I've got a big one.
Have you ever had that? It is just sitting inside of you and you want to tell about 45 people, but you know you just can't because it might amount to nothing. On the other hand it might amount to something new.
Those of you who have been a few weeks pregnant probably know this feeling. You keep it to yourself just in case things don't work out, though you are bursting to shout it.
I'm not pregnant.
But something is going on that I'm keeping pretty close to the vest. I'll let you know how things go. Like in about 6 or 8 weeks. . . .
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Guns
I grew up in a hunting culture. My uncles all hunted and so did my dad and brothers. I ate elk, deer and pheasant meat regularly when I was a kid. I especially enjoy well-prepared pheasant. I'm not a vegetarian, and though hunting isn't something that has been a part of my adult life, I genuinely respect that it is a meaningful part of many people's lives. I'm not anti-war or anti-sportman. Guns are tools . . . powerful tools, but tools nonetheless.
But you and I both know that our recent brouhaha about guns has nothing to do with hunting. Or guns as tools. It is about something else entirely. But more about that in a moment.
Some of you may have seen John Stewart's bit on guns from a few weeks back. It was a very well-prepared and characteristically caustic. The massacre at Sandy Hook elementary happened while the Daily Show was on hiatus; when it returned the fiscal cliff was temporary news until gun control came back to light. Stewart had time to prepare and say exactly what he wanted. As usual, his delivery was very funny, and his logic biting. He brought up some excellent points that I think are worth repeating.
1. To Jessie Ventura's comments that just because drunk drivers commit murders with cars, we don't shut down Ford Motor company (talking about an assault weapons ban), John Stewart had an excellent response. No, we don't shut down Ford, but we aggressively police drunken driving and prosecute those offenders who cause harm. We have spent hundreds of millions on an aggressive public education campaign. We create strict laws for legal limits. We prosecute servers and bar owners with dram shop laws when they knowingly serve drivers who have had too much. We give police full discretion to do spot checks if there is suspicion. Drunk driving accidents are way down in the last 30 years. Have we eliminated them completely? No. But we've probably saved tens of thousands of lives since the late 1970's.
2. He addressed mental health issues, talking about support and treatment for those in serious circumstances (many of whom are veterans, and should have the support anyway). The president of the NRA had an answer to the mental health issue too; he called it a "national registry for lunatics." Who defines this? And why is not a violation of civil rights to keep a list of (even mild) mentally ill patients, but it is a huge violation of civil rights to keep a list of who owns which guns? Particularly weapons with no other purpose but to kill humans in body armor? I also think Stewart overlooked an important argument here--there is no money for treatment or containment of mental health issues because conservative politicians (at least in part) have continued to de-fund such programs time and time again. And they are de-funded at every level: from resource and counseling programs in schools that catch problems early to decent health care for the indigent. In a society teeming with desperate people, what do we honestly think is going to happen?
3. To the comments regarding violence in the media, he conceded that our culture had democratized and celebrated violence for children at younger and younger ages. However, he insisted that we must look at ALL the media in the mix: including the messages that insist our country is headed to hell, our leaders need deposed by any means necessary, and language that paints our current administration in terms of the most egregious socialistic despots (and all despite record profits to large corporations over the last couple of years). These messages lead a certain segment of our population toward increasing paranoia and fear. A recipe for hoarding weapons if ever there was one.
"So now we are getting somewhere . . ."
Stewart closed his bit with a man on a horrible, jowl-shaking attack against Piers Morgan, "Hitler came for the guns! Mao came for the guns! Chavez came for the guns! And by God it will 1776 all over again if they come for the guns!"
The second amendment as a provision after the right to keep and bear arms . . . "for a well-regulated militia." So which militia do you prefer? The one organized by the nation, subject to congressional oversight (such as it is) and presidential appointment in a relatively open process? Or perhaps your state's national guard--an honorable group that your husband or brother might be a part of on the weekends? Or the one your half-paranoid neighbor up the street is storing in his basement? Perhaps the reform language needs to start with just what the hell a "militia" is in 2013. We aren't a group of disgruntled colonists upset about a foreign power anymore (no matter what the Tea Party tells you). The government was designed to be flexible: to fit in any time and place, and for any thinking people. It is time to stop wondering what this amendment meant to those with the blood of 1776 on their hands . . . what does it mean to us NOW with the collective guilt of Sandy Hook on our hands?
And now, for Stewart's very best quote from his piece, "Are we going to let imaginary fear of some dystopic future stop us from fixing our very real dystopic present?" It seems that indeed we are.
If you don't think so, there was a picture that circulated on Facebook this week taken of a man in Utah at a JC Penney my mother regularly shops at. He was carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle around the store. You see, in Utah, as long as the safety is set, he can carry it anywhere he wants. How do you think people felt when they saw him in his cut off acid wash jeans and muscle shirt toting that bad boy around a store where families shop? Do you think they felt safer? Grateful that he had taken the NRA president's words to heart when he said, "The only thing that stops a bad buy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? Do you think that anyone felt comfortable asking him if that weapon was on the proper safety setting? If he was the good guy or the crazy?
While what he was doing was perfectly within the law . . . and what many would like to see happen at our schools (with teachers armed or security guards with weapons), does this really make you feel safer? Can more guns ever beget less violence? Where else do you go to see regular people and makeshift militias armed with really scary weapons in plain sight on regular streets and in markets? Oh, right. WAR TORN COUNTRIES.
Ideally I would love to live in a society filled with people choosing to follow God's commandments and treating their neighbors and families with kindness, goodness and unselfishness. This ideal society would be governed by charity--the highest form of love. In this society nobody ever steals your things. In our current society, people of good heart are doing a great imitation of Sisyphus, forever pushing the boulder up the hill against incredible odds to make the world more peaceful. In the end, all we can do is make the choice for ourselves and hope to influence other people.
There are other societies that maintain peace because everybody is so heavily armed that you are afraid to take any other course. Think of Russia and the US in the arms race. Such a society is held in check by fear. Quite possibly the antithesis of love. Or at least a great deterrent to it. In this society, you can blow the head off someone trying to steal your stuff.
The first we cannot achieve yet . . . our choices too often prevent us from realizing our true potential. The second is very, very dark. The middle road is settling for something not quite divine, but fighting against something primal. It is called civilization. This is where we agree to give up some of our freedoms (impulses, thievery, murder, etc.) to a greater governing body in exchange for protection and equal treatment under the law. In this civilization you report a crime when your stuff is stolen and wait for justice to take its course.
Civilization is a poor substitute for Zion, but it is remarkable and wonderful compared to Chaos. As you think about the gun control debate in the coming weeks (and you should), consider what the voices are really saying. Are those fighting control the most vehemently really saying they believe their brand of justice is better than civilization? Is that what you believe?
But you and I both know that our recent brouhaha about guns has nothing to do with hunting. Or guns as tools. It is about something else entirely. But more about that in a moment.
Some of you may have seen John Stewart's bit on guns from a few weeks back. It was a very well-prepared and characteristically caustic. The massacre at Sandy Hook elementary happened while the Daily Show was on hiatus; when it returned the fiscal cliff was temporary news until gun control came back to light. Stewart had time to prepare and say exactly what he wanted. As usual, his delivery was very funny, and his logic biting. He brought up some excellent points that I think are worth repeating.
1. To Jessie Ventura's comments that just because drunk drivers commit murders with cars, we don't shut down Ford Motor company (talking about an assault weapons ban), John Stewart had an excellent response. No, we don't shut down Ford, but we aggressively police drunken driving and prosecute those offenders who cause harm. We have spent hundreds of millions on an aggressive public education campaign. We create strict laws for legal limits. We prosecute servers and bar owners with dram shop laws when they knowingly serve drivers who have had too much. We give police full discretion to do spot checks if there is suspicion. Drunk driving accidents are way down in the last 30 years. Have we eliminated them completely? No. But we've probably saved tens of thousands of lives since the late 1970's.
2. He addressed mental health issues, talking about support and treatment for those in serious circumstances (many of whom are veterans, and should have the support anyway). The president of the NRA had an answer to the mental health issue too; he called it a "national registry for lunatics." Who defines this? And why is not a violation of civil rights to keep a list of (even mild) mentally ill patients, but it is a huge violation of civil rights to keep a list of who owns which guns? Particularly weapons with no other purpose but to kill humans in body armor? I also think Stewart overlooked an important argument here--there is no money for treatment or containment of mental health issues because conservative politicians (at least in part) have continued to de-fund such programs time and time again. And they are de-funded at every level: from resource and counseling programs in schools that catch problems early to decent health care for the indigent. In a society teeming with desperate people, what do we honestly think is going to happen?
3. To the comments regarding violence in the media, he conceded that our culture had democratized and celebrated violence for children at younger and younger ages. However, he insisted that we must look at ALL the media in the mix: including the messages that insist our country is headed to hell, our leaders need deposed by any means necessary, and language that paints our current administration in terms of the most egregious socialistic despots (and all despite record profits to large corporations over the last couple of years). These messages lead a certain segment of our population toward increasing paranoia and fear. A recipe for hoarding weapons if ever there was one.
"So now we are getting somewhere . . ."
Stewart closed his bit with a man on a horrible, jowl-shaking attack against Piers Morgan, "Hitler came for the guns! Mao came for the guns! Chavez came for the guns! And by God it will 1776 all over again if they come for the guns!"
The second amendment as a provision after the right to keep and bear arms . . . "for a well-regulated militia." So which militia do you prefer? The one organized by the nation, subject to congressional oversight (such as it is) and presidential appointment in a relatively open process? Or perhaps your state's national guard--an honorable group that your husband or brother might be a part of on the weekends? Or the one your half-paranoid neighbor up the street is storing in his basement? Perhaps the reform language needs to start with just what the hell a "militia" is in 2013. We aren't a group of disgruntled colonists upset about a foreign power anymore (no matter what the Tea Party tells you). The government was designed to be flexible: to fit in any time and place, and for any thinking people. It is time to stop wondering what this amendment meant to those with the blood of 1776 on their hands . . . what does it mean to us NOW with the collective guilt of Sandy Hook on our hands?
And now, for Stewart's very best quote from his piece, "Are we going to let imaginary fear of some dystopic future stop us from fixing our very real dystopic present?" It seems that indeed we are.
If you don't think so, there was a picture that circulated on Facebook this week taken of a man in Utah at a JC Penney my mother regularly shops at. He was carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle around the store. You see, in Utah, as long as the safety is set, he can carry it anywhere he wants. How do you think people felt when they saw him in his cut off acid wash jeans and muscle shirt toting that bad boy around a store where families shop? Do you think they felt safer? Grateful that he had taken the NRA president's words to heart when he said, "The only thing that stops a bad buy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? Do you think that anyone felt comfortable asking him if that weapon was on the proper safety setting? If he was the good guy or the crazy?
While what he was doing was perfectly within the law . . . and what many would like to see happen at our schools (with teachers armed or security guards with weapons), does this really make you feel safer? Can more guns ever beget less violence? Where else do you go to see regular people and makeshift militias armed with really scary weapons in plain sight on regular streets and in markets? Oh, right. WAR TORN COUNTRIES.
Ideally I would love to live in a society filled with people choosing to follow God's commandments and treating their neighbors and families with kindness, goodness and unselfishness. This ideal society would be governed by charity--the highest form of love. In this society nobody ever steals your things. In our current society, people of good heart are doing a great imitation of Sisyphus, forever pushing the boulder up the hill against incredible odds to make the world more peaceful. In the end, all we can do is make the choice for ourselves and hope to influence other people.
There are other societies that maintain peace because everybody is so heavily armed that you are afraid to take any other course. Think of Russia and the US in the arms race. Such a society is held in check by fear. Quite possibly the antithesis of love. Or at least a great deterrent to it. In this society, you can blow the head off someone trying to steal your stuff.
The first we cannot achieve yet . . . our choices too often prevent us from realizing our true potential. The second is very, very dark. The middle road is settling for something not quite divine, but fighting against something primal. It is called civilization. This is where we agree to give up some of our freedoms (impulses, thievery, murder, etc.) to a greater governing body in exchange for protection and equal treatment under the law. In this civilization you report a crime when your stuff is stolen and wait for justice to take its course.
Civilization is a poor substitute for Zion, but it is remarkable and wonderful compared to Chaos. As you think about the gun control debate in the coming weeks (and you should), consider what the voices are really saying. Are those fighting control the most vehemently really saying they believe their brand of justice is better than civilization? Is that what you believe?
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Lincoln
Last Friday Plantboy and I went to a remarkable movie, though it is more like the best-documentary-ever than a movie really.
I have wanted to see Lincoln for some months, but didn't get serious until the Academy Award nominations came out last week, with Lincoln dominating the lists. And I have to say, I don't even know what sound mixing is and I think Lincoln should sweep.
Spoiler alert: The 13th Amendment passes. The war ends. Slavery is abolished. Lincoln dies.
We all know this. So how does Spielberg create a movie of such suspense and interest? I suppose the only answer is that he is the master of his craft. This is a story that could have been trite and sappy, and has, indeed been told before.
But Spielberg gives what might be the most important time in American history the treatment is deserves. My friend told me that she was so emotional during the end, willing Lincoln not to leave for the theatre that night. Daniel Day-Lewis was this character so convincingly that you understood that when he left the cabinet room that night the US would plunge into a hundred years of Cold Civil War. And despite his triumph, you despair. His life was cruelly cut short; or is it that God took him home to give him the true rest and peace he craved and deserved?
And though the big facts (stated above as "spoilers") are common knowledge, many of the details were new to me, and helped to shed further light on the political process. You see, Lincoln did not have the votes to get the amendment passed, but he knew that it must. IT MUST. If his life's work and that horrible war was to be worth anything the amendment had to pass, by any means necessary. When it does pass, Tommy Lee Jones, as abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens says, "The greatest measure of the 19th century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America." Lincoln and his ideals were pure. The political process is anything but.
Perhaps this, at its heart, is why most people hate politics. Our 2012 perspective marvels that an amendment abolishing slavery was so hard to pass, particularly considering there were no southern states represented in congress at the time. And yet it was . . . our country came within a few votes of being right back where it was when the Civil War started. These men are presented for exactly what people are--confused, self-serving, nobly impulsed, a product of their times and culture, and just, so, human. Our race has produced Hitler and Ghengis Kahn and Osama Bin Laden. But it has also produced Einstein and Joseph Smith and Lincoln. All of the worst and best is present in each of us.
Our country is great because it has time and again, with stops and starts and by inches, moved forward. With all of our messy imperfections. America still has a long way to go, and much to learn. But if Lincoln is to provide any lessons, it is that people of good faith can triumph over evil, one tiny step at a time.
If you are looking for a Lincoln biography, this is not your film. But if you like politics and riveting performances, don't let another week go by without getting a ticket. Bring your Kleenex.
My last point is that this is exactly the opposite of a chick flick, seeing that there is a shocking lack of women in the movie. The only major award Lincoln was not nominated for was Best Actress. There is no lead actress. I can't help but think the entire history of the world would be different if women had been given more say in the way things work. If the anger portrayed in the film over the possibility that Black men will one day vote is one-sided . . . the anger over women's suffrage is universal. It is a funny moment, but only because it was so long ago. It would be another 60 plus years before women were given equal status in the law.
I have wanted to see Lincoln for some months, but didn't get serious until the Academy Award nominations came out last week, with Lincoln dominating the lists. And I have to say, I don't even know what sound mixing is and I think Lincoln should sweep.
Spoiler alert: The 13th Amendment passes. The war ends. Slavery is abolished. Lincoln dies.
We all know this. So how does Spielberg create a movie of such suspense and interest? I suppose the only answer is that he is the master of his craft. This is a story that could have been trite and sappy, and has, indeed been told before.
But Spielberg gives what might be the most important time in American history the treatment is deserves. My friend told me that she was so emotional during the end, willing Lincoln not to leave for the theatre that night. Daniel Day-Lewis was this character so convincingly that you understood that when he left the cabinet room that night the US would plunge into a hundred years of Cold Civil War. And despite his triumph, you despair. His life was cruelly cut short; or is it that God took him home to give him the true rest and peace he craved and deserved?
And though the big facts (stated above as "spoilers") are common knowledge, many of the details were new to me, and helped to shed further light on the political process. You see, Lincoln did not have the votes to get the amendment passed, but he knew that it must. IT MUST. If his life's work and that horrible war was to be worth anything the amendment had to pass, by any means necessary. When it does pass, Tommy Lee Jones, as abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens says, "The greatest measure of the 19th century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America." Lincoln and his ideals were pure. The political process is anything but.
Perhaps this, at its heart, is why most people hate politics. Our 2012 perspective marvels that an amendment abolishing slavery was so hard to pass, particularly considering there were no southern states represented in congress at the time. And yet it was . . . our country came within a few votes of being right back where it was when the Civil War started. These men are presented for exactly what people are--confused, self-serving, nobly impulsed, a product of their times and culture, and just, so, human. Our race has produced Hitler and Ghengis Kahn and Osama Bin Laden. But it has also produced Einstein and Joseph Smith and Lincoln. All of the worst and best is present in each of us.
Our country is great because it has time and again, with stops and starts and by inches, moved forward. With all of our messy imperfections. America still has a long way to go, and much to learn. But if Lincoln is to provide any lessons, it is that people of good faith can triumph over evil, one tiny step at a time.
If you are looking for a Lincoln biography, this is not your film. But if you like politics and riveting performances, don't let another week go by without getting a ticket. Bring your Kleenex.
My last point is that this is exactly the opposite of a chick flick, seeing that there is a shocking lack of women in the movie. The only major award Lincoln was not nominated for was Best Actress. There is no lead actress. I can't help but think the entire history of the world would be different if women had been given more say in the way things work. If the anger portrayed in the film over the possibility that Black men will one day vote is one-sided . . . the anger over women's suffrage is universal. It is a funny moment, but only because it was so long ago. It would be another 60 plus years before women were given equal status in the law.
Friday, January 11, 2013
Stuff
I've spent the past week dejunking my house . . . and I hope, by extension, my life. The best part about 1,096 square feet is that with only 220 square feet per person you have to really make choices about what to keep and what to toss.
Plantboy has built wonderful shelves in the garage and keeps finding ways to stuff more in our overburdened attic which helps a lot. Still, we've started to have a running joke around here that we can really only have half the house clean at once because we just have to move stuff somewhere else to have another place uncluttered.
I have to admit, however, that we are getting to a place where NOTHING helps as much as I'd like. Getting the Christmas stuff out of the house has helped with clutter, but there is still much work to be done. I'm thinking of getting a small storarge unit.
Even writing that last sentence makes me cringe. I hate that I'm so attached to my stuff. But the thing about my home is that when I'm here I feel really safe and secure . . . like I belong here. I'm the first to admit that the house isn't without its difficulties. I mean, who builds a house with no towel racks? I'd love an oven fan and a more reliable stove. Wouldn't it be great to be able to walk more than a few feet without having to walk around a piece of furniture? Hard wood instead of old carpet? And I often fantasize about having a laundry room inside, with cubbies for everyone to hang their own stuff. A little sitting room at the front of the house as a buffer zone to all the chaotic stuff.
Every few months since moving to this house (5 1/2 years ago) I have a dream that I discover new rooms in the house. These rooms are enormous and I am always so happy and weepy and full of plans for how to rearrange things so everyone is comfortable and not on top of one another.
Talk about a first world problem!
It just seems that lately I've had to really remind myself to be grateful when it comes to the space we have. It isn't my default mode.
I don't know what the next year will bring. Ideally some kind of part time employment that pays well and allows us to think about resolving our growing pains. Or getting poor Plantboy a vehicle that isn't a total embarrassment.
Here is the thing, though. What I think is ideal, and what is actually ideal are not always the same thing. Maybe more humbling is needed. Maybe more gratitude is needed. I'm not going to gain either of these things by finding the ideal job and getting to move. 2013 could be very interesting.
Plantboy has built wonderful shelves in the garage and keeps finding ways to stuff more in our overburdened attic which helps a lot. Still, we've started to have a running joke around here that we can really only have half the house clean at once because we just have to move stuff somewhere else to have another place uncluttered.
I have to admit, however, that we are getting to a place where NOTHING helps as much as I'd like. Getting the Christmas stuff out of the house has helped with clutter, but there is still much work to be done. I'm thinking of getting a small storarge unit.
Even writing that last sentence makes me cringe. I hate that I'm so attached to my stuff. But the thing about my home is that when I'm here I feel really safe and secure . . . like I belong here. I'm the first to admit that the house isn't without its difficulties. I mean, who builds a house with no towel racks? I'd love an oven fan and a more reliable stove. Wouldn't it be great to be able to walk more than a few feet without having to walk around a piece of furniture? Hard wood instead of old carpet? And I often fantasize about having a laundry room inside, with cubbies for everyone to hang their own stuff. A little sitting room at the front of the house as a buffer zone to all the chaotic stuff.
Every few months since moving to this house (5 1/2 years ago) I have a dream that I discover new rooms in the house. These rooms are enormous and I am always so happy and weepy and full of plans for how to rearrange things so everyone is comfortable and not on top of one another.
Talk about a first world problem!
It just seems that lately I've had to really remind myself to be grateful when it comes to the space we have. It isn't my default mode.
I don't know what the next year will bring. Ideally some kind of part time employment that pays well and allows us to think about resolving our growing pains. Or getting poor Plantboy a vehicle that isn't a total embarrassment.
Here is the thing, though. What I think is ideal, and what is actually ideal are not always the same thing. Maybe more humbling is needed. Maybe more gratitude is needed. I'm not going to gain either of these things by finding the ideal job and getting to move. 2013 could be very interesting.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Yeast in the Meal
The Robe is not without its problems. The writing style is sometimes cumbersome and verbose. Like the Narnia books, the story is really a vehicle for the author's own philosophy, and sometimes the characters are ridiculously profound. My research (such as it was) into its historicity shows that Douglas only very loosely paid attention to Roman history at the time. In truth, our information isn't great. There are very few histories from the time and it was a really LONG time ago. The work is a fiction, start to finish, and not superlative fiction to boot.
And yet, it is probably safe to say that no other book has had as profound effect on me.
I read it in college in the midst of a very tumultuous freshman year. Just as the Work and the Glory books can give one a testimony of Joseph Smith because you gain some insights into his character, The Robe's purpose is to provide testimony of Jesus Christ by letting you walk side-by-side with those who knew him. Just as the main character takes a journey from mocking skepticism to ardent faith, so does the reader. There is one paragraph in particular that I can point to in the book that was a turning point in my life. I remember where I was sitting and in what apartment. I remember the feeling that came over me, profoundly and deeply. Oh, I had felt the Spirit many times, and I even recognized it. But until that moment I had never heard the Spirit whisper to ME that He was my Savior too. Admittedly, I haven't been all perfect faith since then, but after that moment I never harbored the doubts again that plagued me through all my teen years.
I wasn't as deeply affected during my reading this time--my experience before was in the order of once-in-a-lifetime, but I was still very moved. I hope that it moves me to action.
Some months ago I was listening to an interview on the FAIR podcast. I don't remember who the interviewee was, though I'm inclined to say it was Richard Bushman. When the interviewer asked him about how he saw the future growth of the Church, he paused for a long moment. He said that he believed the Church would continue to grow, though he wouldn't be surprised if the growth slowed and we still continued to lose a lot of members because it isn't really an easy row to hoe. But the man's answer wasn't complete. He said that sometimes he wondered if rather than just grow in members, the influence of Church members would be felt in broader ways. That we would take what we knew of the gospel and improve our communities and our nations . . . becoming the yeast in the meal spoken of in the scriptures. He said he wasn't sure that our numbers would be exponential, but he believed that our influence had unlimited power if members would harness this idea.
For months this has ruminated with me.
I have a bread recipe (mentioned repeatedly on this blog) that only takes 1/4 tsp of yeast. And yet, if you let the bread sit long enough, that tiny bit of yeast makes the bread large and fluffy and gives it delightful flavor. 1/4 tsp in cups and cups of other ingredients. The difference between life and death to bread.
Is it possible that we limit ourselves by saying that our sphere of influence is small? Is this something we say to alleviate stress or pressure to transform our communities? Is it the defense mechanism of young mothers just trying to keep above water? Is it kind of a pseudo-humility?
After all, didn't He ask us to set our light on the hill? Or at least to lead others to His light?
There might be a lot of resolutions I could set this year. I'd like to write more. I need to certify for an Oregon teaching license, graduate college and begin applying for jobs. I'm helping Plantboy work on a blog. I'd like to research our options for moving. I'd like to go to the temple every month. I'd like to keep up with the habit of exercise that I've been working on sporadically since September, etc. etc. These things are of varying degrees worthiness and importance.
And yet . . .
I can't help but think I'll be happier if I boil down these goals to one single question: "How can I be the yeast in the meal?" In other words, what can I do every day to be more Christlike? To spread His influence to more individuals? To work to realize His vision for mankind?
It isn't an easy thing to report on. That is all the world needs: one more Christian who makes sure that others know about her good deeds. Instead, as I seek to share His Light, I will share stories of others who are doing this same. We will let the more public stories of others inspire us.
The first I want to share is this one, from an essay found at the website SquareTwo.org, and originally shared by Elder Dallin Oaks at BYU-I in 2009:
“Following the perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government to resign in March 1990. Other political parties were legalized, but the first Mongolian elections gave the Communists a majority in the new parliament, and the old repressive attitudes persisted in all government departments. The full functioning of a democratic process and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled.”
“In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official pressure, she organized a “Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of their choice.”
“When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step toward a free society.”
“For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional freedom in Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly arrived Christian church. Her only child, a 22-year-old son, was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian members of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our first stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was Sister Oyun’s son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at BYU-Hawaii, and his wife, Ariuna, a former missionary in Utah, graduated there."
One woman. Democracy and freedom of religion to a nation. The mother of a dynasty of Church leaders in Mongolia. Do you think she believed it was enough to content herself with a tiny sphere of influence?
May your new year bring you lots of joy!
And yet, it is probably safe to say that no other book has had as profound effect on me.
I read it in college in the midst of a very tumultuous freshman year. Just as the Work and the Glory books can give one a testimony of Joseph Smith because you gain some insights into his character, The Robe's purpose is to provide testimony of Jesus Christ by letting you walk side-by-side with those who knew him. Just as the main character takes a journey from mocking skepticism to ardent faith, so does the reader. There is one paragraph in particular that I can point to in the book that was a turning point in my life. I remember where I was sitting and in what apartment. I remember the feeling that came over me, profoundly and deeply. Oh, I had felt the Spirit many times, and I even recognized it. But until that moment I had never heard the Spirit whisper to ME that He was my Savior too. Admittedly, I haven't been all perfect faith since then, but after that moment I never harbored the doubts again that plagued me through all my teen years.
I wasn't as deeply affected during my reading this time--my experience before was in the order of once-in-a-lifetime, but I was still very moved. I hope that it moves me to action.
Some months ago I was listening to an interview on the FAIR podcast. I don't remember who the interviewee was, though I'm inclined to say it was Richard Bushman. When the interviewer asked him about how he saw the future growth of the Church, he paused for a long moment. He said that he believed the Church would continue to grow, though he wouldn't be surprised if the growth slowed and we still continued to lose a lot of members because it isn't really an easy row to hoe. But the man's answer wasn't complete. He said that sometimes he wondered if rather than just grow in members, the influence of Church members would be felt in broader ways. That we would take what we knew of the gospel and improve our communities and our nations . . . becoming the yeast in the meal spoken of in the scriptures. He said he wasn't sure that our numbers would be exponential, but he believed that our influence had unlimited power if members would harness this idea.
For months this has ruminated with me.
I have a bread recipe (mentioned repeatedly on this blog) that only takes 1/4 tsp of yeast. And yet, if you let the bread sit long enough, that tiny bit of yeast makes the bread large and fluffy and gives it delightful flavor. 1/4 tsp in cups and cups of other ingredients. The difference between life and death to bread.
Is it possible that we limit ourselves by saying that our sphere of influence is small? Is this something we say to alleviate stress or pressure to transform our communities? Is it the defense mechanism of young mothers just trying to keep above water? Is it kind of a pseudo-humility?
After all, didn't He ask us to set our light on the hill? Or at least to lead others to His light?
There might be a lot of resolutions I could set this year. I'd like to write more. I need to certify for an Oregon teaching license, graduate college and begin applying for jobs. I'm helping Plantboy work on a blog. I'd like to research our options for moving. I'd like to go to the temple every month. I'd like to keep up with the habit of exercise that I've been working on sporadically since September, etc. etc. These things are of varying degrees worthiness and importance.
And yet . . .
I can't help but think I'll be happier if I boil down these goals to one single question: "How can I be the yeast in the meal?" In other words, what can I do every day to be more Christlike? To spread His influence to more individuals? To work to realize His vision for mankind?
It isn't an easy thing to report on. That is all the world needs: one more Christian who makes sure that others know about her good deeds. Instead, as I seek to share His Light, I will share stories of others who are doing this same. We will let the more public stories of others inspire us.
The first I want to share is this one, from an essay found at the website SquareTwo.org, and originally shared by Elder Dallin Oaks at BYU-I in 2009:
“Following the perestroika movement in the Soviet Union, popular demonstrations in Mongolia forced the Communist government to resign in March 1990. Other political parties were legalized, but the first Mongolian elections gave the Communists a majority in the new parliament, and the old repressive attitudes persisted in all government departments. The full functioning of a democratic process and the full enjoyment of the people’s needed freedoms do not occur without a struggle. In Mongolia, the freedoms of speech, press and religion — a principal feature of the inspired United States Constitution — remained unfulfilled.”
“In that precarious environment, a 42-year-old married woman, Oyun Altangerel, a department head in the state library, courageously took some actions that would prove historic. Acting against official pressure, she organized a “Democratic Association Branch Council.” This 12-member group, the first of its kind, spoke out for democracy and proposed that state employees have the freedoms of worship, belief and expression, including the right to belong to a political party of their choice.”
“When Oyun and others were fired from their state employment, Oyun began a hunger strike in the state library. Within three hours she was joined by 20 others, mostly women, and their hunger strike, which continued for five days, became a public demonstration that took their grievances to the people of Mongolia. This demonstration, backed by major democratic movement leaders, encouraged other government employees to organize similar democratic councils. These dangerous actions expanded into a national anti-government movement that voiced powerful support for the basic human freedoms of speech, press and religion. Eventually the government accepted the demands, and in the adoption of a democratic constitution two years later Mongolia took a major step toward a free society.”
“For Latter-day Saints, this birth of constitutional freedom in Mongolia has special interest. Less than two years after the historic hunger strike, we sent our first missionaries to Mongolia. In 1992 these couples began their meetings in the state library, where Oyun was working. The following year, she showed her courage again by being baptized into this newly arrived Christian church. Her only child, a 22-year-old son, was baptized two years later. Today, the Mongolian members of our Church number 9,000, reportedly the largest group of Christians in the country. A few months ago we organized our first stake in Mongolia. Called as the stake president was Sister Oyun’s son, Odgerel. He had studied for a year at BYU-Hawaii, and his wife, Ariuna, a former missionary in Utah, graduated there."
One woman. Democracy and freedom of religion to a nation. The mother of a dynasty of Church leaders in Mongolia. Do you think she believed it was enough to content herself with a tiny sphere of influence?
May your new year bring you lots of joy!
Labels:
goals,
stuff I learned at church,
things I love
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)