book, I emptied my personal inbox. Still working on doing the same thing with my work email. I've also been using Gootodo again although I still sometimes supplement with paper. The real trick with all of this isn't knowing the strategies but being consistent in their application. I probably do better with this stuff than most but it's still a struggle. If others read the book, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on all this.
After reading the book, I emptied my personal inbox. Still working on doing the same thing with my work email. I've also been using Gootodo again although I still sometimes supplement with paper. The real trick with all of this isn't knowing the strategies but being consistent in their application. I probably do better with this stuff than most but it's still a struggle. If others read the book, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on all this.
Temptation
My brother-in-law sent me a quote the other day from C.S. Lewis: "No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is...We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it." I've certainly found this to be true - whether it be with eating, work, or other things. I don't do particularly well in the moment. It's too easy to rationalize the transgression, especially if it seems fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. I've found my best strategy to be avoidance (prevent facing the temptation to begin with). This quote is interesting to me, though, since I know people for whom temptation doesn't appear to be an issue. But I guess you just never know other people's struggles behind the scenes (and they likely don't know mine).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)