I was recently made aware of an individual, Chris McCandless, who decided to "live off the land," but who had prepared poorly and subsequently died of either starvation or food poisoning. This highlights the importance of knowledge and preparation. I believe that, with enough forethought, McCandless could have lived off the land, as people used to, if he could have found enough land on which to do so. McCandless didn't die because he was attempting the impossible. He died because he hadn't prepared himself correctly.
Similarly, our spiritual survival depends strongly on our knowledge and preparation. We need to know what spiritual nourishment we need and where we can find it. We need to know what spiritual poisons we need to avoid and how to recognize them. We live in a spiritually inhospitable environment, but we can survive here, if we know how.
There are many hazards that we face in life, both physically and spiritually, but we can survive them if we prepare ourselves for them. Facing challenges can help us develop the strength and wisdom we need to face even greater challenges, even life-threatening ones. Through sufficient exercise and practice, we can prepare ourselves for almost anything life can throw at us.
Life is dangerous. Everyone dies by the end of it. Some die sooner than they needed to. Many physical and spiritual deaths can be prevented if we have the right set of knowledge and preparation. We can overcome life-threatening challenges. We just need to know how to and be ready to do it.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Valiant Knight
In the most recently released set of Magic cards, there's a card called Valiant Knight. It's a 3/4 Human Knight for (3)W that has "Other Knights you control get +1/+1" and "(3)WW: Knights you control gain double strike until end of turn."
Don't worry; I don't expect you to understand any of that. It doesn't matter. I'm not sharing this card with you all for its mechanical attributes, impressive as they are in the right deck. The reason I'm telling you all about Valiant Knight is because of its flavor text: “Defeat is no reason for retreat. It is a sign we must redouble our efforts to win this fight.”
This may not always be tactically true in physical conflicts, but it is always true in spiritual conflicts, or at least in our conflict with sin. When we sin, that doesn't mean that we are failures or that we should give up. It means that we need to pray harder and fight harder for control of our own souls. Unlike physical battles, our spiritual battles are never hopeless. In physical fights, it makes some sense to retreat from foes that we have no chance of defeating. But we always have a chance of defeating our spiritual foe, and once we have made up our minds to defeat him, he has no chance of defeating us.
I am grateful that, because of the Atonement and power of Jesus Christ, we never have to retreat from or surrender to our spiritual enemy or the enemies within ourselves. We can defeat them. We can become strong and clean. We can "redouble our efforts" as many times as we need to, and we can win this fight. We will win it. I am thankful that God and the people who created that Magic card have reminded me to be a Valiant Knight and to never retreat, even when I am occasionally defeated. I'm grateful for this reminder to "redouble [my] efforts to win this fight." I pray to God that I will.
Don't worry; I don't expect you to understand any of that. It doesn't matter. I'm not sharing this card with you all for its mechanical attributes, impressive as they are in the right deck. The reason I'm telling you all about Valiant Knight is because of its flavor text: “Defeat is no reason for retreat. It is a sign we must redouble our efforts to win this fight.”
This may not always be tactically true in physical conflicts, but it is always true in spiritual conflicts, or at least in our conflict with sin. When we sin, that doesn't mean that we are failures or that we should give up. It means that we need to pray harder and fight harder for control of our own souls. Unlike physical battles, our spiritual battles are never hopeless. In physical fights, it makes some sense to retreat from foes that we have no chance of defeating. But we always have a chance of defeating our spiritual foe, and once we have made up our minds to defeat him, he has no chance of defeating us.
I am grateful that, because of the Atonement and power of Jesus Christ, we never have to retreat from or surrender to our spiritual enemy or the enemies within ourselves. We can defeat them. We can become strong and clean. We can "redouble our efforts" as many times as we need to, and we can win this fight. We will win it. I am thankful that God and the people who created that Magic card have reminded me to be a Valiant Knight and to never retreat, even when I am occasionally defeated. I'm grateful for this reminder to "redouble [my] efforts to win this fight." I pray to God that I will.
Planning the Introduction to the David and Bathsheba Lesson
I know where I want my lesson to end up: staying, analogously, as far away from the edge of the cliff as possible. But I haven't figured out yet how I want my lesson to begin. I'll have to tell (a kid-friendly version of) the story of David and Bathsheba, but how should I set it up?
Should I just jump right in? You remember from last week that David got married to Michal, one of King Saul's daughters, making David technically a prince. When King Saul died, David became king. One evening, while King David was standing on his rooftop... And the story can proceed from there. It's simple. It's direct. It still includes some summary, which I might expand on slightly, to remind the children that Saul got jealous of David and tried to kill him, but Jonathan, Saul's son and David's friend, saved David. It shouldn't take more than a minute or two to review the previous lesson and jump into the story of the current lesson. But is that what I want to do?
When teaching a lesson, it's sometimes customary to start by telling the class what the lesson is about, or perhaps by illustrating the main point of the lesson by using an attention-grabbing activity. For example, in the lesson on David and Goliath, Brother Dahm used pieces of paper with challenges written on them to illustrate how challenges can help us grow and make progress. I could do something similar with this lesson. However, the Attention Activity for this lesson involves tying children's hands up with thread, and I'd rather not do that. Perhaps I could bring in the cliff analogy instead. We usually play a round of hangman at the beginning of the lesson, but we usually play without stakes. That is, there is no hangman. But this time, I might draw a cliff on the chalkboard and have a paper man take a step toward the edge of the cliff with every wrong guess and a step away from the cliff with every right guess. Then I can explain that wrong choices lead us into spiritual danger while right choices lead us away from danger.
That introduction sounds fun, but how could I transition into the story from there? I could say something vague about one person's wrong choices leading himself and a few others into great spiritual and/or spiritual danger and then jump into the summary and story. Or perhaps I could use the hangman phrase to help form a smoother transition from the activity to the story, but I can't think of such a phrase right now. Anyhow, I have a plan that'll get the job done. I'll start with "cliffman," say that wrong choices can lead to spiritual danger, and begin the summary and story from there. It's not the best introduction, but it'll work, and I still have a few days to think about how I could make the introduction better.
Should I just jump right in? You remember from last week that David got married to Michal, one of King Saul's daughters, making David technically a prince. When King Saul died, David became king. One evening, while King David was standing on his rooftop... And the story can proceed from there. It's simple. It's direct. It still includes some summary, which I might expand on slightly, to remind the children that Saul got jealous of David and tried to kill him, but Jonathan, Saul's son and David's friend, saved David. It shouldn't take more than a minute or two to review the previous lesson and jump into the story of the current lesson. But is that what I want to do?
When teaching a lesson, it's sometimes customary to start by telling the class what the lesson is about, or perhaps by illustrating the main point of the lesson by using an attention-grabbing activity. For example, in the lesson on David and Goliath, Brother Dahm used pieces of paper with challenges written on them to illustrate how challenges can help us grow and make progress. I could do something similar with this lesson. However, the Attention Activity for this lesson involves tying children's hands up with thread, and I'd rather not do that. Perhaps I could bring in the cliff analogy instead. We usually play a round of hangman at the beginning of the lesson, but we usually play without stakes. That is, there is no hangman. But this time, I might draw a cliff on the chalkboard and have a paper man take a step toward the edge of the cliff with every wrong guess and a step away from the cliff with every right guess. Then I can explain that wrong choices lead us into spiritual danger while right choices lead us away from danger.
That introduction sounds fun, but how could I transition into the story from there? I could say something vague about one person's wrong choices leading himself and a few others into great spiritual and/or spiritual danger and then jump into the summary and story. Or perhaps I could use the hangman phrase to help form a smoother transition from the activity to the story, but I can't think of such a phrase right now. Anyhow, I have a plan that'll get the job done. I'll start with "cliffman," say that wrong choices can lead to spiritual danger, and begin the summary and story from there. It's not the best introduction, but it'll work, and I still have a few days to think about how I could make the introduction better.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
How to Not Fall Off a Cliff
One of the "Enrichment Activities" that I intend to take up the bulk of our class time is to depict a man walking toward the edge of a cliff. Obviously, the man is putting himself in great danger, but the danger is lessened somewhat by a guardrail that would be drawn in front of him. This is supposed to illustrate how having pure thoughts (the guardrail) can protect us from spiritual danger (falling off the cliff), but if falling off the cliff represents the commission of potentially serious sin, then I have a huge problem with this analogy.
While it may be fine to teach children that it's safe to approach cliffs as long as they stay behind the guardrail, this is terrible advice when we apply it to committing sin. We should not teach our kids or anyone, including ourselves, that it's safe to approach sin as long as we have a guardrail to keep us from falling into it. There are certain situations and temptations that we should avoid, even if we have strong protections against committing sin. We shouldn't think, or teach our kids to think, that it's fine to go to bars as long as we don't think about drinking beer. We should stay as far away from temptation as we can, and we should teach our kids to do the same.
So, rather than using pure thoughts as a guardrail in this falling-off-a-cliff analogy, I'm going to use the man's distance from the edge of a cliff as a scale of how far away he is from committing that sin. If he's in the bar, he's already pretty close to the cliff. If he thinks about ordering a beer, he's even closer. If he orders the beer, he gets closer. If he picks the beer up, puts the glass to his lips, and lets the beer into his mouth, each of those represent the last few steps toward the edge of the cliff, with the last one possibly counting as that last step off the cliff. On the opposite end of the scale, we have a person who doesn't spend a lot of time near bars, who never goes anywhere near bars if he can help it, and who is actively doing something else somewhere else.
Theoretically, one can avoid the sin of drinking beer despite going to a bar, ordering a beer, and raising the beer to one's mouth, but why let it go that far? Even if you have a guardrail, why test it? Personally, I think it's wiser to stay as far from the rail as possible rather than counting on it standing as the last line of defense against sin.
While it may be fine to teach children that it's safe to approach cliffs as long as they stay behind the guardrail, this is terrible advice when we apply it to committing sin. We should not teach our kids or anyone, including ourselves, that it's safe to approach sin as long as we have a guardrail to keep us from falling into it. There are certain situations and temptations that we should avoid, even if we have strong protections against committing sin. We shouldn't think, or teach our kids to think, that it's fine to go to bars as long as we don't think about drinking beer. We should stay as far away from temptation as we can, and we should teach our kids to do the same.
So, rather than using pure thoughts as a guardrail in this falling-off-a-cliff analogy, I'm going to use the man's distance from the edge of a cliff as a scale of how far away he is from committing that sin. If he's in the bar, he's already pretty close to the cliff. If he thinks about ordering a beer, he's even closer. If he orders the beer, he gets closer. If he picks the beer up, puts the glass to his lips, and lets the beer into his mouth, each of those represent the last few steps toward the edge of the cliff, with the last one possibly counting as that last step off the cliff. On the opposite end of the scale, we have a person who doesn't spend a lot of time near bars, who never goes anywhere near bars if he can help it, and who is actively doing something else somewhere else.
Theoretically, one can avoid the sin of drinking beer despite going to a bar, ordering a beer, and raising the beer to one's mouth, but why let it go that far? Even if you have a guardrail, why test it? Personally, I think it's wiser to stay as far from the rail as possible rather than counting on it standing as the last line of defense against sin.
Monday, August 27, 2018
The Oddly Less Taboo, More Serious Sin
When I teach about David and Bathsheba next week, I'm going to water down the whole adultery thing. I'll say that David wanted to be married to Bathsheba, and, if I can make it sound innocuous, I might even say that David and Bathsheba "acted like they were married," but that'll be the extent of it. However, I will be much more direct and straightforward about David having Uriah, Bathsheba's husband, killed.
It's a bit odd to think that, despite being a more serious sin, murder is easier to talk about than adultery. This is certainly true when talking to children, but I think that it's also true in general, and I wonder why. I would guess that it has something to do with our culture. Committing adultery is somehow more taboo than committing murder.
Now, I'm not entirely sure whether this holds true in the wider American culture our only in our culture as members of the church. In American culture, sleeping around seems almost common, but cheating on one's significant other is still a serious breach of the social contract. Meanwhile, murder is certainly more frowned upon than promiscuity or even cheating. I have not had enough conversations with nonmembers to be confident which sin is harder or easier for them to talk about, but I know which sin is harder for me to talk about, and it's not the more serious one.
But even given that the reason one sin is easier to discuss than another has to do with culture, it's hard to say what that says about that culture. Is it that adultery is so taboo that even murder is easier to talk about or is it that murder has become such a casual topic that it, like many other topics, is easier to discuss than adultery? It could be some combination of the two possibilities. They could both be right. There could also (or instead) be other factors that makes one of the topics easier to discuss than the other.
However you slice it, the fact remains that I find it easier to say that David killed somebody than to say that David slept with somebody else's wife. That could be either good or bad. It could be true of society in general, or it could be just me, or anywhere in between. I don't know why murder is an easier topic than adultery. I'm just kind of glad that it is. Otherwise, this lesson would be even harder to teach.
It's a bit odd to think that, despite being a more serious sin, murder is easier to talk about than adultery. This is certainly true when talking to children, but I think that it's also true in general, and I wonder why. I would guess that it has something to do with our culture. Committing adultery is somehow more taboo than committing murder.
Now, I'm not entirely sure whether this holds true in the wider American culture our only in our culture as members of the church. In American culture, sleeping around seems almost common, but cheating on one's significant other is still a serious breach of the social contract. Meanwhile, murder is certainly more frowned upon than promiscuity or even cheating. I have not had enough conversations with nonmembers to be confident which sin is harder or easier for them to talk about, but I know which sin is harder for me to talk about, and it's not the more serious one.
But even given that the reason one sin is easier to discuss than another has to do with culture, it's hard to say what that says about that culture. Is it that adultery is so taboo that even murder is easier to talk about or is it that murder has become such a casual topic that it, like many other topics, is easier to discuss than adultery? It could be some combination of the two possibilities. They could both be right. There could also (or instead) be other factors that makes one of the topics easier to discuss than the other.
However you slice it, the fact remains that I find it easier to say that David killed somebody than to say that David slept with somebody else's wife. That could be either good or bad. It could be true of society in general, or it could be just me, or anywhere in between. I don't know why murder is an easier topic than adultery. I'm just kind of glad that it is. Otherwise, this lesson would be even harder to teach.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Drained
I feel drained. I frequently feel drained. Especially on Sundays. Especially at the end of Sundays.
Maybe I'm just an introvert and spending so much time surrounded by people who want to shake my hand and talk at me for an uncomfortable amount of time is tiring to me. Maybe I'm just a bad person who's tired of hearing about the hundred-some things that I should or should not be doing. Maybe I just see Sunday as the end of the week rather than the beginning, and all the week's tiredness catches up with me then.
Whatever the reason, I always feel drained at the ends of Sundays rather than replenished. Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest, but I never feel rested by the end of them.
Ironically, I get far more rest from riding my bike and talking walks, where I can be alone with just myself and some fresh air. I also get more rest by singing a hymn to myself than by singing it with the rest of the congregation.
I must be an introvert. That's the problem. I just wonder if that's the whole problem or if there's more to it. Is that the whole reason going to church drains me, or is there something else?
Regardless, I think I need (and this is going to sound truly insane) another hour of church, or rather an hour of worship before or after church. I need to take some time to enjoy some quiet. Maybe some relaxing, instrumental hymns. Maybe some scripture-reading. Definitely a lot of prayer. I need to spend some time every day, but especially on Sundays, restoring my spiritual strength.
Church doesn't do it for me. Church does the opposite to me. I don't need more church. I need more worship.
Maybe I'm just an introvert and spending so much time surrounded by people who want to shake my hand and talk at me for an uncomfortable amount of time is tiring to me. Maybe I'm just a bad person who's tired of hearing about the hundred-some things that I should or should not be doing. Maybe I just see Sunday as the end of the week rather than the beginning, and all the week's tiredness catches up with me then.
Whatever the reason, I always feel drained at the ends of Sundays rather than replenished. Sunday is supposed to be a day of rest, but I never feel rested by the end of them.
Ironically, I get far more rest from riding my bike and talking walks, where I can be alone with just myself and some fresh air. I also get more rest by singing a hymn to myself than by singing it with the rest of the congregation.
I must be an introvert. That's the problem. I just wonder if that's the whole problem or if there's more to it. Is that the whole reason going to church drains me, or is there something else?
Regardless, I think I need (and this is going to sound truly insane) another hour of church, or rather an hour of worship before or after church. I need to take some time to enjoy some quiet. Maybe some relaxing, instrumental hymns. Maybe some scripture-reading. Definitely a lot of prayer. I need to spend some time every day, but especially on Sundays, restoring my spiritual strength.
Church doesn't do it for me. Church does the opposite to me. I don't need more church. I need more worship.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Helping Kids Learn From Adultery and Murder
Tomorrow's Primary lesson is an easy one about David and Jonathan, but that's not the one I'm teaching this time around. I have next week's lesson, the one about David and Bathsheba.
This is going to be tough. It'll be hard enough to take a Bible Hero like David and highlight (what I can only hope was) the darkest sins he ever committed. It's going to be difficult to explain to the kids how David fell victim to a temptation that they might not even understand. In fact, the manual even says "Do not explain the exact nature of David’s sin with Bathsheba." Instead, the lesson says to be vague.
Thankfully, the manual also provides several "Enrichment Activities" that can help us apply the message and purpose of this lesson without dwelling too much on the story in the lesson. I'm thankful for these enrichment activities because they're going to help me teach the lesson without spending too much time on David's sins. Of course, this is an important story for the kids to learn about, when they're old enough, but in the meantime, we can still learn from the story, even if I don't give them many details about the story.
This is going to be tough. It'll be hard enough to take a Bible Hero like David and highlight (what I can only hope was) the darkest sins he ever committed. It's going to be difficult to explain to the kids how David fell victim to a temptation that they might not even understand. In fact, the manual even says "Do not explain the exact nature of David’s sin with Bathsheba." Instead, the lesson says to be vague.
Thankfully, the manual also provides several "Enrichment Activities" that can help us apply the message and purpose of this lesson without dwelling too much on the story in the lesson. I'm thankful for these enrichment activities because they're going to help me teach the lesson without spending too much time on David's sins. Of course, this is an important story for the kids to learn about, when they're old enough, but in the meantime, we can still learn from the story, even if I don't give them many details about the story.
Friday, August 24, 2018
An Example of Effort and Success
In President Henry B. Eyring's most recent Priesthood Session talk, Inspired Ministering, he told the story of a Home Teacher (it was still called Home Teaching at the time) who might have thought that he wasn't being successful. He continually tried to reach his Home Teaching families, but most of them didn't respond or responded negatively. Still, he reached out to them regularly, despite being rebuffed. As a result, when one of the families needed the church's help, that family knew who to contact. The help was granted, and, as a result, at least one member of that family was eternally blessed and became a blessing in the lives of many others. However, even if this response never came, I think I would have said that this Home Teacher was successful, whether any of his Home Teaching families ever responded or not.
When evaluating us, God cares far more about our efforts than about our results. Of course, the results are important to Him, and He wants to save as many souls as possible, but He won't hold a lack of results against us as long as we're really trying. Whether that family ever responded or not, that Home Teacher was successful, even based only on the frequency and regularity of his attempts to reach out. He did what he could, and that's all God ever asks of any of us.
So, if you're having a hard time with something God asked you to do, don't be too hard on yourself for struggling with it, and don't be too hard on God for giving you such a difficult task. Instead, do what you can, and trust that God will make up the difference or at least commend you for your efforts, whether they yield any results or not. Success is nice, but when God measures our success,what He's really measuring is our efforts.
When evaluating us, God cares far more about our efforts than about our results. Of course, the results are important to Him, and He wants to save as many souls as possible, but He won't hold a lack of results against us as long as we're really trying. Whether that family ever responded or not, that Home Teacher was successful, even based only on the frequency and regularity of his attempts to reach out. He did what he could, and that's all God ever asks of any of us.
So, if you're having a hard time with something God asked you to do, don't be too hard on yourself for struggling with it, and don't be too hard on God for giving you such a difficult task. Instead, do what you can, and trust that God will make up the difference or at least commend you for your efforts, whether they yield any results or not. Success is nice, but when God measures our success,what He's really measuring is our efforts.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
"God-damned"
I had a thought the other day. People sometimes use the phrase (and please pardon the bad language here) "God-damned" to describe things and people that they don't like. But the thing is, God doesn't damn very many people, if anyone. That's just not what He does. In fact, it's basically the opposite of what He does. God is interested in saving our souls, not damning them to hell.
Of course, there is one being who is very interested in damning our souls to hell. Satan works tirelessly to tempt us to commit sin and get ourselves trapped in a cycle of sin, stopping our progress. That's what damnation is: stopping something's or someone's progress. Satan wants us to stop our eternal progress and keep us trapped in one of the lower kingdoms.
But he can't. Satan can have some influence over us, but only if we let him. He can't force us to do evil, and he can't stop us from doing good. He can only attempt to deceive and persuade us. He cannot actually damn us.
So, we people are damned, who are they damned by? Who stops them from making progress? There is only one person in the entire universe who both can and might decide to do that: Themselves. The only person in all of creation who both can and might "damn" a person is that person themselves.
God could damn us, but He'd never want to. Satan wants to damn us, but he can't. We are the ones who ultimately decide whether we get damned or not. If we choose to make progress, we improve. If we choose to stop making progress, we are damned, at least until we change our minds. It is our decision, and ours alone, that determines our eternal fate. When people choose sin over salvation, they stop their own eternal progress. God didn't damn them and neither did Satan. When anyone is damned, they've damned themselves.
Of course, there is one being who is very interested in damning our souls to hell. Satan works tirelessly to tempt us to commit sin and get ourselves trapped in a cycle of sin, stopping our progress. That's what damnation is: stopping something's or someone's progress. Satan wants us to stop our eternal progress and keep us trapped in one of the lower kingdoms.
But he can't. Satan can have some influence over us, but only if we let him. He can't force us to do evil, and he can't stop us from doing good. He can only attempt to deceive and persuade us. He cannot actually damn us.
So, we people are damned, who are they damned by? Who stops them from making progress? There is only one person in the entire universe who both can and might decide to do that: Themselves. The only person in all of creation who both can and might "damn" a person is that person themselves.
God could damn us, but He'd never want to. Satan wants to damn us, but he can't. We are the ones who ultimately decide whether we get damned or not. If we choose to make progress, we improve. If we choose to stop making progress, we are damned, at least until we change our minds. It is our decision, and ours alone, that determines our eternal fate. When people choose sin over salvation, they stop their own eternal progress. God didn't damn them and neither did Satan. When anyone is damned, they've damned themselves.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
I Wore a Superman Shirt
As I went out today, I wore a Superman shirt with a red overshirt that somewhat acted like a cape. Some people, when they saw me dressed this way, commented on it, and that had a strange effect on me. It made me nicer.
I am normally already a fairly nice person. I am usually friendly and polite. But I found that it was easier to be friendly and polite when I knew that others saw me as being dressed like Superman.
I call this a strange effect because I'm not entirely sure why it happened. Why did I feel to be nicer than normal while I was in public in a Superman shirt? Superman is a good person. Was I trying not to spoil his image as a good person? That hardly makes any sense. Superman is fictional. His image doesn't matter. Was I trying to live up to other's expectations? Not really. One person who pointed out that I was Superman was still surprised when I opened a door for her, and I highly doubt that the customers in front of me expected me to share my coupons with them. I was exceeding their expectations, but why?
I think that my behavior may have been mostly caused by some associative logic. Superman is a good person, and I was, to some extent, Superman. Therefore, I was a good person, and I acted like it. Associating myself with a good person helped me to be a good person. Now, doesn't that sound familiar?
We are Christians. Christians are people who try to follow and emulate Jesus Christ. Christ was a good person, and we try to be like Christ; therefore, we try to be good people, at least in theory. By associating ourselves with Jesus, we can encourage ourselves to live as He lived and act as He acts, if only for the sake of His image or of meeting or improving others' expectations of Christians.
Today, I acted more like Superman because I associated myself with him. Tomorrow, I will try to associate myself with and act more like Jesus Christ.
I am normally already a fairly nice person. I am usually friendly and polite. But I found that it was easier to be friendly and polite when I knew that others saw me as being dressed like Superman.
I call this a strange effect because I'm not entirely sure why it happened. Why did I feel to be nicer than normal while I was in public in a Superman shirt? Superman is a good person. Was I trying not to spoil his image as a good person? That hardly makes any sense. Superman is fictional. His image doesn't matter. Was I trying to live up to other's expectations? Not really. One person who pointed out that I was Superman was still surprised when I opened a door for her, and I highly doubt that the customers in front of me expected me to share my coupons with them. I was exceeding their expectations, but why?
I think that my behavior may have been mostly caused by some associative logic. Superman is a good person, and I was, to some extent, Superman. Therefore, I was a good person, and I acted like it. Associating myself with a good person helped me to be a good person. Now, doesn't that sound familiar?
We are Christians. Christians are people who try to follow and emulate Jesus Christ. Christ was a good person, and we try to be like Christ; therefore, we try to be good people, at least in theory. By associating ourselves with Jesus, we can encourage ourselves to live as He lived and act as He acts, if only for the sake of His image or of meeting or improving others' expectations of Christians.
Today, I acted more like Superman because I associated myself with him. Tomorrow, I will try to associate myself with and act more like Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Working Together
Elder Ronald A. Rasband spent most of his talk addressing the announcement that the High Priests would meet with the other Elders from now on. He affirmed that this was the will of the Lord, and he listed several of the blessings that would result from this unification, one of which was that "There will be a greater diversity of gifts and capacities within the quorum" and that "There will be an increase in mentoring and unity as a new elder and an
experienced high priest share experiences, side by side, in quorum
meetings and assignments."
I, too, believe that both groups will benefit from this combination. When the energy of the younger elders is directed by the experience of the older elders, the combined Elders' Quorum would be much more effective than either group was on their own. There's a good deal of wisdom in letting young and experienced people work together. They each can benefit from each other's strengths and cover each other's shortcomings.
That's largely why cooperation is such a good idea in general. We can all help one another and be helped by each other. Everyone has something that they can offer, and everyone has needs that others can help them meet.
I, personally, haven't attended Elders' Quorum since the unification, since I've been a teacher in Primary all this time, but I can imagine that both the younger and elder Elders have learned how to work together, to respect each other, and to learn from each other. There's a lot to get done in this church and in this world. We're all better off when we do it together.
I, too, believe that both groups will benefit from this combination. When the energy of the younger elders is directed by the experience of the older elders, the combined Elders' Quorum would be much more effective than either group was on their own. There's a good deal of wisdom in letting young and experienced people work together. They each can benefit from each other's strengths and cover each other's shortcomings.
That's largely why cooperation is such a good idea in general. We can all help one another and be helped by each other. Everyone has something that they can offer, and everyone has needs that others can help them meet.
I, personally, haven't attended Elders' Quorum since the unification, since I've been a teacher in Primary all this time, but I can imagine that both the younger and elder Elders have learned how to work together, to respect each other, and to learn from each other. There's a lot to get done in this church and in this world. We're all better off when we do it together.
Monday, August 20, 2018
The Empty Pot
I recently read a "Chinese Folktale" titled "The Empty Pot" "written" by "Demi." I put "Chinese Folktale" in quotation marks because I don't know whether or not this actually is one. I put "written" in quotation marks because I'm not sure if any one person can truly claim to have written a folktale. These stories seem to evolve through retellings and reinterpretations. Often, the person who first commits the story to paper isn't the person who told the first version of the story, so I'm not sure which person should be considered the author. And I put "Demi" in quotation marks because the person credited with the authorship of this story is actually named Charlotte Dumaresq Hunt and "uses her childhood nickname, Demi, as her pen name," according to the "Meet the Author and Illustrator" blurb at the end of the story.
And I put "The Empty Pot" in quotation marks because it's the title. But I digress. I'm here to blog about the story itself.
In this story, the Emperor decided to hold a contest to decide who would be the next Emperor:
The Emperor examined all the flowers. When he got to Ping, he asked "Why did you bring an empty pot?" Ping explained:
Life is a test. That is a truth that I have known for years. But what this story taught me is that the test might be rigged or rather that it might not be the kind of test I think it is. We are all trying to achieve perfection, at least, that's the long-term goal, but this test might not be a test of how close to perfect we can become but a test of how hard we try to improve ourselves and how well we cope with our own lack of progress. Many of us try so hard for so long and have so little to show for it. So, we will have to decide how we are going to respond when the year ends, and we've grown nothing, and we have to stand before the Emperor holding an empty pot. What will we say to Him? What will we be able to say for ourselves? Will we even have the courage to stand before Him at all, knowing that we are still so far from the goal He asked us to strive for? Ping's dad said "your best is good enough to present to the Emperor," but will we feel that way when we have to present "our best" to God?
Now, I don't think God cooked our seeds. At least, not completely. He knows that life is hard enough that He doesn't have to sabotage us. We will still make painfully little progress whether He helps us or whether He hinders us as part of the test. No honest person will be able to present a beautiful, flawless, full bunch of flowers. The best of us, the "Good People" I blogged about recently, might manage to grow a few tiny flowers. The rest of us will be lucky if we can produce sprouts. But the real test for some of us is not how well we can grow flowers but how long and hard we keep trying to grow flowers and how well we deal with the frustration and shame of our failure to do so.
God knows we won't become perfect in this lifetime. What He wants to prove is how hard we'll try, how good we'll become, and how well we'll respond to the knowledge that "our best" doesn't even come close to measuring up. So, keep your head up and keep watering your seed. You're probably doing better in this test than you think you are, even if all you have to show for it is an empty pot.
And I put "The Empty Pot" in quotation marks because it's the title. But I digress. I'm here to blog about the story itself.
In this story, the Emperor decided to hold a contest to decide who would be the next Emperor:
All the children in the land were to come to the palace. There they would be given special seeds by the Emperor. "Whoever can show me their best in a year's time," he said, "will succeed me to the throne."Our main character, Ping, who was famously good at growing flowers, entered the contest, as did basically every other child in China. However, try as he might, Ping could not get the flower to grow. He used good soil and a good flowerpot, and he watered the seed regularly, but it just wouldn't sprout. A year passed and all the other children were eager to show their beautiful flowers to the Emperor, and Ping felt ashamed that he hadn't been able get the flower to grow. Still, Ping's father told him "You did your best, and your best is good enough to present to the Emperor." So, Ping took his pot of dirt to the palace.
The Emperor examined all the flowers. When he got to Ping, he asked "Why did you bring an empty pot?" Ping explained:
"I planted the seed you gave me and watered it every day, but it didn't sprout. I put it in a better pot with better soil, but it still didn't sprout! I tended it all year long, but nothing grew. So today I had to bring an empty pot without a flower. It was the best I could do."Naturally, because this is a folktale, Ping won the contest, partly because the Emperor was impressed at Ping's courage in presenting his best, even when it didn't amount to much, and mostly because all the other children had essentially disqualified themselves. The Emperor explained that all of the seeds he had handed out had been cooked, so it was impossible for them to grow. The test was not who could produce the best flowers, but who would be honest enough and brave enough to admit that they hadn't been able to grow anything and to present "their best" anyway. Of course, I have no idea what the Emperor would have done if multiple children showed up with empty pots, or if none of them did, but again, I digress.
Life is a test. That is a truth that I have known for years. But what this story taught me is that the test might be rigged or rather that it might not be the kind of test I think it is. We are all trying to achieve perfection, at least, that's the long-term goal, but this test might not be a test of how close to perfect we can become but a test of how hard we try to improve ourselves and how well we cope with our own lack of progress. Many of us try so hard for so long and have so little to show for it. So, we will have to decide how we are going to respond when the year ends, and we've grown nothing, and we have to stand before the Emperor holding an empty pot. What will we say to Him? What will we be able to say for ourselves? Will we even have the courage to stand before Him at all, knowing that we are still so far from the goal He asked us to strive for? Ping's dad said "your best is good enough to present to the Emperor," but will we feel that way when we have to present "our best" to God?
Now, I don't think God cooked our seeds. At least, not completely. He knows that life is hard enough that He doesn't have to sabotage us. We will still make painfully little progress whether He helps us or whether He hinders us as part of the test. No honest person will be able to present a beautiful, flawless, full bunch of flowers. The best of us, the "Good People" I blogged about recently, might manage to grow a few tiny flowers. The rest of us will be lucky if we can produce sprouts. But the real test for some of us is not how well we can grow flowers but how long and hard we keep trying to grow flowers and how well we deal with the frustration and shame of our failure to do so.
God knows we won't become perfect in this lifetime. What He wants to prove is how hard we'll try, how good we'll become, and how well we'll respond to the knowledge that "our best" doesn't even come close to measuring up. So, keep your head up and keep watering your seed. You're probably doing better in this test than you think you are, even if all you have to show for it is an empty pot.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
A D&D Analysis of David vs Goliath
As I listened to Brother Dahm teach his lesson on David and Goliath, I could hardly help analyzing this fight from a D&D perspective. I hope you'll indulge me in sharing this analysis.
Let's start with Goliath, beginning with his size category. Arguably, Goliath's most noteworthy trait is his size. 1 Samuel 17:4 says that Goliath's height was "six cubits and a span," which is roughly nine and a half feet tall. This is very big for a human, about three feet taller than the 5th Edition rules normally allow a human to be. He's even bigger than a typical member of the fictional Goliath race, which stands between seven and eight feet tall. Goliath's height is almost great enough that I would consider him a Large creature, which is roughly the size of a horse. It's a close call. There's one factor that makes me think that Goliath would be officially considered "Large": the weight of his armor.
1 Samuel 17:5 says that Goliath wore "a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass," which converts to 126lbs. The closest D&D equivalent to a "coat of mail" would likely be Chain Mail armor, which normally weighs a mere 55lbs; however, armor for Large creatures weighs twice as much as armor for Medium-sized creatures like normal humans. This would put the Chain Mail's weight at 110lbs, which is much closer to our 126lb. target weight. Plate armor, with a normal weight of 65lbs., would get us even closer to our target weight, and would offer Goliath more protection, but I think that if Goliath wore Plate armor, the scriptures would've said so. 1 Samuel 17:6 does mention a few metal plates that he was wearing, but I don't think it's enough to say that he was wearing full Plate armor, and I think I know why he wasn't. In addition to weighing more than Medium-sized armor, Large armor also costs more than Medium-sized armor. Four times more, in fact, and Plate armor is already the most expensive nonmagical armor in the game at 1,500gp. A Large set of Plate armor would cost Goliath 6,000gp, the equivalent of 120lbs. of gold, whereas a Large set of Chain Mail would have cost Goliath only 300gp or about 6lbs. of gold. Arguably, adequate protection is worth any price, if you can afford it, but at such a steep price, I'm not entirely sure Goliath could afford Large Plate armor.
Goliath's other equipment is fairly straightforward. His shield grants +2 bonus to his Armor Class, bringing his AC up to 18, and his spear is probably just a regular spear. I'm not 100% sure what type of sword his sword would be. My two top picks would be a Longsword and a Greatsword (I somehow can't picture him wielding a shortsword or a rapier). The Greatsword deals more damage, but it's a two-handed weapon, so if he used that, he couldn't also use his shield. With a Longsword, Goliath would be able to use both his sword and his shield at the same time; he just wouldn't be able to dish out as much damage as quickly. However, even with a weaker weapon, Goliath could still deal a lot of damage with his considerable Strength. His exact Strength Modifier is difficult to estimate. It has to be at least +1, but it could be as high as +5. He also probably gets some kind of damage bonus based on his Large size. The Enlarge/Reduce spell gives an enlarged target a +1d4 bonus to damage, so we'll go with that.
All told, Goliath would be a Large Human Fighter with an AC of 18 and attacks that deal 1d8+1d4+at least 1 per hit. There's still a lot we don't know about him. We don't know how many Hit Points he has. We don't know what level he is. We don't even know for sure that he's a Fighter, but I'd say that's a pretty safe bet, especially since Saul said that he was "a man of war from his youth" (1 Sam 17:33). We don't know how many Fighter levels all that warfare would've gotten him, but still, we know enough to establish him as a fairly formidable opponent, especially compared to his challenger.
David did not have much going for him going into this fight. His size was Medium, perhaps even on the smaller side of medium. In 1 Samuel 17: 39, David demonstrates a lack of proficiency in armor, and his best weapon was a Sling, which deals pitifully little damage.
However, if David was using a high Dexterity build, he might have had a decent shot. A high Dexterity modifier would have improved his Armor Class, especially without Heavy Armor weighing him down, though some Light Armor still might've been nice. A high Dex Mod would also have increased his accuracy and damage with ranged weapons, like the sling, though a bow still would've been better. We don't know David's HP or level any better than we know Goliath's, but we do know a few things about David that might help us figure it out. Namely, we know that he slew a Lion and a Bear.
Lions are tough, especially for a single 1st or 0th level character to face on his own. I don't know how David could have defeated it, but if we accept his word that he did it, he would have gotten 200xp for that. The bear could have been either a Black Bear or a Brown Bear. Brown Bears are about as powerful as Lions are, but Black Bears are a little weaker. Either way, after defeating both the Bear and the Lion, David would have earned at least 300xp, which is enough to let a character advance from 1st level to 2nd level, so we can assume that David is at least a 2nd level character.
This is both good and bad news for David because whatever level he is, Goliath's level must be higher, and while we can guess that Goliath chose the Fighter class (and the combat bonuses that go with it), it's not clear what class David would have been. Fighter would be decent for him, but it would have granted him proficiency with much better weapons and armor than what he ends up using, including the Heavy Armor with which we know he's not proficient. There are many other classes that would have given David some help in this fight, but most of them require the character to have received some training. For a moment, I considered making David a Monk, but Monks in D&D are basically martial artists, and David would never had a chance to learn martial arts. The one combat-ready class I can think of that doesn't require training is Barbarian, and David doesn't strike me as a Barbarian. It could be the case that, despite having earned xp from the Bear and the Lion, David has no class.
So, David had no armor, and no weapons besides a staff and a sling, and he was fighting a heavily armored Fighter with martial weapons. Yet, David won with only one shot. How is this possible? First, David seemed to have won the Initiative roll, allowing him to act first in combat. Second, David's Sling attack seems to have landed a Critical Hit, judging by where the attack hit (1 Sam 17:49). Even so, slings don't deal very much damage, even on Critical Hits. On a regular hit, a sling deals 1d4 damage, plus whatever the attacker's Dexterity Bonus is. Even assuming that David had the maximum modifier of +5, that would give a regular sling attack a maximum damage of 9, which isn't enough to one-shot even a 1st level Fighter, unless that Fighter somehow had terribly low Constitution. Now, David's attack was a critical hit, which would have increased the damage, but Goliath also must have been at least a 2nd level Fighter, which would have increased his Hit Points. Fighters used a d10 plus their Constitution Modifier to determine the number of Hit Points they gain at each level. If Goliath rolled a 1 and had a -1 Constitution Modifier, he wouldn't have gained any Hit Points when he gained his second level, but if he took the average result from the d10, which he could have chosen to do, he would have gained at least as many Hit Points as the amount of damage the Critical Hit would have added, and that's assuming that David had the highest possible Dexterity Modifier and Goliath had the lowest possible Constitution Modifier, neither one of which would have been true under normal character-building circumstances.
My conclusion is that, even in D&D, David's defeat of Goliath could only have been a miracle. Sure, given enough time and enough luck, even a classless commoner could have defeated even a level 5 Fighter, but to kill Goliath in one hit, with a sling, would have taken exceptionally special circumstances and/or the allowance of some variant rules, like allowing feats or using a special table to determine the outcome of a Critical Hit. David's single-stone victory over Goliath would have been practically impossible within the normal rules of 5th Edition D&D, just as it was in real life, but with the help of God, or a generous DM, anything can happen.
Let's start with Goliath, beginning with his size category. Arguably, Goliath's most noteworthy trait is his size. 1 Samuel 17:4 says that Goliath's height was "six cubits and a span," which is roughly nine and a half feet tall. This is very big for a human, about three feet taller than the 5th Edition rules normally allow a human to be. He's even bigger than a typical member of the fictional Goliath race, which stands between seven and eight feet tall. Goliath's height is almost great enough that I would consider him a Large creature, which is roughly the size of a horse. It's a close call. There's one factor that makes me think that Goliath would be officially considered "Large": the weight of his armor.
1 Samuel 17:5 says that Goliath wore "a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass," which converts to 126lbs. The closest D&D equivalent to a "coat of mail" would likely be Chain Mail armor, which normally weighs a mere 55lbs; however, armor for Large creatures weighs twice as much as armor for Medium-sized creatures like normal humans. This would put the Chain Mail's weight at 110lbs, which is much closer to our 126lb. target weight. Plate armor, with a normal weight of 65lbs., would get us even closer to our target weight, and would offer Goliath more protection, but I think that if Goliath wore Plate armor, the scriptures would've said so. 1 Samuel 17:6 does mention a few metal plates that he was wearing, but I don't think it's enough to say that he was wearing full Plate armor, and I think I know why he wasn't. In addition to weighing more than Medium-sized armor, Large armor also costs more than Medium-sized armor. Four times more, in fact, and Plate armor is already the most expensive nonmagical armor in the game at 1,500gp. A Large set of Plate armor would cost Goliath 6,000gp, the equivalent of 120lbs. of gold, whereas a Large set of Chain Mail would have cost Goliath only 300gp or about 6lbs. of gold. Arguably, adequate protection is worth any price, if you can afford it, but at such a steep price, I'm not entirely sure Goliath could afford Large Plate armor.
Goliath's other equipment is fairly straightforward. His shield grants +2 bonus to his Armor Class, bringing his AC up to 18, and his spear is probably just a regular spear. I'm not 100% sure what type of sword his sword would be. My two top picks would be a Longsword and a Greatsword (I somehow can't picture him wielding a shortsword or a rapier). The Greatsword deals more damage, but it's a two-handed weapon, so if he used that, he couldn't also use his shield. With a Longsword, Goliath would be able to use both his sword and his shield at the same time; he just wouldn't be able to dish out as much damage as quickly. However, even with a weaker weapon, Goliath could still deal a lot of damage with his considerable Strength. His exact Strength Modifier is difficult to estimate. It has to be at least +1, but it could be as high as +5. He also probably gets some kind of damage bonus based on his Large size. The Enlarge/Reduce spell gives an enlarged target a +1d4 bonus to damage, so we'll go with that.
All told, Goliath would be a Large Human Fighter with an AC of 18 and attacks that deal 1d8+1d4+at least 1 per hit. There's still a lot we don't know about him. We don't know how many Hit Points he has. We don't know what level he is. We don't even know for sure that he's a Fighter, but I'd say that's a pretty safe bet, especially since Saul said that he was "a man of war from his youth" (1 Sam 17:33). We don't know how many Fighter levels all that warfare would've gotten him, but still, we know enough to establish him as a fairly formidable opponent, especially compared to his challenger.
David did not have much going for him going into this fight. His size was Medium, perhaps even on the smaller side of medium. In 1 Samuel 17: 39, David demonstrates a lack of proficiency in armor, and his best weapon was a Sling, which deals pitifully little damage.
However, if David was using a high Dexterity build, he might have had a decent shot. A high Dexterity modifier would have improved his Armor Class, especially without Heavy Armor weighing him down, though some Light Armor still might've been nice. A high Dex Mod would also have increased his accuracy and damage with ranged weapons, like the sling, though a bow still would've been better. We don't know David's HP or level any better than we know Goliath's, but we do know a few things about David that might help us figure it out. Namely, we know that he slew a Lion and a Bear.
Lions are tough, especially for a single 1st or 0th level character to face on his own. I don't know how David could have defeated it, but if we accept his word that he did it, he would have gotten 200xp for that. The bear could have been either a Black Bear or a Brown Bear. Brown Bears are about as powerful as Lions are, but Black Bears are a little weaker. Either way, after defeating both the Bear and the Lion, David would have earned at least 300xp, which is enough to let a character advance from 1st level to 2nd level, so we can assume that David is at least a 2nd level character.
This is both good and bad news for David because whatever level he is, Goliath's level must be higher, and while we can guess that Goliath chose the Fighter class (and the combat bonuses that go with it), it's not clear what class David would have been. Fighter would be decent for him, but it would have granted him proficiency with much better weapons and armor than what he ends up using, including the Heavy Armor with which we know he's not proficient. There are many other classes that would have given David some help in this fight, but most of them require the character to have received some training. For a moment, I considered making David a Monk, but Monks in D&D are basically martial artists, and David would never had a chance to learn martial arts. The one combat-ready class I can think of that doesn't require training is Barbarian, and David doesn't strike me as a Barbarian. It could be the case that, despite having earned xp from the Bear and the Lion, David has no class.
So, David had no armor, and no weapons besides a staff and a sling, and he was fighting a heavily armored Fighter with martial weapons. Yet, David won with only one shot. How is this possible? First, David seemed to have won the Initiative roll, allowing him to act first in combat. Second, David's Sling attack seems to have landed a Critical Hit, judging by where the attack hit (1 Sam 17:49). Even so, slings don't deal very much damage, even on Critical Hits. On a regular hit, a sling deals 1d4 damage, plus whatever the attacker's Dexterity Bonus is. Even assuming that David had the maximum modifier of +5, that would give a regular sling attack a maximum damage of 9, which isn't enough to one-shot even a 1st level Fighter, unless that Fighter somehow had terribly low Constitution. Now, David's attack was a critical hit, which would have increased the damage, but Goliath also must have been at least a 2nd level Fighter, which would have increased his Hit Points. Fighters used a d10 plus their Constitution Modifier to determine the number of Hit Points they gain at each level. If Goliath rolled a 1 and had a -1 Constitution Modifier, he wouldn't have gained any Hit Points when he gained his second level, but if he took the average result from the d10, which he could have chosen to do, he would have gained at least as many Hit Points as the amount of damage the Critical Hit would have added, and that's assuming that David had the highest possible Dexterity Modifier and Goliath had the lowest possible Constitution Modifier, neither one of which would have been true under normal character-building circumstances.
My conclusion is that, even in D&D, David's defeat of Goliath could only have been a miracle. Sure, given enough time and enough luck, even a classless commoner could have defeated even a level 5 Fighter, but to kill Goliath in one hit, with a sling, would have taken exceptionally special circumstances and/or the allowance of some variant rules, like allowing feats or using a special table to determine the outcome of a Critical Hit. David's single-stone victory over Goliath would have been practically impossible within the normal rules of 5th Edition D&D, just as it was in real life, but with the help of God, or a generous DM, anything can happen.
Saturday, August 18, 2018
Getting Help
Tonight, I attended an Eagle Court of Honor, which prompted me to think about how I had earned my own Eagle Scout rank. As I recall, I had cut it pretty close. In order to earn the Eagle Scout rank, you have to meet all of the qualifications and turn in all the paperwork before you turn eighteen. I almost missed that deadline. At the time, I felt so overwhelmed by how much I still had to do and how little time I still had to do it, I felt like giving up. But with my mother's encouragement, we pushed forward together and got everything done on time. Had it been just me, I don't think I would've earned my Eagle. I needed help. But I'm not ashamed of that, mostly because I'm confident that that's true for everybody.
No man is an island. Everyone had parents, older siblings, leaders, and/or other mentors who helped them along the way, without whom they wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as they did, if anything. Heck, without our parents, none of us would even have been born. So I don't think any one person can take sole credit for their accomplishments. Everyone had help. In fact, getting help is part of the plan.
God knew that we wouldn't be able to make it successfully through Earth life all on our own. Beside the fact that we needed our parents' help to even get here, we would also need many guides and mentors to help us figure out the right way to live, and God knew that we would make many mistakes along the way, so we would need the help of the Savior as well. Seeking the Savior's help is the most important thing we can do in this lifetime. Perhaps that's the reason God made us all so dependent on each other: so we would learn how to seek help.
There is no shame in needing help. We all do. And there is no pride in accomplishing anything because we couldn't have done it alone. Of course, we can be proud of our contribution to the accomplishment, especially if we're directly responsible for most or all of it, but there are many others who, directly or indirectly, helped make it possible.
You can probably tie your shoelaces all on your own, but first someone taught you how, so each time you tie your shoelaces, that accomplishment, small as it is, is shared by you, the person who taught you how to tie your shoelaces, the person who taught them how to tie their shoelaces, and so on, plus the person who invented shoelaces, the person who invented shoes, the person who invented rope, the person who invented that knot, and everyone else who had any hand in helping out with any of those accomplishments. Any time anyone does anything, they have countless people to thank for helping make that possible.
Becoming an Eagle Scout is a great accomplishment. Achieving Eternal Life is an even greater one. No one in the history of existence has accomplished either of those tasks entirely on their own. Even Jesus had help at least a handful of times. So, if you need to get help, don't worry about it, and if you think you don't need help, don't be too sure. I think it's a universal truth that everyone has needed (and gotten) help with everything they've ever done.
No man is an island. Everyone had parents, older siblings, leaders, and/or other mentors who helped them along the way, without whom they wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as they did, if anything. Heck, without our parents, none of us would even have been born. So I don't think any one person can take sole credit for their accomplishments. Everyone had help. In fact, getting help is part of the plan.
God knew that we wouldn't be able to make it successfully through Earth life all on our own. Beside the fact that we needed our parents' help to even get here, we would also need many guides and mentors to help us figure out the right way to live, and God knew that we would make many mistakes along the way, so we would need the help of the Savior as well. Seeking the Savior's help is the most important thing we can do in this lifetime. Perhaps that's the reason God made us all so dependent on each other: so we would learn how to seek help.
There is no shame in needing help. We all do. And there is no pride in accomplishing anything because we couldn't have done it alone. Of course, we can be proud of our contribution to the accomplishment, especially if we're directly responsible for most or all of it, but there are many others who, directly or indirectly, helped make it possible.
You can probably tie your shoelaces all on your own, but first someone taught you how, so each time you tie your shoelaces, that accomplishment, small as it is, is shared by you, the person who taught you how to tie your shoelaces, the person who taught them how to tie their shoelaces, and so on, plus the person who invented shoelaces, the person who invented shoes, the person who invented rope, the person who invented that knot, and everyone else who had any hand in helping out with any of those accomplishments. Any time anyone does anything, they have countless people to thank for helping make that possible.
Becoming an Eagle Scout is a great accomplishment. Achieving Eternal Life is an even greater one. No one in the history of existence has accomplished either of those tasks entirely on their own. Even Jesus had help at least a handful of times. So, if you need to get help, don't worry about it, and if you think you don't need help, don't be too sure. I think it's a universal truth that everyone has needed (and gotten) help with everything they've ever done.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Good People
There are some people that are a powerful force for good in the world, people like Mister Rogers, Steve Irwin, and Bob Ross, people who make you feel like a better person and make you want to live up to your potential. Those three individuals are dead, but there are others who have picked up their torch and held it up high. And any of us can do that. We can all uplift and encourage others. We can all greet others kindly and treat people well. We can all become powerful forces for good in the world. Our uplifting and encouraging messages may not be televised and may not reach very many people, but we all have many people whose lives we can touch and improve by being kind. There have been many wonderfully good people in the course of Earth's history. We can join them. We can encourage people to have a positive mental attitude. We can spread love and be kind. We can be good people. Many people are and have been. If they can do it, so can we.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
No "Higher" or "Lower" Callings
In his talk about the combination of the Elders' Quorum and the High Priests' Group into one unified Elders' Quorum, Elder D. Todd Christofferson highlighted a truth that I rarely consider.
What this means to me is that no one in this church ought to elevate themselves or look down on themselves based on what callings they may or may not hold. Every responsibility in this church is just as sacred as any other responsibility, no more, no less.We don't get promoted or demoted, just moved around. Even those who are called to preside over larger areas aren't really "promoted" or "higher up." They're just serving a different, larger area.
I'm beginning to think that callings aren't all that important to God, apart from the lessons they teach us and the service they encourage us to render. God doesn't see callings as status symbols, and neither should we. We probably shouldn't be comparing ourselves to each other anyway. Every person is of equal value to God, and every calling of equal importance.
Years ago, President Boyd K. Packer observed that “the priesthood is greater than any of its offices. … The priesthood is not divisible. An elder holds as much priesthood as an Apostle. (See D&C 20:38.) When a man [has the priesthood conferred upon him], he receives all of it. However, there are offices within the priesthood—divisions of authority and responsibility. … Sometimes one office is spoken of as being ‘higher than’ or ‘lower than’ another office. Rather than ‘higher’ or ‘lower,’ offices in the Melchizedek Priesthood represent different areas of service.”4 Brethren, I devoutly hope that we will no longer speak in terms of being “advanced” to another office in the Melchizedek Priesthood.It's astonishing to think that the Priesthood is literally the power of God and that those who have "higher" callings in the church are merely serving in a different area. President Gordon B. Hinckley once said, "Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere." The reverse is likely also true: The calling of a Prophet is just as great as the calling of a deacon, just over different areas.
What this means to me is that no one in this church ought to elevate themselves or look down on themselves based on what callings they may or may not hold. Every responsibility in this church is just as sacred as any other responsibility, no more, no less.We don't get promoted or demoted, just moved around. Even those who are called to preside over larger areas aren't really "promoted" or "higher up." They're just serving a different, larger area.
I'm beginning to think that callings aren't all that important to God, apart from the lessons they teach us and the service they encourage us to render. God doesn't see callings as status symbols, and neither should we. We probably shouldn't be comparing ourselves to each other anyway. Every person is of equal value to God, and every calling of equal importance.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Hate the Sin
The other half of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is to "Hate the sin." Hate is a strong word, and I try not to use it often. I don't think I would have the heart to tell someone I hate their behavior, but perhaps that's not what that phrase really means. Perhaps "hating the sin" doesn't mean hating the behavior of those who sin, but rather hating the sin itself and the effects it has on people, including the sinner.
Sin has many negative effects. It breaks hearts, it damns the sinner, it causes Jesus intense pain, and it spreads like a disease from one victim to another. As a sidenote, I like that phrasing. Sinners aren't just vile evil-doers. They are, in many ways, victims of sin, including their own sins. Sin does terrible things to people, including both the people who commit sin and everyone in their sphere of influence. There are many good reasons to condemn and reject sin and to attempt to stamp it out. But should we really "hate" it?
Some definitions of hate refer to hostility and animosity. Hostility and animosity refer to each other, antagonism, and enmity, which, by some definitions, refers back to hatred. Underlying all of these definitions, there is a general sense of opposition, and we certainly have that. We should oppose sin as strongly and as often as we can. But does that mean that we hate it? I may be something of an idealist, but I don't like even the idea of hatred, and I believe that we can oppose things, including people and ideas, without having to hate them.
I suppose that my revulsion to "hatred" as opposed to more general "opposition" stems from my revulsion to the emotions that generally fuels hatred. When we hate something, is usually means that it makes us angry, and anger is one of the seven deadly sins. We should avoid getting angry, if we can. Is it possible to hate something without getting angry? If so, it may be that my only problem with "hating" sin comes from my own personal definition of hatred.
I have no problem with opposing sin or being antagonistic or even hostile to sin. I would love to eradicate sin and I try to make some effort to do so, at least in my own life. If, according to the dictionary definitions of those terms, that means I hate sin, then so be it. Maybe hatred doesn't have to mean what I think it means. Maybe not all forms of hatred are evil. Maybe we can "hate sin" by opposing it without falling victim to the sin of getting angry at it. Hating sin might be as delicate a balance as it is to hate a sin while loving the sinner. This is all very tricky, but perhaps I'm making it trickier than it needs to be. I know that it's good to oppose sin. If that's what it really means to "hate the sin," then I don't really have a problem with "hating" sin.
Sin has many negative effects. It breaks hearts, it damns the sinner, it causes Jesus intense pain, and it spreads like a disease from one victim to another. As a sidenote, I like that phrasing. Sinners aren't just vile evil-doers. They are, in many ways, victims of sin, including their own sins. Sin does terrible things to people, including both the people who commit sin and everyone in their sphere of influence. There are many good reasons to condemn and reject sin and to attempt to stamp it out. But should we really "hate" it?
Some definitions of hate refer to hostility and animosity. Hostility and animosity refer to each other, antagonism, and enmity, which, by some definitions, refers back to hatred. Underlying all of these definitions, there is a general sense of opposition, and we certainly have that. We should oppose sin as strongly and as often as we can. But does that mean that we hate it? I may be something of an idealist, but I don't like even the idea of hatred, and I believe that we can oppose things, including people and ideas, without having to hate them.
I suppose that my revulsion to "hatred" as opposed to more general "opposition" stems from my revulsion to the emotions that generally fuels hatred. When we hate something, is usually means that it makes us angry, and anger is one of the seven deadly sins. We should avoid getting angry, if we can. Is it possible to hate something without getting angry? If so, it may be that my only problem with "hating" sin comes from my own personal definition of hatred.
I have no problem with opposing sin or being antagonistic or even hostile to sin. I would love to eradicate sin and I try to make some effort to do so, at least in my own life. If, according to the dictionary definitions of those terms, that means I hate sin, then so be it. Maybe hatred doesn't have to mean what I think it means. Maybe not all forms of hatred are evil. Maybe we can "hate sin" by opposing it without falling victim to the sin of getting angry at it. Hating sin might be as delicate a balance as it is to hate a sin while loving the sinner. This is all very tricky, but perhaps I'm making it trickier than it needs to be. I know that it's good to oppose sin. If that's what it really means to "hate the sin," then I don't really have a problem with "hating" sin.
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Love the Sinner
A handful of posts and articles I've read recently have reminded me of the importance of loving everyone, even if you don't love some of the things they do. The old adage is to "hate the sin, but love the sinner," and it's important to know why.
First, loving others is one of the first and greatest commandments we've ever been given; condemning sin isn't. Of course, we must never condone sin, but when we have to choose between expressing love and expressing chastisement, we should usually choose love.
Second, it's more practical. Ideally, we condemn sinful behavior mainly because we want to discourage it, but people are more likely to listen to a friend than to an enemy. If we antagonize those whose behavior we would discourage, they might grow to resent both us and our desires for them to change. In fact, some of them might double-down on their bad behavior in order to spite us or as some kind of defensive mechanism against any perceived personal attacks from us.
Third, reciprocity. If we were in the wrong, we would want others to be gentle in their approach when they feel the need to correct us. We should extend to them the same courtesy we would want them to extend to us.
Fourth, hypocrisy. We all sin. We all do things we shouldn't do or fail to do things we should. We all have room for improvement. Yet, we shouldn't let those imperfections prevent us from loving ourselves or each other. We should "love the sinner" because we are all sinners and because we should love everyone.
Fifth, it's a better way to live. To much negativity is unhealthy. Yes, some things should change, and we should identify and address the things that should change, but if we focus exclusively on the negative aspects of people, that negativity increases animosity, resentment, and even hatred. It increases the adversary's influence by encouraging people, including the condemners, to have unchristlike thoughts. Rather than demonstrating the pride and hatred Satan feels, we should demonstrate the love and humility of the Savior. Jesus condemned sin out of concern for the eternal welfare of the sinner. We should follow His example.
It is often necessary for us to speak out against sinful behavior, but we shouldn't be too harsh when we do so. Those whom we attempt to correct should feel that we are trying to correct them because we want them to be happy and safe, because we love them. That's why we should try to be gentle with our reproof and show love and concern for those whose behavior we would correct. We should express Christlike love for our fellow beings, even and especially when we feel that it's necessary to reprove them.
First, loving others is one of the first and greatest commandments we've ever been given; condemning sin isn't. Of course, we must never condone sin, but when we have to choose between expressing love and expressing chastisement, we should usually choose love.
Second, it's more practical. Ideally, we condemn sinful behavior mainly because we want to discourage it, but people are more likely to listen to a friend than to an enemy. If we antagonize those whose behavior we would discourage, they might grow to resent both us and our desires for them to change. In fact, some of them might double-down on their bad behavior in order to spite us or as some kind of defensive mechanism against any perceived personal attacks from us.
Third, reciprocity. If we were in the wrong, we would want others to be gentle in their approach when they feel the need to correct us. We should extend to them the same courtesy we would want them to extend to us.
Fourth, hypocrisy. We all sin. We all do things we shouldn't do or fail to do things we should. We all have room for improvement. Yet, we shouldn't let those imperfections prevent us from loving ourselves or each other. We should "love the sinner" because we are all sinners and because we should love everyone.
Fifth, it's a better way to live. To much negativity is unhealthy. Yes, some things should change, and we should identify and address the things that should change, but if we focus exclusively on the negative aspects of people, that negativity increases animosity, resentment, and even hatred. It increases the adversary's influence by encouraging people, including the condemners, to have unchristlike thoughts. Rather than demonstrating the pride and hatred Satan feels, we should demonstrate the love and humility of the Savior. Jesus condemned sin out of concern for the eternal welfare of the sinner. We should follow His example.
It is often necessary for us to speak out against sinful behavior, but we shouldn't be too harsh when we do so. Those whom we attempt to correct should feel that we are trying to correct them because we want them to be happy and safe, because we love them. That's why we should try to be gentle with our reproof and show love and concern for those whose behavior we would correct. We should express Christlike love for our fellow beings, even and especially when we feel that it's necessary to reprove them.
Monday, August 13, 2018
A Once-in-a-Lifetime Experience
One thing I've learned over the last few decades is that life is tough mostly because it has to be. The challenges we face in life are necessary to help us become like our Heavenly Father, and our mortal lives are necessary to make those challenges possible. We are currently having experiences that we could not possibly have had before we got bodies, and they're experiences we also won't be able to have once our bodies are resurrected. This brief period of mortality is the only chance we will ever get to have these kinds of experiences. We won't experience suffering like this in heaven, and before we were born, we had no idea what suffering really was. If we don't experience a lifetime supply of hardship during our mortal lives, we never will. In the eternal perspective, mortal life is a once-in-a-lifetime experience, so we should try to cherish all of the ups and downs of life, if only for the novelty of them. We've never experienced anything like this before, and we'll never experience anything just like this again. Life is a thrill ride you can only ride once. Sure, there are plenty of unpleasant parts about it, but we need to savor those moments while we can because they won't last forever, and, for better or for worse, we will never experience mortality first-hand ever again. So learn as much as you can from this life and try to relish it, even if it's not very enjoyable, because as many youngsters on the internet have said, You Only Live Once. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
Hear and Answer
In Primary, after my lesson on Samuel hearing and answering the Lord, we sang A Child's Prayer, in which we affirmed that God also hears and answers us. When we pray, God listens and responds. Communication with God truly does go both ways. We speak with God in prayer, and He speaks with us in many different ways. We all get countless opportunities to listen to and respond to each other. I find it comforting that it is truly possible to have a conversation with God. Neither of us have to feel like we're just shouting into the void or talking to a wall. If we make the effort to both speak and listen, we can be certain that we and God are listening and speaking to each other. We're not alone out here. We can talk with God, and I think that's beautiful.
The Samuel Lesson Plan
It's decision time. How much am I going to say about Hannah? I need to at least mention her because any discussion on Samuel would be incomplete without going over who his mother was and the circumstances of his birth. I'll start by introducing Hannah by saying that she was married but couldn't have any kids. (There will be no need to mention her husband's fruitful other wife.) We'll read 1 Samuel 1:11, which outlines Hannah's deal with the Lord, and we might even mention that the prophet Eli told her that she would get what she asked for (skipping over the part where he thought she was drunk). We could then read 1 Samuel 1:24-28 to see that the deal went down exactly as planned. That's about all we need from Hannah, except that I might mention that she was able to have other kids after that, so that's nice.
From then on, the story is all about Samuel. We might read 1 Samuel 2:26, which says that Samuel "was in favour both with the Lord, and also with men," and draw the obvious parallel from there. Samuel was a pretty good kid. After that, we're into the main Samuel story, which we can cover by reading the first half of 1 Samuel 3, pausing at various points to discuss what's going on in the story, ultimately finishing with the part where Samuel says "Speak; for Thy servant heareth."
From there, it's an easy step to the two main lessons I said we can learn from that phrase, namely that we need to actively listen to the Lord and that we need to be prepared to act on His message.
And if we have any time after that discussion, we can play more hangman. That's the plan.
From then on, the story is all about Samuel. We might read 1 Samuel 2:26, which says that Samuel "was in favour both with the Lord, and also with men," and draw the obvious parallel from there. Samuel was a pretty good kid. After that, we're into the main Samuel story, which we can cover by reading the first half of 1 Samuel 3, pausing at various points to discuss what's going on in the story, ultimately finishing with the part where Samuel says "Speak; for Thy servant heareth."
From there, it's an easy step to the two main lessons I said we can learn from that phrase, namely that we need to actively listen to the Lord and that we need to be prepared to act on His message.
And if we have any time after that discussion, we can play more hangman. That's the plan.
Friday, August 10, 2018
What We Need to Be Like Jesus
President Russell M. Nelson's first talk as the President of the church was a rather short one. He was mostly just announcing that the Elders' Quorum and the High Priests' Quorum would be combined from now on. But before he did that, he said a few words to the Priesthood holders in the audience.
Not everyone has been called to represent Jesus Christ on the earth, but we have all been commanded to become like that, and to do that, we're going to need some help. The scriptures can help, and good examples can help, but in order to know, from moment to moment, what we need to do to be like Jesus, we are going to need the constant guidance and companionship of the Holy Ghost. The help of the Holy Ghost is required for us to be good Christians, and especially to help us become good Priesthood holders.
I am very grateful for each man who bears the holy priesthood. You are the hope of our Redeemer, who desires “that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.” He wants all of His ordained sons to represent Him, to speak for Him, to act for Him, and to bless the lives of God’s children throughout the world, to the end “that faith also might increase in [all] the earth.”This is an awesome responsibility: To speak for the Lord, to act for the Lord, and to represent the Lord. To do any of these things, we are going to have to become better people, wiser people, people with a deeper connection to the Holy Spirit. There is no way we can know "What Would Jesus Do" or have the wisdom to do it without the help of the Holy Ghost. That makes it our responsibility to maintain the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost because it is only through the guidance of the Holy Ghost that we can learn to speak and act like Jesus Christ.
Not everyone has been called to represent Jesus Christ on the earth, but we have all been commanded to become like that, and to do that, we're going to need some help. The scriptures can help, and good examples can help, but in order to know, from moment to moment, what we need to do to be like Jesus, we are going to need the constant guidance and companionship of the Holy Ghost. The help of the Holy Ghost is required for us to be good Christians, and especially to help us become good Priesthood holders.
Thursday, August 9, 2018
I Need a Morning Routine
My mornings for the last few months haven't been the greatest. There hasn't been anything particularly wrong about them, but there hasn't been much good about many of them either. The problem largely stems from their lack of direction. My mornings are okay except that I don't really do anything with them. I feel the need to establish some kind of morning routine, something that involves at least some of the elements of a missionary's daily morning routine, and would hopefully lead naturally to blogging some time before noon. It should involve such things as studying the gospel in one way or another, engaging in some kind of exercise, and managing my basic hygiene, not necessarily in that order. However I do it, I should try to develop habits that get me to start the day right. Mornings are an important part of day. I should develop habits that help me make the most of them.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Speak, Lord; for Thy Servant Heareth
Something my Primary class likes to do as an icebreaker is to play a round of hangman (sort of; I don't know what to call it when you don't draw a person being hung, no matter how many wrong letters are guessed). The trick is that the word or phrase we, the teachers, choose for the opening Don't-Hangman game relates to the lesson. When I taught the lesson on Gideon and his reduced army, the not-hangman phrase was "The Sword of the Lord and of Gideon," the same phrase the army shouted to defeat the Midianites. This time, I'm going to use the phrase Eli instructed Samuel to say when he heard the Lord's voice again, which I already spoiled in the title of this blog post: "Speak, Lord; for Thy servant heareth."
This is probably the most important phrase in the lesson, so I'm going to make sure it comes up at the beginning and that we spend as much time as possible discussing it at the end, especially since there are at least two vital lessons in it.
The first is that we need to invite the Lord to speak and that we need to actively listen. For a long time, I didn't know what active listening meant. I kind of figured that our ears heard stuff, whether we're listening or not. However, I've learned that just hearing someone talk doesn't mean that you're actually listening to them and that actually listening to someone, so you hear and understand their message, takes some amount of effort. Sometimes, especially when a voice is "still" and "small," a person needs to really focus on the voice in order to catch what it's saying. The Lord doesn't always repeat Himself, and the Spirit isn't known to speak up, so we need to really listen in order to receive the messages They have for us.
The second vital lesson is incorporated entirely in one word: Servant. Once we have, with some effort, heard the Lord's message, we need to act on it. We need to keep His commandments and follow His promptings, heeding the warnings and counsel He gives us. Well, we don't need to. We can choose not to. It just won't go well for us if we don't choose to listen and obey. There are many good reasons to be the Lord's servants, too many to fully explain here, but one of my favorite reasons to serve the Lord is to earn rewards. When we serve the Lord, He blesses us, not only with the blessing of avoiding the pitfalls we'd have fallen into without His guidance, but also with even greater blessings, like inner peace and eternal life. Good lords pay their servants well, and our Lord is nothing if not Good.
It takes effort to serve the Lord. In fact, it often takes effort just to listen hard enough to find out what He wants us to do. But the effort is always worth it, as the rewards far outweigh the costs. It was wise for Eli to instruct Samuel to respond to the Lord this way, and it was wise for Samuel to follow Eli's counsel. We, too, should pledge ourselves to be the Lord's servants and to truly listen to Him when He speaks to us. We may not be prophets, but the Lord has important messages for each of us most of the time. Thus, it is wise of us to encourage Him, as Samuel did, to "speak; for thy servant heareth."
This is probably the most important phrase in the lesson, so I'm going to make sure it comes up at the beginning and that we spend as much time as possible discussing it at the end, especially since there are at least two vital lessons in it.
The first is that we need to invite the Lord to speak and that we need to actively listen. For a long time, I didn't know what active listening meant. I kind of figured that our ears heard stuff, whether we're listening or not. However, I've learned that just hearing someone talk doesn't mean that you're actually listening to them and that actually listening to someone, so you hear and understand their message, takes some amount of effort. Sometimes, especially when a voice is "still" and "small," a person needs to really focus on the voice in order to catch what it's saying. The Lord doesn't always repeat Himself, and the Spirit isn't known to speak up, so we need to really listen in order to receive the messages They have for us.
The second vital lesson is incorporated entirely in one word: Servant. Once we have, with some effort, heard the Lord's message, we need to act on it. We need to keep His commandments and follow His promptings, heeding the warnings and counsel He gives us. Well, we don't need to. We can choose not to. It just won't go well for us if we don't choose to listen and obey. There are many good reasons to be the Lord's servants, too many to fully explain here, but one of my favorite reasons to serve the Lord is to earn rewards. When we serve the Lord, He blesses us, not only with the blessing of avoiding the pitfalls we'd have fallen into without His guidance, but also with even greater blessings, like inner peace and eternal life. Good lords pay their servants well, and our Lord is nothing if not Good.
It takes effort to serve the Lord. In fact, it often takes effort just to listen hard enough to find out what He wants us to do. But the effort is always worth it, as the rewards far outweigh the costs. It was wise for Eli to instruct Samuel to respond to the Lord this way, and it was wise for Samuel to follow Eli's counsel. We, too, should pledge ourselves to be the Lord's servants and to truly listen to Him when He speaks to us. We may not be prophets, but the Lord has important messages for each of us most of the time. Thus, it is wise of us to encourage Him, as Samuel did, to "speak; for thy servant heareth."
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Hunchback - Disobedience Delays Salvation
It's been ages since I blogged about Disney's version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and I don't think I'm anywhere near having blogged about it a dozen times, as I once suggested I could, so I would like to spend this evening's blog post exploring one moment in which Frollo's actions reflected the sort of behavior one might expect from God.
Judge Claude Frollo is the villain of the film. He mistreats the hunchback, Quasimodo, whose mother he killed, forcing Quasimodo to work in the bell tower of the cathedral, which Quasimodo is not allowed to leave. Dreaming of fun and freedom, Quasimodo sneaks out of the bell tower and almost immediately gets himself into trouble. He asks Frollo to help him, but Frollo takes his time, intending to teach Quasimodo a lesson, just as God does with us.
God gives us commandments for our protection. When we disobey them, we invariably fall into trouble, and we often ask God to help get us out of it. If He were to comply immediately, our poor choice would have few consequences for us, at least in the short-term, and we might not learn why it is so foolish to disobey God's commandments. However, when God lets us experience some of the consequences of our misbehavior, that allows valuable lessons to begin to sink in.
Now, what Frollo did was wrong because he clearly had the wrong motivations. His decision to not intervene sooner was more to "teach Quasimodo a lesson" than it was to help him learn that lesson. Frollo was vengeful and spiteful, whereas God's motivations are much more pure. While Frollo seemed to enjoy seeing Quasimodo suffer, God never does. God doesn't want us to suffer any more than we have to. But sometimes, when a little bit of suffering helps us learn wisdom that will help us avoid suffering in the future, God allows it.
If God were to immediately bail us out of the messes we get ourselves into, especially the ones He specifically warned us to avoid, we probably wouldn't take Him or His commandments very seriously. There need to be just and fair consequences for our actions so we can properly learn from them. Thankfully, God doesn't completely abandon us after we've made poor choices. He is willing to help us out of our predicaments once we've learned our lessons. We just shouldn't expect Him to step in and save us any time before then.
Judge Claude Frollo is the villain of the film. He mistreats the hunchback, Quasimodo, whose mother he killed, forcing Quasimodo to work in the bell tower of the cathedral, which Quasimodo is not allowed to leave. Dreaming of fun and freedom, Quasimodo sneaks out of the bell tower and almost immediately gets himself into trouble. He asks Frollo to help him, but Frollo takes his time, intending to teach Quasimodo a lesson, just as God does with us.
God gives us commandments for our protection. When we disobey them, we invariably fall into trouble, and we often ask God to help get us out of it. If He were to comply immediately, our poor choice would have few consequences for us, at least in the short-term, and we might not learn why it is so foolish to disobey God's commandments. However, when God lets us experience some of the consequences of our misbehavior, that allows valuable lessons to begin to sink in.
Now, what Frollo did was wrong because he clearly had the wrong motivations. His decision to not intervene sooner was more to "teach Quasimodo a lesson" than it was to help him learn that lesson. Frollo was vengeful and spiteful, whereas God's motivations are much more pure. While Frollo seemed to enjoy seeing Quasimodo suffer, God never does. God doesn't want us to suffer any more than we have to. But sometimes, when a little bit of suffering helps us learn wisdom that will help us avoid suffering in the future, God allows it.
If God were to immediately bail us out of the messes we get ourselves into, especially the ones He specifically warned us to avoid, we probably wouldn't take Him or His commandments very seriously. There need to be just and fair consequences for our actions so we can properly learn from them. Thankfully, God doesn't completely abandon us after we've made poor choices. He is willing to help us out of our predicaments once we've learned our lessons. We just shouldn't expect Him to step in and save us any time before then.
What to Teach and Learn from Samuel?
I'm teaching a lesson about Samuel, the Boy Prophet in Primary next Sunday, and I'm not sure what all to say in this lesson.
I'm not sure exactly how important Samuel's parents are to his story. Sure, they promised him to the Lord and there's a whole story there, but telling that story doesn't do much to accomplish the stated purpose of this lesson: "To encourage the children to listen for the promptings of the Holy Ghost." I suppose I can tell the children to listen to the Holy Ghost after we ask for things, so the Holy Ghost can give us some idea whether we'll receive the blessing or not and/or what we have to do in order to secure those blessings. But this message is slightly undercut by the fact that, when Hannah was told that she would have the son she was praying for, the person who told her was Eli, the Prophet. Had Hannah's answer come through the Holy Ghost, as it could have, that would make her story relate much better to the rest of the lesson. If I don't mention Samuel's parents, I could easily bypass them by simply saying that Samuel was being raised by Eli. There's no real need to mention how Samuel got there.
However, if I include only the story of Samuel himself, the lesson will be very short. There'll be a brief introduction of our main character, maybe spending a few minutes to establish that he was righteous, and then we can read through the part where the Lord calls him repeatedly, but Samuel mistakes the voice as coming from Eli (There might be a lesson there: Say things that God would say, the way God would say them. Be so civil and truthful that, if someone heard the voice of God, they might mistake it for yours.) until eventually Eli tells Samuel that the voice is coming from God, and Samuel makes the effort to actively listen. It's not a very long or complex story.
Naturally, I can pad the lesson time by developing the morals of the story. What might have happened if Samuel ignored the voice after the first few times? How can we recognize a voice as coming from the Lord? What should we do when we receive messages from God? Messages like that can help us fill the remaining time in the lesson and leave the children with a message that might help them better people, including being better at recognizing and hollowing the Spirit, which to me seems far more important than knowing who Samuel's parents are.
This is going to be an interesting lesson. The story itself is somewhat lacking, but the lessons we can learn from it and the topics it introduces are worth unpacking and exploring at some length. I'll have to do some more studying and decide how much of the lesson material I'm going to cover and how I'll branch out from it. I want to make sure I give the moral of the story an adequate amount of time, and that'll probably mean spending less time with the story itself. Thankfully, I have plenty of time to study this out and make these decisions. I'm just glad I started thinking about this now, while I still have time.
I'm not sure exactly how important Samuel's parents are to his story. Sure, they promised him to the Lord and there's a whole story there, but telling that story doesn't do much to accomplish the stated purpose of this lesson: "To encourage the children to listen for the promptings of the Holy Ghost." I suppose I can tell the children to listen to the Holy Ghost after we ask for things, so the Holy Ghost can give us some idea whether we'll receive the blessing or not and/or what we have to do in order to secure those blessings. But this message is slightly undercut by the fact that, when Hannah was told that she would have the son she was praying for, the person who told her was Eli, the Prophet. Had Hannah's answer come through the Holy Ghost, as it could have, that would make her story relate much better to the rest of the lesson. If I don't mention Samuel's parents, I could easily bypass them by simply saying that Samuel was being raised by Eli. There's no real need to mention how Samuel got there.
However, if I include only the story of Samuel himself, the lesson will be very short. There'll be a brief introduction of our main character, maybe spending a few minutes to establish that he was righteous, and then we can read through the part where the Lord calls him repeatedly, but Samuel mistakes the voice as coming from Eli (There might be a lesson there: Say things that God would say, the way God would say them. Be so civil and truthful that, if someone heard the voice of God, they might mistake it for yours.) until eventually Eli tells Samuel that the voice is coming from God, and Samuel makes the effort to actively listen. It's not a very long or complex story.
Naturally, I can pad the lesson time by developing the morals of the story. What might have happened if Samuel ignored the voice after the first few times? How can we recognize a voice as coming from the Lord? What should we do when we receive messages from God? Messages like that can help us fill the remaining time in the lesson and leave the children with a message that might help them better people, including being better at recognizing and hollowing the Spirit, which to me seems far more important than knowing who Samuel's parents are.
This is going to be an interesting lesson. The story itself is somewhat lacking, but the lessons we can learn from it and the topics it introduces are worth unpacking and exploring at some length. I'll have to do some more studying and decide how much of the lesson material I'm going to cover and how I'll branch out from it. I want to make sure I give the moral of the story an adequate amount of time, and that'll probably mean spending less time with the story itself. Thankfully, I have plenty of time to study this out and make these decisions. I'm just glad I started thinking about this now, while I still have time.
Sunday, August 5, 2018
Unwritten Insights
I have a small problem, namely that I don't often write my insights down. I remember having had several blogworthy thoughts over the last few days, including a few that came to me during church this morning, but I've already forgotten them. Had I been taking notes, I would have a written record that could help me remember those insights, and had I pondered them deeply when I first got them, I might not have forgotten them at all. Insights are valuable, especially to those who have committed to blogging about them, so when they come, we should treasure them and record them so we won't lose them. I've failed to do that more times than I can count, and we have all been negatively affected by that. I should know better. I should do better. I should do more to record the insights God gives me, especially the ones I think are good enough to be worth sharing on my blog.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Geese and Satan and How to Fight Them
This morning, I watched a video that demonstrated how geese ward off other creatures: through intimidation. The video noted that geese aren't physically powerful. If it came to a fight between a goose and almost any other creature, the goose would almost certainly lose. But the goose prevents most fights by either running away from it or, more often, by scaring others away. Because of this, the video pointed out that the first thing you need in order to fend off an attacking goose is the resolve to stand and fight it.
This reminds me of Satan. Satan is, physically, very weak, and he's not terribly strong spiritually either. If it can down to a battle of wills between Satan and virtually any other person, the other person would probably when. Actually, the other person would definitely win. Satan cannot force anyone to do anything against their will, thus anyone's will (at least as far as their own soul is concerned) is always stronger than his. Because we are so much stronger than Satan, our best tactic against him is to develop the resolve to stand and fight.
Of course, Satan differs from geese in some rather serious ways. While geese try to scare their adversaries off, Satan tries to defeat us using stealth and subtlety, thus, when we stand against him, we have to stand vigilantly as well as courageously. In order to fend Satan off, we have to notice it when he's attacking us.
This is easier said than done, but it's virtually the only thing keeping us from defeating him. We have to keep an eye out for Satan's attacks, and we need to be ready defend ourselves against him. If we can identify his attacks, we can resist him. Like a goose, he knows that he cannot win a head-on fight, which is why we need to give him one.
Against both geese and Satan, our best defense is to have the resolve to stand against them, no matter how subtle, how intimidating, or how relentless their attacks. These are battles that we can win. In fact, they're battles we can only lose by not having enough resolve and wisdom to fight them.
This reminds me of Satan. Satan is, physically, very weak, and he's not terribly strong spiritually either. If it can down to a battle of wills between Satan and virtually any other person, the other person would probably when. Actually, the other person would definitely win. Satan cannot force anyone to do anything against their will, thus anyone's will (at least as far as their own soul is concerned) is always stronger than his. Because we are so much stronger than Satan, our best tactic against him is to develop the resolve to stand and fight.
Of course, Satan differs from geese in some rather serious ways. While geese try to scare their adversaries off, Satan tries to defeat us using stealth and subtlety, thus, when we stand against him, we have to stand vigilantly as well as courageously. In order to fend Satan off, we have to notice it when he's attacking us.
This is easier said than done, but it's virtually the only thing keeping us from defeating him. We have to keep an eye out for Satan's attacks, and we need to be ready defend ourselves against him. If we can identify his attacks, we can resist him. Like a goose, he knows that he cannot win a head-on fight, which is why we need to give him one.
Against both geese and Satan, our best defense is to have the resolve to stand against them, no matter how subtle, how intimidating, or how relentless their attacks. These are battles that we can win. In fact, they're battles we can only lose by not having enough resolve and wisdom to fight them.
Friday, August 3, 2018
The Benefits of Difficulty
Today, I ran a session of D&D in which the party had to cross an exceptionally hazardous cavern. It was a 90-foot-long cavern with a 50-foot drop into a lake of boiling mud. The cavern featured a pair geysers that were supposed to go off every 30 seconds or so, splashing everything (and everyone) in the room with burning mud. Crossing the room should have taken ingenuity, difficult skill checks, and at least enough time for the party to take a considerable amount of damage from the volcanic mud geysers.
However, I went easy on them. I didn't have the geysers go off as often as I should have, and I didn't have them deal as much damage as I should have had them deal. The party crossed the cavern with little trouble and minimal injuries. Arguably, I made it too easy for them.
There is value in difficulty, even in games. In real life, difficulty is good because it helps us grow. Heavier weights grow stronger muscles. Real-world difficulty also lets people earn a greater sense of accomplishment. The greater the challenge, the greater the victory.
Good difficult games simulate that. Difficult games force their players to develop skill at playing them and then let the players feel amazing when their challenges are overcome. Getting across a 90-foot-long cavern with frequently-erupting boiling mud geysers should feel like an accomplishment, as though the players overcame a significant challenge. Today, I accidentally robbed my players of that experience by making the challenge too easy.
In a way, we're lucky God never makes that mistake. Life's challenges are difficult because God knows that they have to be. If they were too easy, they wouldn't help us grow as much and it wouldn't really feel like an accomplishment when we overcome them. If life wasn't difficult, it'd be pointless. God wants to make sure we really earn our victories and those victories are tough enough to be worth earning.
However, I went easy on them. I didn't have the geysers go off as often as I should have, and I didn't have them deal as much damage as I should have had them deal. The party crossed the cavern with little trouble and minimal injuries. Arguably, I made it too easy for them.
There is value in difficulty, even in games. In real life, difficulty is good because it helps us grow. Heavier weights grow stronger muscles. Real-world difficulty also lets people earn a greater sense of accomplishment. The greater the challenge, the greater the victory.
Good difficult games simulate that. Difficult games force their players to develop skill at playing them and then let the players feel amazing when their challenges are overcome. Getting across a 90-foot-long cavern with frequently-erupting boiling mud geysers should feel like an accomplishment, as though the players overcame a significant challenge. Today, I accidentally robbed my players of that experience by making the challenge too easy.
In a way, we're lucky God never makes that mistake. Life's challenges are difficult because God knows that they have to be. If they were too easy, they wouldn't help us grow as much and it wouldn't really feel like an accomplishment when we overcome them. If life wasn't difficult, it'd be pointless. God wants to make sure we really earn our victories and those victories are tough enough to be worth earning.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
Growing Gardeners
Earlier this evening, my Mom and I had a conversation in which the parable of the gardener came up. The conversation briefly explored the contrast between the gardener's responsibility to care for the plants and the plants' need to "bloom where they're planted." The moral lesson for us depends on which role we're playing.
Normally in the parable of the gardener, we are the plants and God is the Master Gardener who knows where and when to fertilize, water, and prune. Our role as plants in this analogy is to grow in the way the Gardener intends and to not chafe at His wise and needed corrections to the wrong choices we make as we grow. We are to "bloom where we're planted," doing the best we can with the situation God gives us.
However, we won't always be passive plants, totally subjected to and dependent on the will of the Gardener. The purpose of this whole existence is to help us become gardeners ourselves. As such, we are given frequent opportunities to practice "gardening," as parents, teachers, coaches, mentors, stewards, farmers, and literal gardeners. In these roles, we are to practice the virtues that the Master Gardener possesses, such as wisdom, compassion, tenderness, and sound judgment. As we learn and grow as gardeners, we can hope to eventually become Master Gardeners with gardens of our own, despite having once been merely part of someone else's garden.
Whether the lesson we need is patience or compassion, endurance or sound judgment, depends largely on where we are in the course of our growth. Once we have learned the wisdom of obedience, we can begin to learn the wisdom to pass sound judgment. We are all still plants and all of us are or will be gardeners. Thus, there are lessons for us on both sides of this relational analogy. As we spend time here in this garden, we must learn both to be good plants and to become good gardeners.
Normally in the parable of the gardener, we are the plants and God is the Master Gardener who knows where and when to fertilize, water, and prune. Our role as plants in this analogy is to grow in the way the Gardener intends and to not chafe at His wise and needed corrections to the wrong choices we make as we grow. We are to "bloom where we're planted," doing the best we can with the situation God gives us.
However, we won't always be passive plants, totally subjected to and dependent on the will of the Gardener. The purpose of this whole existence is to help us become gardeners ourselves. As such, we are given frequent opportunities to practice "gardening," as parents, teachers, coaches, mentors, stewards, farmers, and literal gardeners. In these roles, we are to practice the virtues that the Master Gardener possesses, such as wisdom, compassion, tenderness, and sound judgment. As we learn and grow as gardeners, we can hope to eventually become Master Gardeners with gardens of our own, despite having once been merely part of someone else's garden.
Whether the lesson we need is patience or compassion, endurance or sound judgment, depends largely on where we are in the course of our growth. Once we have learned the wisdom of obedience, we can begin to learn the wisdom to pass sound judgment. We are all still plants and all of us are or will be gardeners. Thus, there are lessons for us on both sides of this relational analogy. As we spend time here in this garden, we must learn both to be good plants and to become good gardeners.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Morality and Legality
I just read an opinion piece that included the following passage: "Each of us has personal responsibility for our actions. We cannot do bad things — even when ordered to — and still be a good person." These statements sound true to me, but they put many people, particularly cops and soldiers, into a difficult position. Their duty is to enforce laws, whether or not they are just, and to obey their commanders' orders, whether or not they are just. And a citizen's duty is to obey the law, whether or not it is just.
But I've said before on my blog that devotion to duty is not the ultimate good and that it is better to be Good than to be Lawful. I suppose that means that, when the law is wrong, it's our moral duty to disregard it. This is a concept that I'm going to have to wrestle with. I've always believed in obeying the law whenever possible and seeking legal methods to change bad laws. Rosa Parks illegally sat in the front half of the bus, but I'm not sure I would have, and I don't know whether that's a good thing or not.
I believe that, if a law requires me to do something that's morally wrong, I have a moral obligation to ignore that law, but that opens up a terrible can of worms. People have different ideas of morality, so if morality trumps legality, there's going to be a great deal of confusion and disagreement.
Yet, confusion and disagreement is better than obedience to bad laws. In D&D terms, I'd rather have a Chaotic Good society than a Lawful Evil society, or perhaps even than a Lawful Neutral society, which is what I think we have now. Right now, the law is the law, good or bad. I'd rather have a society that ignores the laws that impede acts that are good. I don't want anyone to ever say "I would do this good thing, but it's illegal, so I won't" or "I don't want to do this bad thing, but it's the law, so I will." If that means dismantling or ignoring the majority of our laws, I really don't know how to feel about that.
I want to be Lawful, but I feel that it's more important to be Good. Ideally, I would never have to choose, but when I do have to choose, the choice should be obvious. I should do the right thing, whether it's legal or not. But I'm not sure I'm committed enough to actually do that. I'd rather not get arrested and I don't want to make waves. I just want to quietly go about my life, doing good wherever I can. I don't want to break the law, but I don't want to break God's laws either. Hopefully, I'll never have to choose between them, but if I ever do, I think I've already made my decision.
But I've said before on my blog that devotion to duty is not the ultimate good and that it is better to be Good than to be Lawful. I suppose that means that, when the law is wrong, it's our moral duty to disregard it. This is a concept that I'm going to have to wrestle with. I've always believed in obeying the law whenever possible and seeking legal methods to change bad laws. Rosa Parks illegally sat in the front half of the bus, but I'm not sure I would have, and I don't know whether that's a good thing or not.
I believe that, if a law requires me to do something that's morally wrong, I have a moral obligation to ignore that law, but that opens up a terrible can of worms. People have different ideas of morality, so if morality trumps legality, there's going to be a great deal of confusion and disagreement.
Yet, confusion and disagreement is better than obedience to bad laws. In D&D terms, I'd rather have a Chaotic Good society than a Lawful Evil society, or perhaps even than a Lawful Neutral society, which is what I think we have now. Right now, the law is the law, good or bad. I'd rather have a society that ignores the laws that impede acts that are good. I don't want anyone to ever say "I would do this good thing, but it's illegal, so I won't" or "I don't want to do this bad thing, but it's the law, so I will." If that means dismantling or ignoring the majority of our laws, I really don't know how to feel about that.
I want to be Lawful, but I feel that it's more important to be Good. Ideally, I would never have to choose, but when I do have to choose, the choice should be obvious. I should do the right thing, whether it's legal or not. But I'm not sure I'm committed enough to actually do that. I'd rather not get arrested and I don't want to make waves. I just want to quietly go about my life, doing good wherever I can. I don't want to break the law, but I don't want to break God's laws either. Hopefully, I'll never have to choose between them, but if I ever do, I think I've already made my decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)