I Still Want to Be a Paladin

It's strange how my epiphanies seem to be just me re-realizing things I had already learned and forgotten. Case in point, I want to be a Paladin. Now, that may not be surprising to long-time readers of my blog, but it was a bit of a surprise to me the other day when I was wracking my brain to try to find some kind of motivation.

At the time, I was trying to find some reason to keep a commandment that I didn't fully understand. I like to know the reason behind the rule, and in this case, I didn't, so I had to take the commandment on faith, and that just didn't set well with me. I wanted to follow the rule, but I felt like I wouldn't have the motivation to obey the rule until I knew why the rule existed.

Then I realized that there was one reason why I should want to obey that rule, and it had nothing to do with why the rule existed, which I still don't know. But even without knowing the reason behind the rule, I can gain the motivation to keep it by remembering whom else might obey such a rule: A Paladin.

Paladins are noble and self-disciplined. Paladins maintain high standards of honor and conduct. Paladins are chivalrous and pure. And Paladins obey the moral code they've sworn to uphold, even when the code seems obtuse and irrelevant. I could want to obey the rule, if only because it's one of the rules that I, as a Paladin, have sworn to obey, and because to do otherwise would be contrary to the nature of a Paladin. I could motivate myself to obey the rule because that's what a Paladin would do, and I want to be like a Paladin.

This isn't news to me. At least, it shouldn't be. I've known that I've wanted to be like a Paladin since before I went on my mission about ten years ago! I've known that I wanted to be a Paladin for almost all of my adult life! And yet, I had somehow lost sight of that, just as I had lost sight of the importance of daily studying the Book of Mormon. I suppose that's why the lessons in church like to revisit the basics periodically, with lessons on faith and repentance and the like. These things are surprisingly easy to forget.

Maybe I should put up some reminders where I'll see them, so I can remind myself again more easily the next time I forget that I'd like to be more like a Paladin.

Listening Without Distractions

My family spent most of today preparing for Conference, or, more specifically, preparing for the meal we'll host between the morning and afternoon sessions of General Conference. We bought a lot of food, made a six-layer bean dip and a cheese, cut up vegetables for a veggie tray, and mixed up some egg salad and tuna salad. However, the thing I did that helped me most to prepare for Conference actually happened a few days ago. The other day, while I was riding in a car with a few friends, we all listened to a few General Conference talks, and we really listened to them. Naturally, there wasn't much else to do, and that's what made it so perfect a situation for listening to Conference talks; there were no distractions.

I hope to replicate that tomorrow. I won't do a whole lot of driving tomorrow, mostly because I'll be spending most of the day listening to General Conference, and I intend to really listen. The key to doing so will be to ignore any distractions as much as possible tomorrow and to really tune in and focus on the talks. Taking notes might help, so I will, but logging onto the Internet certainly won't, so I won't. At least, not until I need to blog. Even if Wifi is available at church tomorrow, I'll make sure my web browser is closed during the sessions of Conference, and if any other distractions come up, I'll deal with them as quickly as I can so I can go back to listening.

I'm glad that I had the opportunity to listen to General Conference talks without any distractions, and I hope I get that opportunity again tomorrow.

A Conference Talk About Conference

We have finally come to the last talk of the last session of our last General Conference. Conveniently, the talk was about General Conference itself. In The Voice of the Lord, Elder Neil L. Andersen said may things that could apply to the previous General Conference or the next one. Here are a few of my highlights:

I give you my witness that Jesus is the Christ, that He guides the affairs of this sacred work, and that general conference is one of the very important times He gives direction to His Church and to us personally.

In the commotion and confusion of our modern world, trusting and believing in the words of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is vital to our spiritual growth and endurance.

I promise you that as you prepare your spirit and come with the anticipation that you will hear the voice of the Lord, thoughts and feelings will come into your mind that are customized especially for you. You have already felt them in this conference, or you will as you study the messages in the weeks ahead.

The teachings of general conference are the considerations the Lord would have before us now and in the months ahead.

There is a treasure chest of heavenly direction awaiting your discovery in the messages of general conference. The test for each of us is how we respond to what we hear, what we read, and what we feel.

I find it incredible that God still speaks to the world today on a regular basis, giving each and every one of us counsel relating to the immediate future of the next few months. I wonder what messages the Lord has prepared for us this time, and I hope that we will be wise enough to listen to them and respond to them. General Conference is a sacred, important meeting with vital, and sometimes urgent, messages from God. It is essential that we do not squander this blessing. This General Conference, let's try to remember what a privilege it is to receive such messages from God, and let's try to apply them in the months leading up to next Conference.

Love is a Verb

Elder Jose L. Alonso's talk, Love One Another as He Has Loved Us, has reminded me of a very important fact: Love is not just a noun; it is also a verb.

We sometimes speak of having love for someone or something, or being in love with someone or something, and those are valid uses of that word, but they leave out the idea of expression. When someone truly loves or has love for someone or something, they usually show it. The acts by which they express their love can be said to be the act of loving them.

Case in point, I just spent a day or so with a couple. During that time, they repeatedly served each other, helped each other, expressed concern for each other's well being and happiness, and addressed each other by terms of endearment. By this, I could tell that the two really loved each other. Love wasn't just a passive emotion they felt toward each other. Love was an active habit and the driving force of their relationship.

We should have that kind of love for everyone. While we can't and shouldn't love everyone romantically, we can and should love everyone actively by actively expressing the love we feel (or know we should feel) for them. We can do this by serving others, by being kind to them, by forgiving them, by teaching them, and by doing any other thing we would do for someone whom we deeply cared about. These are just a handful of examples. Our genuine love of others will help us to identify more.

The more we act on our love, the more our love will be felt, and the more noun-type love will exist in the world. It may inspire others to engage in verb-type love, too. So, let's try to shed our shyness and our preconceived expectations of others' reactions, and let us try to actively love each other and not just passively feel love for them.

Adventure with Friends

When a person goes on a trip. they rarely go alone. They usually go with at least one friend or family member, both for safety and to share the experience. I wonder if we did that when we came to Earth.

I know that we knew each other as brothers and sisters in the premortal spirit world, but with some trillions of brothers and sisters, I can imagine us knowing some of our siblings better than others. Perhaps, of our spirit siblings, we had already made some close friends. I wonder if God arranged for some of us to come to Earth together, perhaps not as twins, but as siblings or other family members, or as people who would meet and become friends on Earth.

I would like to think that some of us already knew each other before we were born. Having that personal connection already established in heaven might make it easier for us to connect with each other here. We might be able to understand each other better and have better, stronger relationships here. We might be able to better look out for each other and keep each other safe. I like the idea that at least some of us were friends before we were born.

Alternatively, perhaps we didn't know each other all that well in the spirit world and we're making lots of new friends here. Either way, I'm glad that we get to share this experience with each other, and I'm looking forward to sharing our stories with each other when we get back together. Life is full of adventure, and adventure is always better when you share it with friends.

Family Got Me Through the Day

Today was a little rough. Nothing particularly bad happened today, but there were a bunch of little things that didn't go as well as anyone had planned. Thankfully, we all had each other to help each other out. One thing that I love about my family is the emotional support I get from them. Several members of my family are exceptionally kind and understanding. I'm glad to know that I can always turn to them when I'm having trouble with something, no matter how major or minor. They're the best. Left on my own, today could have been a pretty bad day, but since I had my family supporting me, it was actually mostly alright.

Where to Search for Truth?

I know that I shouldn't say this, but I take some issue with some parts of Elder Ian S. Ardern's talk. In his talk, Seek Ye Out of the Best Books, he warns us against taking information from the wrong sources. The way he said it, "we must do all we can to fortify ourselves spiritually against words of opposition and deception." This raised a small red flag in my mind, but even more alarming was a claim that he made later in his talk: "There is nothing to be gained in exploring the views and opinions of the less informed or disenchanted."

I disagree.

I believe that truth can be found almost anywhere. Certainly, there are great truths taught in the Gospel and great falsehoods about the Gospel taught elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that we should "turn away" from those who mock and demean us, as Elder Ardern advises , or that there is nothing to be learned from them. Elder Ardern is right to say that "We live in a day in which misinformation about our beliefs abounds," but I'm not sure that closing our ears to that misinformation is the best response to it.

Of course, I may be misrepresenting Elder Ardern's views. It's possible that "spiritually" is a key word in his advice to "fortify ourselves spiritually against words of opposition." Maybe we should engage our detractors in conversation, but maybe we should do so from a place of spiritual strength, so our faith can withstand the conversation. This reminds me of a character gaining experience and levels to prepare himself for a tough encounter, but my main point is that the character will gain experience from the encounter itself, just as we can gain knowledge and experience, and even faith, from faith-shaking conversations.

We shouldn't shy away from questions. Truth withstands scrutiny. And even amongst lies and insincere questions, we can find kernels of truth and begin sincere searches for truth, which can be quite fruitful. Naturally, the scriptures are among the best sources of truth, but that is not to say that truth cannot be found elsewhere. In our searches for truth, we shouldn't be afraid to consider difficult questions or alternative perspectives or sources of information.

Yet, I agree that, while we search for truth, we should try to have the spirit of discernment with us so we can sort out the truths from the falsehoods. Personal revelation is essential. I think that there are very few sources that should be wholly trusted or distrusted. Every nugget of information should be checked with the Spirit for confirmation, regardless of its source.

As we search for truth, the most important consideration is not where we search but how. We should search for truth virtually everywhere, in my opinion, because truth can be found anywhere. No one has a monopoly or utter depravity of truth. We should, however, search carefully, and we should always search with the aid of the spirit of truth. He can help us find spiritual truths, even those hidden in places where we may also find falsehoods, and He can help us identify falsehoods, even those tucked away in places where we also find truths. In short, look for truth wherever you can, but don't label anything as being true or false until it has been deemed so by the spirit of truth.

What's God's Policy on Policymaking?

I've been studying Philosophy and specifically Ethics for some time now, and one of my coworkers who knows of my interest in philosophy suggested that I should look into policymaking as some sort of career. That, plus my knowledge of my responsibility to use what political power I have to do as much good as I can, has led me to wonder how God would like me put some of those ideas into practice. I don't intend to become a professional politician, but I do intend to vote, which forces my to wonder what God would want me to vote for or against. Which laws or policies would God want us voters to enact or retract?

One easy suggestion would be to make it illegal to sin. Let God's laws become society's laws. Easy fix. Except that God's laws are far more strict than society's laws should be. For example, the third of the ten commandments is to not take the name of God in vain. Essentially, it's a law against swearing. Even if one could enforce such a law, it would set a horrendous precedent for censorship. Society can easily agree on laws like "thous shalt not steal" or "thou shalt not kill," but other laws, like the law of tithing, should not be enforced, even in cases when they can be.

This is why I'm having such trouble with this idea. Obviously, we want to do good and to persuade others to do good, or at least dissuade others from doing evils, but which evils should we try to legally dissuade? Abortion is (usually) evil. Should there be laws against it? Maybe, but maybe not. Abortions certainly shouldn't be encouraged as a convenient anti-pregnancy measure, but since there are situations in which an abortion might be justified, I don't think we should ban it outright. If we were to pass a law banning some abortions, we would need to make sure that all of the proper exceptions were built into the law, or added as amendments later, and that would require such a complex set of laws, I'm not sure we'd be able to make an abortion law that perfectly matches God's policy on abortion, and even if we could, I'm not sure it'd be worth the trouble, especially when there's always a risk of people performing dangerous illegal abortions.

So, some sins, like killing, should definitely be illegal, and some sins, like swearing, probably shouldn't be, and there are some issues that are some heavy and complicated that we probably shouldn't even try to make public policy reflect God's policy, except in the broadest sense. As a voter, I feel that it's important to make sure that I'm voting wisely and morally. In general, I think that it should always be legal to do the right thing, but it shouldn't always be illegal to do the wrong thing. The trouble is that it's sometimes hard to tell which acts which are immoral should also be illegal.

The Need to Act on the Truths

I just watched/read/listened to Elder Adilson de Paula Parrella's talk, Essential Truths—Our Need to Act, and the title alone reminded me of one important, if not essential, truth: merely knowing the truth is not sufficient; we must also act on it. For example, we might know that there are sharks in a particular bay, but if we don't act on that knowledge by resisting the urge to swim there, that knowledge isn't going to protect us from the sharks. Similarly, we might know how to bake a cake, but unless we use that knowledge to bake the cake properly, we're going to end up with a less-than-ideal cake or something that's not a cake at all. Acting on knowledge is just as essential as possessing it.

We know the truths of the Gospel. Many of us have know them all our lives. But merely knowing those truths isn't enough. We also have to put that knowledge into practice by doing those things that we know that we should do and by not doing those things that we know that we should not do. Learning the Lord's will is only the first step; the second step is doing it.

Unfortunately, the second step is the hard one. It's relatively easy to learn the Lord's will, given the many methods we've been given to learn it. We can study the scriptures, the words of the prophets, both ancient and modern. We can consult with our church teachers and leaders, and of course, there's always personal revelation. Learning what God wants is often relatively easy. Actually doing it can be difficult.

While knowing the will of the Lord is a question of study, doing the will of the Lord is a test of character. It requires wisdom and will-power. It requires the ability to understand how a particular commandment or principle applies to a given situation and acting accordingly, despite Satan tempting us not to. Acting on the truths of the gospel is far harder than learning them is.

Yet, if we don't act on those truths, there's really no point in learning them. The gospel isn't about just knowing the commandments, but keeping them. If we're not going to keep the commandments anyway, it would just as well if we didn't know them. Actually, if we're not going to act on the truths of the gospel, it would actually be better if we didn't know them, because then we wouldn't be held accountable for knowing the will of the Lord and not doing it. Ignorance of the law can be a fair defense, but for those of us who already know the truths of the gospel, we must act on them. I know that we'll be blessed if we do so, and that we'll be in serious trouble if we don't.

Why Evil Exists

The next paper I have to write for my Modern Philosophy class is about the Problem of Evil, which is a logical problem that's created when ones considers the power and goodness of God alongside the darkness and evil that exist in the world. Theoretically, if God was all-powerful, He could rid the world of evil, and if He was all-good, He would do it. I don't like absolutes, but I still believe that God is at least powerful enough to eliminate most, if not all, evil from the world and good enough to want to, so why doesn't He?

There are many reasons.

Moral Evil, which is the evil things people do and the consequences that result from them, is by definition the results of human action. God's not responsible for those acts; we are. Arguably, God shares some of the responsibility, just as any parent who gives a child a potentially dangerous tool can be considered somewhat responsible if the child uses that tool to hurt themselves or someone else. Still, this suffering can be beneficial, if we learn from it. We can learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others, and suffering for any reason can stretch one's soul.

Natural Evil, which is suffering and imperfections that naturally occur in the world, is more directly linked to God, but are no less instructive. While it takes a bit more abstract thinking to learn moral lessons from the behavior of nature, the suffering that results from that behavior can stretch one's soul just as well as suffering caused by moral evil.

While we may think that the world might be better without any moral or natural evil in it, it's important to remember that those evils and the suffering they cause play an important role in God's plan. From evil and the suffering that results from it, we can learn essential lessons that we could hardly have learned otherwise. It could be true that evil itself is actually essential to God's plan, which might explain God's creation of Satan, though I'm less sure about that. What I am sure about is that there are good reasons why evil exists in this world and why God is wise enough not to eliminate it.

Ethical Respones to Unethical Behavior?

Both on my blog and in my Philosophy classes (particularly the Ethics class), I have thought about Ethics and Politics, and I've wondered what God's stance is on all of this. I understand that people should behave ethically, and were God a U.S. citizen, He'd probably promote laws that promote ethical behavior, but how would those laws promote ethical behavior, or rather, what should we do about those who behave unethically? My philosophy, in most cases, is "live and let live," but when one person hurts another person, there has to be some kind of punishment, right?

I'm not completely sure. What is the purpose of punishment? Deterrence? By the time there's someone to punish, it's too late to deter them. I suppose you could punish one person as an example (and a deterrence) to others, but is that really fair? Those who promote punishment sometimes do so in the name of justice, but is it really our place to judge? Who are we to decide what sort of punishment is fair?

I am comforted by the fact that everything that is unfair about life will be made right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Still, we should strive for fairness, especially in our justice system. Letting people off the hook isn't a wise move for society, and over-punishing someone isn't any better. I believe that we should try to make the punishment match the crime, but how can we determine what sort of punishment matches each crime?

Essentially, I'd like to know what God thinks of earthly laws punishing unethical behavior. Does He condone mortal punishment or does He think that we should stop judging people's behavior an penalizing them for it? Which unethical decisions are bad enough to warrant punishment (e.g. murder), and which ones are light enough to let slide (e.g. swearing)? How should we decide which punishments to impose on which actions?

As God-fearing voters, we should attempt to determine how God would like us to vote. Essentially, this means that we should attempt to discover the will of God for those who behave unethically and those who interact with them. Does God want us to punish evil-doers? Probably. But how He wants us to punish evil-doers is less clear. This will probably require a lot of soul-searching and an attempt to bring my will into harmony with God's. Perhaps, when my will more closely aligns with His, I will have a better idea what He would want us to do regarding those who behave unethically.

Forming Bonds in Rat Park

Thinking about how to solve the plight of the homeless, my brother and I just watched a Ted talk about addiction. In that talk, the speaker, Johann Hari, described a study that found that, while rats in individual cages can become consumed by drug addiction, rats in a shared cage with lots of fun things to do (a "rat park" as it were) managed to shrug off the effects of the drugs to which they had access. Hari suggested that the reason the "rat park" rats weren't badly affected by the drugs was that they didn't need them. They had other stimulants, including friends and toys, that they could turn to instead of drugs. Rats, like humans, are intelligent and social creatures, accustomed to forming bonds with others of their own species, or in the absence of fellow species members, with anything they can bond with.

The theory goes that humans, like rats, are naturally inclined to bond with other people. When we can't satisfactorily bond with other humans (for any number of reasons), we tend to turn to other things, like animals, entertainment, and/or drugs. We turn to other things, and can become addicted by them, to fill the void left by the lack of meaningful human interaction. Thus, to solve the problem of addiction, we have to reach out and connect with people.

Of course, this is just one theory, and it would be helpful to do more studies like the one with the Rat Park, to see if they produce similar results. Furthermore, what works for rats may not work for humans, so we can't pretend that we've found the magical cure for human addiction, but it still might help. If you or anyone you know are struggling with addiction, I would encourage you to reach out and to try to form the kind of human connection that the addict may need. We know that we all need friends in life and that we tend to form special, sacred bonds with out families. Now, thanks to some rat research, we may have found out why. Humans and Rats both want to form bonds, and if we don't want them to bond with drugs or other addictive habits or practices, we may have to find other things, or other people, for them to bond with.

The Bright Side of Nihilism

I haven't studied Nihilism anywhere near enough to effectively blog about it, but I'm going to go for it anyway. As I understand it, Nihilism is a belief that there is no inherent meaning to a person's life. People aren't born with any grand purpose, and there is no God telling us what we ought to do or be, according to my understanding of Nihilism. Many people see this as soul-crushing. Some believe that Nihilism, if it's true, makes life completely meaningless. But that's not the way I see it. I and many others see Nihilism as an opportunity to create our own meaning of life. If our lives don't have any inherent purpose, we can still give them purpose. Under Nihilism, we can decide what we want our lives to be about. That's not soul-crushing; it's liberating.

Of course, it's also academic. There is a God who created us for specific reasons, and He does have great plans in store for each of us who are willing to follow Him. In gaming terms, there is a Main Quest that we are supposed to try to achieve, yet I choose to believe that God grants us the freedom to choose which Side Quests we also follow and to even make up our own, if we want to. God may have a particular career or calling in mind for you, but you get to choose your hobbies. (You can also choose your own career and you can reject callings, regardless of what God says, if you really want to, though you'll probably miss out on blessings if you do.)

I like the middle ground way of thinking because it gives me the best of both worlds. Knowing that God has a plan for me lets me know that I'm part of something bigger than myself, and knowing that, even within His plan, God gives us a lot of freedom lets me know that the purpose of my mortal life is still largely up to me. God has a plan that gives all our lives meaning, but what meaning our lives have beyond that is up to us to decide.

Blessings Worth Their Cost

Elder Stanley G. Ellis's talk, Do We Trust Him? Hard Is Good, was not about tithing, but in it, he posed a question that one would do well to consider if they feel that they may be too poor to pay tithing:

Do we have the faith to trust His promises regarding tithing that with 90 percent of our increase plus the Lord’s help, we are better off than with 100 percent on our own?

Of course, it is difficult to have that much faith, and if one's finances are especially tight, it may feel like they need every penny they can hold on to. But God does not ask us to make sacrifices without offering us something in return. In return for a tenth part of our increase, the Lord has promised to open the windows of Heaven and pour out such great blessings, we won't even have enough room to receive them all (Malachi 3:10). I can't say exactly what form(s) those blessings will take, but I can say that they are certainly going to be worth their cost. Ten percent is a sizable chunk of one's income, but the Lord's blessings are worth far more than that.

I used to think that you can't buy miracles. Either God is going to bless you, or He won't; you can't bribe Him. However, that may not be strictly true. Paying tithing with the knowledge that God will bless us for doing so is kind of like buying those blessings. Sure, the exact blessings we get are unpredictable, so it'll kind of like buying a mystery pack of blessings, but they're always worth the cost. Plus, buying blessings seems like such a novel concept, and it's kind of exciting to pay tithing and see what kinds of blessings you get from it.

For those not brought up with the habit of paying tithing, I can understand why it would be difficult. Ten percent of one's income can be a lot of money. But what we get in return for that investment is priceless. The blessings of heaven are worth far more than what we're asked to pay for them. It's a good deal. Plus, like Elder Ellis suggested, we are fare better of with 90% of our increase and God's help than we are with 100% of our increase on our own. I, for one, know that I need God's help in my life. I'd gladly just buy those blessings, if I could. So, given that paying tithing is kind of like buying blessings, I'm happy to do so. God's blessings are worth far more than ten percent of my income to me.

Works in Progress

In his talk, Apart, but Still One, Elder Joni L. Koch encouraged us not to be judgmental, saying, "Brothers and sisters, we have no right to portray anybody, including from our Church circle, as a badly finished product!" There is at least one reason why this is true. None of us can be "a badly finished project" because none of us are a finished project at all. We are all works in progress. We are all growing and learning and gaining experience. We are all, in various ways and at various rates, becoming better people. None of us are perfect yet, but we are all improving. At the very least, we all still have opportunities to improve. No one is locked into being the way they all now, no matter how stubborn they are. No one is a "lost cause." Everyone can get better, and can even eventually become perfect, so we shouldn't we get too hung up on the way anyone is now. All any of us are now are just works in progress. If you want to judge someone, wait until you see them as their finished product.

Fighting Fire with Fire

I've been thinking about what I said last night about how verbal attacks are not an appropriate or effective response to verbal attacks, and I noticed that that belief seems to conflict with the belief that physical attacks can be an appropriate response to physical attacks. Yet, I hold that, if one is physically attacked, one is justified in physically fighting back. How do I reconcile this? If it's not alright to "fight fire with fire" with verbal attacks, why would it be alright to "fight fire with fire" with physical attacks? Or, to put the question another way, if it's alright to "respond in kind" with physical attacks, why would it not be alright to "respond in kind" with verbal attacks?

My answer can ultimately be summed up in one word: Effectiveness. Countering verbal attacks with verbal attacks is not effective. Countering physical attacks with physical attacks is.

To claim that anything is "effective," one must establish what sort of effect one is trying to achieve. After all, throwing plates like frizbees may not be an effective way to stack them in a cupboard, but it can be an effective (and fun!) way to break them. Similarly, answering verbal attacks with more verbal attacks can be effective, if you're trying to start, prolong, or intensify a conflict. However, that is not the effect I want to achieve.

The effect that I most often want to achieve with regards to conflict is Resolution, though I will sometimes settle for Cessation. If there is a fight, I want it to stop, permanently, if possible, and as soon as possible. This counts for both kinds of conflict I'll be discussing this evening: verbal and physical.

As I have argued previously, verbal attacks do not help to resolve verbal conflicts. Verbal attacks tend to cause hurt feelings, which is more likely to result in backlash than in conflict resolution. Conversely, physical attacks can resolve, or at least end, physical conflicts by physically disabling combatants. Any person would stop making physical attacks once they're incapacitated, unconscious, or dead.

Of course, just because a method might be effective, that doesn't mean it's the best method. There may be multiple ways to accomplish a desired effect, some of which will be better than others. For example, responding to verbal attacks with physical attacks may end the verbal conflict, but only by replacing it with a physical conflict. That's not better. On the other hand, if one can replace a physical conflict with a verbal conflict, perhaps by talking sense to the attacker, that would be a step in the right direction, but that's not always possible. Those who have begun to resort to violence have, by an large, become unreasonable, so one should save their breath for the physical conflict.

Still, in the interest of morality and concern for the welfare of the human soul, it is preferable to resolve the physical conflict non-lethally, and even non-violently, if and when that's possible. If an attacker can be subdued without being killed, they may then be able to be reasoned with, or they can at least be brought to justice, which would be preferable to killing them. Yet, non-lethal and non-violent defense tools are sometimes less effective at eliminating threats than potentially lethal defense tools are. In a physical conflict in which lethal weapons are involved, it is essential to resolve to conflict as quickly as possible, and non-lethal methods don't always do the trick. In physical conflicts, there are sometimes only two options: kill or be killed.

In conclusion, I don't like guns any more than the next guy does. I (naively, perhaps) believe that we would all be safer if nobody  had guns or explosives or weapons of any kind; however, that's not the kind of world we live in. Bad people already have weapons, and they can make weapons, use everyday objects as weapons, and smuggle weapons in from other countries. We cannot eliminate weapons. Even if it would largely solve the problem of violent attacks, it's an impossible solution. A much easier solution is to give oneself the ability to respond in kind. Given that we cannot disarm all potential threats, we can at least arm ourselves with the tools we need to appropriately respond to those threats. Even in the best societies, verbal and physical conflicts will occasionally occur, so it's important to use the best, most effective methods to resolve those conflicts.

Brigitte's Passive, Aggressive Healing

I don't play Overwatch, and I probably never will, but I like to follow Overwatch news because the people who make Overwatch create interesting characters for the game. Case in point, the latest character created by the Overwatch team: Brigitte. Brigitte is basically a Paladin. She's tough, she focuses on melee combat, and she heals her allies. The only problem is how she heals them. Sure, she has an ability that lets her focus a little bit of healing on a single ally, and her ultimate ability heals every ally within a certain range of her, but both of those abilities take a while to charge and/or recharge, so she can't use them very often. Most of her healing is accomplished via a third, passive ability that heals every ally around her whenever she strikes an opponent. Whenever she hits an enemy with almost any of her attacks, every ally around her gets some healing.

That's not how healing normally works. Even in fantasy settings where there is such a thing as magical healing, it's not normally accomplished by causing physical harm. And in the real world, one can never heal any person by hurting another. That's a large reason why I don't like the term "Social Justice Warrior." Warriors fight. Warriors cause harm. Yes, warriors cause harm to ones enemies, and that, theoretically, might prevent further harm, but only if an enemy is eliminated, and Social Justice Warriors don't do that. One way to eliminate an enemy is by killing them, and, thankfully, most Social Justice Warriors haven't resorted to that. Another way to "eliminate" an enemy is to make that person not an enemy anymore (by far the better option, in my opinion), but Social Justice Warriors don't do that, either. If anything, most of the actions taken by the Social Justice Warriors I've seen has mainly served to aggravate the fighting. They think that they're accomplishing something by arguing with their enemies, but to me, it just seems to be creating more division. We don't need more fighting. We need more healing.

That's why, if I were to ever take an active role in defending any of the causes currently promoted by Social Justice Warriors, many of which are well worth defending, I still wouldn't take on the mantle of Social Justice Warrior or adopt many of their methods. I wouldn't even try to be a Social Justice Paladin, as they are still too violent for my taste. Instead, I would try to be a Social Justice Healer, doing good for many while doing harm to none. Those to whom harm is done and about whom ill is said tend to be resentful, and I don't want to generate resentment. That would only prolong the conflict. One does not end a verbal conflict by fighting, unless you think it counts to end a verbal conflict by escalating it into a physical one. Instead, we should try to deescalate conflicts by refraining from the argumentation and insults that make up too much of our modern political dialogue. We can disagree without being disagreeable, and we can heal those who have been hurt without causing further harm.

Quantifying the Tragedy of Death

I spent some amount of time today pondering over whether any human death is more or less tragic than any other. What, if anything, makes the deaths of the 17 students in Florida more tragic than the deaths of those who died in car crashes during the 17 minutes of silence? As I pondered, I came to the conclusion that there are many factors that can make a death more or less tragic.

One factor is age. A young person dying is more tragic than an older person dying because the younger person had more of their life ahead of them. Had their untimely death been prevented, they would have enjoyed more years of "borrowed time" than the older person.

Another factor is cause. Death from natural causes or from the deceased's own stupidity is less tragic than a death caused by evil choices.

Pain and duration can be a factor. Suffering is tragic, but that's more of a function of the suffering itself, not the death that it precedes. If anything, the death itself might be considered a blessed release from the pain of whatever condition caused the death. Still, when one considers the pain and the death together, they will probably conclude that a quick, painless death is less tragic than a slow, painful one.

Another factor that can make a death more or less tragic is the extent to which the deceased will be missed. The more people who knew and loved the deceased, the more sorrow there will be for that person when they die, which makes their death that much more tragic.

However, I think that the greatest factor of the measure of the tragedy of a death is the deceased's personal righteousness. We know that there is an afterlife and that heaven is much, much better than Earth, while hell is, presumably, worse. If one is reasonably confident that the deceased is heaven-bound, then one can be reasonably certain that the deceased went on to a better place, which should be celebrated, not mourned.

I cannot speak for the righteousness of the high school students. I didn't know them. But I do know that they were young people whose lives were cut short by a sudden, violent, evil act, leaving many mourners behind. Given that, I can logically claim that their deaths are more tragic than that of a reasonably righteous but not well liked man experiencing a painless, natural death of old age. I would be lucky to have such a death, though I would hope to have enough people miss me that my death would be at least a little bit tragic.

What should be done about such deaths as occurred recently in Florida is a question fro ethicists and politicians, but two things that are no longer questions in my mind are whether those deaths were more tragic than others and how one might quantify the tragedy of death.

Devotion to Duty

Today, I watched a (digitally recorded and posted on Youtube) performance of The Pirates of Penzance. It was a funny play with convoluted plot holes, a tune or two that I guarantee you've heard before, and a main character, Friedrich, who had a fascinating concept of morality. Essentially, to him, duty is everything. When he was honor-bound to serve a crew of pirates, he did so to the best of his ability. He even, acting as a loyal crewman, warned them that, once he was free of his obligation to them, he would act on his patriotic duty to eradicate them. Despite the warning, the pirates still released him and he formed a battalion to fight them, but when he learned that he was still honor-bound to serve the pirates, he rejoined them and helped them fight against his battalion.

Through it all, Friedrich did no more or less than what he thought was his duty, regardless of the inherent morality or immorality of the act itself. In D&D, Friedrich's character would be considered Lawful Neutral, being honorable, but not particularly Good or Evil. Personally, I think that this is a terrible way to be.

I think that duty is important, and that devotion to one's duty is usually admirable, but I think that goodness is more important and that doing good regardless of one's duty is even more admirable. Attributes like Lawfulness, Obedience, and Devotion to Duty are neither virtues nor vices, in my opinion. If a person follows the rules, that doesn't necessarily make them good or bad. Lawful Good is better than Neutral Good or Chaotic Good, but Lawful Neutral is not, itself, Good. Devotion to duty is a good trait to have, but there are times when it would be better to betray one's duty, and devotion to it is certainly not the primary measurement of goodness.

Incentive System

I've blogged about life being basically the biggest, longest, and most varied open-world choose-your-own-adventure role-playing game, which it is. In life, you can do basically anything you want: unlock various skill trees, gather and manage resources, climb certain rank ladders, and/or spend far too much time playing mini-games. But there's one thing that bugs me about life being one big game, and it isn't the permadeath or the inability to load previous saves. It's the incentive systems.

Just about every good game out there has incentive systems that encourage or discourage certain player behavior. In Mario, players are encouraged to collect coins so they can increase their score and get 1ups. In Minecraft, players are encouraged to explore and/or mine in order to find interesting locations or rare materials. In life, what are we encouraged to do?

Some people are compelled by the urge to gather resources, particularly the most flexible resource: money. People spend hours each day performing boring, repetitive tasks because those tasks reward them with money. Some people work extra hard and in creative ways to earn even more money, which they then hoard or spend to get whatever perks we like. And earning money isn't really optional, either. We need money so we can exchange it for actual necessities, like food and shelter. Without enough money to buy the things we need, the game would end pretty quickly, and without enough money to exchange for our chosen perks, the game probably wouldn't be worth playing anyway, so we have an incentive to try to earn lots of money.

Yet, gathering money is ultimately pointless. Yes, it helps to extend the game time, but we can't extend the game indefinitely. Everyone sees the Game Over screen eventually, and when they do, all of their money and other material resources get left behind, so amassing as much money as possible isn't actually a winning strategy, even though the game gives us an incentive to do so.

We also have an incentive to have fun and to have other pleasant experiences, which is, after all, almost the entire point of playing any game. But some of the most fun experiences in life are also the most  physically or spiritually dangerous. For example, riding my bike quickly is more fun than riding it slowly, but it's also far more dangerous. And I probably don't need to tell you about the other things people do to have "fun" that also put their lives and souls in great danger.

There is, thankfully, also an incentive system in place to reward players for acting in ways that the Designer intended. Some perks can only be unlocked through good behavior, and those include some of the best perks in the game. These include the absolute best perk in the game, which, ironically, is only realized after one puts down the controller, which is actually part of the problem.

Most of the rewards for desired player behavior are only unlocked long after the player starts employing that behavior consistently, which is a serious problem. The average gamer has a terribly short attention span and gets bored easily. If the reward appears too long after the perform the desired behavior, or if they have to perform the behavior for too long before getting the reward, they might not automatically connect the reward with the action they performed to earn it, or they might not keep the behavior up long enough to earn the reward at all.

A reward system that rewards good players with perks eventually but also rewards the bad players with fun immediately is a bad incentive system. It gives players too much incentive to do the wrong things and too little incentive to do the right things. This might be okay for games in which the purpose is to see how the players would act, but if the goal is  to promote certain player behavior, then the system provides the player with far too much incentive to do other things.

I know that the Designer knows what He's doing, and I'm sure that He had good reasons for making the game the way it is, incentive system and all, but I think that, if it were up to me, I would have designed this game with a simpler, quicker, and less contradictory incentive system.

How to Prove the Truth of the Book of Mormon

Our Sacrament meeting focused on the Book of Mormon, which is also the topic of the next General Conference talk I'm supposed to blog about, God’s Compelling Witness: The Book of Mormon by President Tad R. Callister. Now, I could talk about the evidence President Callister put forth for proving the Book of Mormon, or rather, the evidence he said would be necessary to disprove it, but I'm not sure how helpful that would really be for anyone. Those who already believe in it already believe in it, and those who don't already believe in it have a much faster and more direct route to discovering its truth: Read it and pray about it. Read it and ask God if it's true. I'm willing to bet that most members of the church have done so and have felt a witness confirming that the Book of Mormon is true. Once you have a spiritual witness from God, what further evidence do you need?

Of course, there are a few caveats I should add here. The voice of the Spirit of God is often quiet, so you'll have to listen carefully. It helps to remove as many distractions as possible. Also, God's Spirit is repulsed by sin, so if you want to receive a witness or test to see if you will receive a witness, make sure you're making an honest effort of repenting from whatever sins you're committing. Otherwise, praying for a witness would be kind of like asking to see physical evidence and then locking out the person who's supposed to bring it to you. Make sure God is welcome in your life, then ask Him what He says about the Book of Mormon. Odds are, you'll feel Him tell you that the Book of Mormon is true, and once you have that witness, any further evidence is unnecessary. God's word is the best evidence anyone could ever hope for. If God, an honest and omniscient being, says that something is true, then it's true, regardless of the presence or absence of any other evidence.

So, if you'd like to know whether the Book of Mormon is true, you could consider the numerous arguments of the countless people (including myself) who have argued for or against its truthfulness, or you could go directly to the one being who is the source of all truth. God knows, and is likely willing to tell you, that the Book of Mormon is true, and, thanks to His witness, millions of others know it too.

Finalizing the Flood Plan

I'll begin my lesson with the manual's recommended Attention Activity, which is showing the children some warning signs, like STOP and DANGER, and asking what those signs mean and how they can help us. We'll discuss how these warning signs can warn us of danger and can tell us how to avoid it so we don't get ourselves hurt or killed. Then I'll relate those warning signs to prophets, who warn us of spiritual and temporal calamities and tell us how we can avoid them or prepare for them. From there, we have a clear link to Noah.

Since the children like reading, I'll have them read parts of Noah's story straight from the Old Testament. We'll read Genesis 6:5-22 (a few verses at a time, of course), which explains how the earth was wicked, except for Noah, and Noah was commanded to build an ark. Genesis chapter 7 (all 24 verses) tells about the flood itself and all those numbers I was so impressed with earlier. If we have time, we might read some of chapter 8, but I'll want to save some time for an activity, so maybe I'll just summarize the important parts.

At the end of the lesson proper, I'll bear my testimony of the importance of heeding prophetic warnings and I'll remind the children that General Conference is coming up once again. This will be the first General Conference in which President Russel M. Nelson will speak as the President of the Church. Odds are, he'll have some counsel for us and I'm sure that we'll be blessed if we follow it, so I'll encourage the children to listen carefully when President Nelson speaks so they'll know what message the Lord has for us today.

After the lesson has officially ended, we'll play a game. The lesson manual has guidelines for a matching game, matching questions on pieces of paper or on the chalkboard with various numbers. I'm not sure I'll bother using the chalkboard or paper. Instead, I'll quiz the children directly after telling them that all of the answers will a) be numbers and b) be found in Genesis 7 (in case they need a hint).

The six questions in the manual should be enough to kill whatever time we have remaining after the lesson, but if not, I might be able to squeeze a few more number questions out of chapter 7, like how many sons Noah had or how many people are specifically mentioned as  going on the ark, but I doubt it'll come to that. Reading the relevant verses should take up most of our time, and the discussions we'll have about those scriptures should take up most of our remaining time. The questions the manual provided should be enough of a filler to kill any remaining time.

This is going to be a nice lesson. I look forward to going over such a familiar Bible story in a bit more detail than these children probably have before, and it'll be good to have such a timely reminder of one of the purposes of General Conference. I hope that the children will listen to the lesson and then listen to the Prophet afterward.

Building Before the Flood

Earlier today, I was thinking about what specific approach I would take for my lesson on Noah and the flood, and I decided that I want to focus on the fact that Noah built and entered the ark well before the flood came. Noah wasn't reacting to the problem; he was proactively following a warning from God.

We receive warnings sometimes, and we receive counsel frequently. If we follow those warnings and counsel, we can avoid many of the pitfalls of life and we can be prepared to face the ones we couldn't avoid. If we wait until we fall into one of those pits before we start following God's counsel, that would be like starting to build the ark only after it starts raining. Most likely, we'll be way too late to avoid missing out on some blessings that we otherwise might have had, like surviving the flood.

Thus, the wisest course of action is to follow the counsel of the Lord, whether it makes sense or not, well before we feel like we need His help. Once we need His help (and we all do, frequently), it would be great if we already proved worthy of that help by keeping His commandments rather than having to ask for blessings we know we don't deserve. We should try right now to prove worthy of the blessings we don't need yet, just like Noah did by building the ark well before the coming of the flood.

Noah's Numbers

I was reading through the lesson that I'm going to give on Sunday on Noah and the ark, and I was surprised by some of the numbers in the chapter. I knew that most of the animals were in pairs, with some animals by sevens, and I knew that it rained for forty days and forty nights, but there were other numbers I didn't know. I didn't know that "the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days," for example (Gen 7:24). I also didn't know that "Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth" (Gen 7:6). I guess people lived a long time back then. But the number I was most surprised by wasn't a big one; it was another seven. The Lord commanded Noah and his family to enter the ark seven days before the floods came (Gen 7:4,10).

I wonder why. Maybe the Lord wanted to test Noah's faith and patience some more? Nah. His faith was pretty much proven at this point. Maybe the rain and floods took a long time to build up, and the Lord wanted Noah and his family to shut themselves up in the boat before everyone else wanted on? I'm not sure. One boat can only hold so many people (and animals). It's possible that the Lord didn't want others to overrun and sink the ark. Also, these people had been given chances to repent and had only begun to consider repenting when they saw that the judgments of God were upon them. Besides, if they truly were penitent, then they would be saved from their sins, even if they had given up their last chance to be saved from the flood.

I don't plan on going into any sort of detail or speculation about the possible reasons why Noah was on the ark so long before the floods came. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It's just a neat piece of trivia for scholars to look into. The other numbers will be plenty interesting for the kids.

A Friend of a Friend

This afternoon, as I was waiting for a bus, I had an opportunity to help someone learn more about the bus system. I gave him a schedule for the bus we were about to catch, I taught him about bus numbers and bus routes, and I taught him a few tips I had learned from riding the bus so much myself. Now, I don't know who that guy was, and I may never see him again, but I feel like we had a small connection. Helping him felt a lot like helping a friend. And in reality, that's not far from the truth.

On Facebook, when someone asks to be your friend, or when Facebook suggests someone it thinks you should be friends with, the website often tells you how many friends you have in common. As I said, I didn't know the guy at the bus stop, and as far as I know, I don't know anyone who knows him, unless we're counting God.

As I rode that bus the stranger and I caught, I thought about how God knows and loves each of us. He is, in a fairly literal sense, a friend to all. So, whenever you meet someone, whether you know them or not, you can at least know that they're a friend of a friend. You can know that someone whom you care about and who also cares about you also cares about them. Granted, not everyone on earth is good friends with God. There are people that we shouldn't necessarily trust, despite them being a friend of a friend, but we can still be nice to them for that reason, if no other.

God loves everyone and wants us all to be happy. If we want to make God happy, we can accomplish that by making others happy, too. When I helped the man at the bus stop, I didn't think about why I was doing it, but I'm glad I did. I didn't know whom I was helping, and I still don't know who the guy is, but that doesn't matter. We don't have to be friends with someone in order to want to help them, but even if we did, we could still justify helping people by remembering that just about everyone we'll ever meet is a friend of a friend.

The Mysterious Water Problem

A couple of days ago, probably Friday, I was grabbing a measuring cup out of one of our drawers when I noticed that the drawer had water in it, as did the drawers above and below it, as did the counter above them. I cleaned them all. I took everything out of all of those drawers and washed practically all of them. I took everything off the counter and cleaned it, too. The most troubling thing, however, was not how much work I had to do to clean up the mess; it was how the mess was created in the first place.

It was a total mystery. It told my family members, and none of us had any idea, and very few guesses, where that water came from. And it came back, prompting me to clean the counter again. We suspected the dish rack. We tried some experiments and made some adjustments. We thought we had fixed it, but the water came back. We suspected the dishwasher. We watched the dishwasher, guessing that maybe, when the dishwasher drained itself into the sink, maybe some of that water splashed onto the counter. We watched, but the splashing was minimal, and the counter was soaked anyway. We kept drying the counter and the water kept coming back unexplainably day after day.

Eventually, we discovered the problem. When the dishwasher is hooked up to the sink, the faucet leaks a little bit. The water from the faucet pools on the lip of the sink and then spills over onto the counter. The problem has finally been identified, and a temporary solution is already in place. Now, all we have to do is fix an occasionally leaky faucet, but this experience probably has a lesson or two in it, waiting for me to find them.

I am ashamed to admit how frustrated I was with the mysteriously reappearing water. There were times when, out of dismay and surprise, I came pretty close to swearing. It's incredible how discouraged I got with a relatively minor problem. I should have tried to maintain a better attitude and a more long-term perspective. I was confident that we would find the source of the problem and that we would find a solution to it. In the meantime, now that we were aware there was a problem, we could stay on top of it. We could keep checking the counter regularly and keep mopping up the water whenever it appeared. It wasn't a big deal. At least, it shouldn't have been.

And it doesn't really seem like a big deal now. Yes, it's a serious problem, and it could cause a lot of damage and cost us a lot of money. But, with our temporary solution in place, and actually working, fixing the actual problem with the sink doesn't feel like a high priority, and the previously mysterious water problem doesn't cause me any stress anymore. It feels like the problem has been solved, even though it really hasn't been solved yet.

Life is full of problems, big and small, and some of them bother us more than others. This one, which created a lot of work, didn't seem to make any sense, and kept coming back despite everything we did about it, really frustrated me. Perhaps it's true that problems seem less daunting when we understand them, but we shouldn't let a mysterious problem interfere with our tranquility. We should learn to be patient.

Yet, we shoudn't be too patient, especially with short-term solutions. It would be easy for me to take this band-aid solution and leave it at that, when what I should really do is take a closer look at the root of them problem and solve it at its source. It's not enough to just treat the symptoms of a problem; We also need to address the cause. We can live with the problems we can't solve, but we really should permanently solve the problems we can.

This mysterious water experience has been a trial for me, and that trial isn't completely over, but I have already learned a few valuable lessons from it. I just hope that I remember these lessons when it's time to apply them to my next trial.

A Life We Can't Reload

My brother and I are fairly engrossed in the game we're playing together, in which we're having some fun playing around with an unofficial mechanic of most video games: time travel. In this game (and many others), we are able to save the game, and even make copies of the save, and then load or reload whatever save we want. For example, we can save the game before making a reckless and/or permanent decision, make the decision, see how it turns out, and then reload the save we made before we made the decision. This allows us to experience multiple branching paths and to keep only the paths that work out well for us.

Needless to say, this doesn't work in real life. We can't "save" or "reload" different versions of our lives, and the only way to really know how a decision will turn out is to actually, permanently, make that decision. After we made a few reckless decisions in the game, my brother reloaded a save from before we made those decisions, stating that, in real life, he would have been more cautious. We all spend most of our lives in "real life," a life that we cannot reload, so we would to well to be cautious and to make our decisions deliberately, especially since we can never go back and change our decisions.

Trekking Along

Elder M. Russell Ballard used the pioneer treks as a metaphor for our own treks back to our Heavenly Father. This works in several ways, including the courage that's needed to get started on such a path and the diligence required to stay on it. The early pioneers often had to blaze trails, literally and figuratively, in order to even get started toward their promised land, but that was only the beginning. Once one was one the path, he or she would have to work diligently in order to continue to make progress. Like them, latter-day members of the church sometimes have to pay a high price to join the church, and then all members, new and old, have to work continually to remain faithful. Being a member of the church isn't easy. It has never been easy. In any era, there is a great deal of work required to get on and stay on our literal or figurative path toward eternal life.

Playing Together

My brother and I recently started playing a new game. It's a puzzle/exploration game with a mysterious story. At first, I thought we could play the game separately, since it's not common for us both be free to play it at the same time. I would play when I would, and he would play when he could, and we would try to keep pace with each other on average. But I discovered a day or so ago that that wouldn't be as much fun as playing it together. We wouldn't be able to discuss the story together, because one person would know more about it than the other. We wouldn't be able to solve the puzzles together because one of us would already know the answer. I decided that, even though I had the opportunity to play ahead, I didn't want to. I didn't want to get ahead of my brother because I wanted for us to be able to play together. Sure, playing together means that we'll progress at a slower rate than either of us would have on our own, but it will be more enjoyable, and it'll be something we can bond over. Playing separately would have had its advantages, and it was somewhat tempting, but it will be more fun for both of us if we limit ourselves to only playing together.

Accepting Self-Improvement

Self-improvement is tricky. It involves a complex balance between accepting one's flaws and striving to overcome them. First, we have to understand our imperfections without becoming overwhelmed by them or too comfortable with them, and then we have to work on overcoming those imperfections without being too hard or easy on ourselves.

It's difficult to get the balance right. Sometimes, I get frustrated and sometimes, I get complacent, but neither of those moods are going to help me achieve the changes I want to see in myself. I have to be willing to change and I have to accept that that change isn't going to come quickly. Yet, I have to keep moving forward. I have to keep trying to make progress. I shouldn't burn myself out or get too upset in the face of setbacks because that's not going to help me, but slowing down my progress for no good reason isn't going to help me either. I know that I have an eternity in which I can make progress, but I need to keep headed in that direction.

Change is important. Everyone needs to grow and improve, and we need to accept that if we're ever going to make an progress. But at the same time, no one is every going to manage to become perfect within this lifetime, and we need to accept that, too. Perfection is a goal that we have to keep striving for, but we have to be patient with ourselves until we reach it.

"The Flame Shall Not Hurt Thee"

My favorite verse of Hymn #85, How Firm a Foundation, is the fifth verse:

When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,

My grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply.

The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design

Thy dross to consume, thy dross to consume,

Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.

I like this verse because it talks about the purpose of trials, but as I explained it to a few friends, I noticed that it also suggests one of the limitations of trials. The verse says that "the flame [trials] shall not hurt thee," but they do. We experience painful trials all the time. Yet, the pain doesn't last. At least, not eternally.

We have a mortal perspective, and from our perspective, the trials we experience are serious and damaging, but it's possible that God has a different perspective on the trials He puts us through. I know that God knows how we feel, but He also knows how briefly we'll feel that way and how soon we'll feel much better for having experienced the trial than we would have ended up feeling had we not experienced it.

Our trials are, ultimately, for our benefit. Worst case scenario, they give us some temporary discomfort. They cannot affect our eternal destiny in any negative way, unless we react badly to them. God didn't design our trials to hurt us needlessly. In fact, if we look at it from an eternal perspective, it's possible that don't truly hurt us at all. Because God loves us and always does what's best for us, He designed our trials to help us, not to hurt us.

Three Reasons to be Religious

My current D&D character, a human barbarian named Krusk Bloodfist, has recently discovered three reasons why he should study religion, some of which are better than others. The first reason is probably then best one. It is to express gratitude for divine aid. Recently, Krusk has seen many events that he considers miraculous. It was shortly after witnessing the first few of these events that he decided to seek out religious mentor to teach him how to thank the god that he believed was responsible for the miracles.

The second reason Krusk saw to be religious is to avoid curses. One of the "miracles" Krusk saw was actually a fatal misfortune to one of his mortal enemies. Someone hostile to Krusk and his friends suddenly and unexplainably contracted a terrible illness that cost him his life. At the time, it seemed pretty obvious that this condition was a curse inflicted on this enemy for his poor behvior, giving Krusk an additional reason to make sure his own behavior is acceptable.

The third reason was discovered just tonight in our weekly D&D game. Krusk's religious mentor, Sandra, was kidnapped, and now Krusk and his friends are going to try to rescue her, and you can be that Krusk will ask for help in doing so. Seeking divine aid is one of the main reasons people turn to religion, and while it's not the best reason to become religious, it's not the worst reason either. Arguably, to thank and to become more like God are among the best reasons to worship Him, while trying to avoid punishment may be one of the worse reasons, but if seeking blessings and avoiding punishments were bad reasons to be religious, I'm not sure God would have told us anything about the blessings or punishments we can gain or avoid in the first place. Sure, there are better sources of motivation, but I don't think God would have told us about them if He didn't want us to be motivated by them.

There are many reasons to b religious, some better than others, but when it comes to doing the right thing, just about any reason or reasons can be good enough.