"Zero Population is the answer my friend"

Remember that weird song from Saturday's Warrior?  I didn't really comprehend the meaning behind that song when I first saw (live on stage) and fell in love with that musical*.  Now, about 31 years later, I can see the opposition to families in the world, and I see the place that song had in the musical. 

I gave a talk a couple of months ago on the family.  In my sitting-in-the-stands-realizing-I-need-to-cut-over-half-my-talk editing time, this was one experience I cut out and didn't share over the pulpit:

I’ve had experiences where people have belittled me for having a big family.  During my work for my graduate degree, I was once sitting in a classroom conversing with two other members of my cohort as we worked together on a project.  In the small talk that began our conversation, I mentioned that my wife and I had five children.  One of my classmates looked at me, with disdain in his voice, and accused me: “Dude, take it easy, man!  We are already overcrowded on this earth!”  

In that moment, I didn’t say anything. I probably just nervously chuckled.  But I’ve often thought of what I could have said. Sometimes the responses I think of are not very nice.  If I saw him again one day, and if I yielded to the Spirit, seeking a proper response to his accusation, I might say something like this: 

Hello Friend!  Guess what, my wife and I have seven children now!  And let me tell you why we have seven children.  First of all, I feel greatly blessed to have children.  While I know that my children are a blessing from my Heavenly Father, I understand that I did not do anything to earn or deserve this blessing of parenthood any more than anyone else.  I understand that some people have a greater or lesser number of children; and sadly, some who wish to have children do not have any. My life circumstance is such that my wife and I have seven children and I am grateful for this. I love my children very much, and I embrace the duty and honor that my wife and I share to raise them to be good citizens, and faithful sons and daughters of God.  You see, this world is a horrible place; and the best thing I can do to improve mankind has nothing to do with voting at a ballot box, or recycling, or feeding the homeless.  The best way I can serve mankind is by being a worthy husband and father, providing for my family, and teaching my children correct principles.  I am grateful that I had a father who understood this.  

Yes, I have a big family. I'm happy and grateful for this.

It's not a perfect response, I know.  That's okay.

I wish I did not so often forget my primary responsibility of raising my family.   All too often, I burden myself with pride, or with selfishness, or envy, and I get distracted from what really matters: my wife and children.

*I understand that this musical is more about Mormon culture than Latter-Day Saint doctrine.  This post isn't about defending the musical.

To love is to inspire

It dawned on me the other day that I could find content for posts from my talks I've given on Sundays over the years.  For the longest time, I used to prepare for my talks by creating a long list of bullet points.  Four or five years back, however, I decided to begin to write out my talks.  I learned that I like this way better, as it forces me to gather my thoughts and prepare in a more focused manner. There have been many things I have left out of my talks, thanks to the fact that I've written the talks down and proofread them (sometimes with Patricia).  Some ideas sound much better in my head then when read out loud.  In this way, writing things down has saved me (and the congregation) more than a couple of times. 

Allow me to share a couple paragraphs from a talk I prepared for last Sunday.  The topic I chose was "How can I inspire others to obey the commandments?"  In preparing for the talk, I thought of all the people in my life that have inspired me to be a better person.  Though I didn't share about George Durrant from the pulpit (time permitted me to only share about 1/4 of what I prepared), I wanted to tell you about him here.

One of my favorite people in the world is Brother George Durrant.  I had read a couple of his books as a young man, and then as a freshman at BYU I enrolled in his Family History class.  

Aside from being the best storyteller ever, and an inspirational teacher of the scriptures, I’ve never met a man who worked so hard at being a friend to everyone he met. On the second day of class, he had brought a camcorder to class, and he recorded each student as we stood up, said our name, and where we were from.  

Over the next couple of nights, he watched these videos at home, and within two weeks, he had memorized all of our names.  When he would call on us in class, he would do so by name.  There were about 80 people in that class, and I don’t think it was the only class he taught that semester.   

Outside of the amazing class periods, I treasure two special experiences with Brother Durrant. One happened at a BYU football game later that semester.  I was walking in the stands with a date, making our way to our seats, and we crossed paths with Brother Durrant.  As he shook my hand, he said: Brother Kammerman, from Simi Valley, California!  I introduced him to my date, we said talked for a bit then made our way to our seats.  

The following semester, I was in charge of planning a fireside for our student ward.  I immediately thought of asking Brother Durrant as a possible speaker.  After class one day, I asked to speak with him.  He obliged and asked that I walk with him to another building as we talked.  I explained my assignment, and asked him if he would speak. He had a prior commitment and couldn’t speak for that fireside.  We chatted a bit more until we came to where we needed to split up.  Brother Durrant looked me in the eye and said: Brother Kammerman, I love you!  

I cannot explain why, exactly; but Brother Durrant inspired me to be a better person.  He made me feel important.  And I'm confident that hundreds of people could share similar stories of how he touched their lives.  Feeling loved is perhaps the greatest motivator toward obeying the commandments (striving for excellence, self-actualization, etc.).

Do I love those that I want to motivate?  Do I act in a way that those people know and feel that I love them?

Chicken Bites

I had some chicken and wanted to try these, from Aaron McCargo, Jr.  But I was thinking that I wanted to bake them, instead of frying them (our deep fryer takes too much oil and it's so messy).  So, from the comments after Chef McCargo's recipe I found these.  I didn't have all the ingredients that either of these recipes called for, so I substituted a bit and came up with a recipe that was a hit with the family.

Kammerman's Chicken Bites:

4-5 cups cooked chicken, buzzed up in food processor
1 3/4 cups shredded cheese (I used half cheddar and half Monterrey jack)
1 small can of green chiles
1/2 can of black beans, drained
1/4 cup mayonnaise
1/4 cup hot sauce
AND
flour
eggs
corn flakes, buzzed up

Combine the first six ingredients.  I buzzed up the mayo and black beans together to make a paste that would act as a binder.  Next time, I would probably use about 50% more of that paste. I think I only used about 1/8 cup of hot sauce tonight.  And I might even add more cheese.

Taste your filling and make adjustments.  Green onions would have been delicious and added a nice crunch; we just didn't have any and I didn't want to run to the store.  I could see a lot of variations work.  Maybe one with swiss cheese, ham (or bacon) and chicken.  Leave out the hot sauce and make a paste that is more of a honey mustard sauce.  Chicken cordon bleu bite!

Once you have your filling, check that it binds together into a "meatball".  If not, add some more of your binding ingredients.  Then do the dredging process of dipping the balls in flour, then eggs, then corn flakes, finally placing them on a greased cookie sheet.  Bake at 350 degrees for 20-25 minutes.

As I'm typing this, Hyrum just said: "Next time make like 45-50 of these!"  The above amounts yielded about 25 chicken bites that fit nicely on one sheet, with about 1 1/2 cups of filling left over.  I could see this filling used in taquitos, too!*

*Now it's the next morning and I uploaded the photo.  Hyrum said to me: "I used some of that filling with a corn tortilla for a taco this morning and it was the best taco ever!"

In the words of Guy Fieri: Winner Winner Chicken Dinner!

Some analogies

While reading a post over at another blog, I came across a reference to this talk, by Neal A Maxwell.  The talk was given when I was but one year old; yet the message is just as relevant today as it was back then. It is rich with wisdom, and I hope to write a number of blog posts, each dealing with one or two points from the talk.  

The first of which I would like to tackle involves time and perspective.  I've created my own little analogy that houses my perspective on knowledge, science, epistemology, and revelation.  Let's call it the Ant and the Rock Analogy:

A tiny ant lives under a rock in my backyard.  During it's lifespan it may traverse the entirety of my backyard at some point, and it may even venture into the yards of my close neighbors.  It is safe to imagine that the existence is anchored in the rock under which it lives.  Generally speaking, this ant knows the rock, and some of it's immediate surroundings. 

Now, can this ant even comprehend my house?  He has seen my house, and maybe even come inside and escaped back out (I'm out of Raid at the moment); but can this ant hold in its brain the concept of a house?  Or this computer at which I'm sitting?  Of the stove?  The bathroom?  The books in my shelves?  I don't think so.

Furthermore, can this ant comprehend my neighborhood?  An entire collection of houses?  Can it comprehend the Wendy's on the corner, or the traffic light at 54th and 40th (granted, many people can't comprehend the traffic pattern at this intersection!), or Bangerter Highway?  No chance. 

And we move out further.  Could this ant comprehend the State of Utah?  The United States? The World Cup (Yes! Argentina lost.)?  Or the Pacific Ocean?  It would truly be silly to think that this little ant could comprehend anything past its finite universe of my backyard.   

And yet.  This ant has some friends, who, knowing no more than he does, claim to have a complete understanding of the rock, my house, the fence, the trampoline, and the planes overhead.  Some of his friends tell him there's nothing beyond the house (and that it's there by chance anyway), and other friends tell him there are no other ant colonies besides their own. Depending on their lifespans, many doubt the existence of humans (I'm dropping an hint about how lazy I am about yardwork these days!).  I wonder what these friends said two weeks ago when I finally fixed and turned on the sprinklers after 12 years of not using them.  And what if I move their rock when I finally decide to weed that section of my garden?  I might even relocate some dirt, moving some ants from the front yard to the backyard.  That would make for some great stories among the ants!  

The thing is, this ant can know with a surety about the real nature of things beyond it's realm of existence.  How?  By a visiting and (being) that can teach him.  Will that ant comprehend everything? Probably not, and it will struggle to arrange the new information to fit in it's current worldview.  His worldview will necessarily expand.  

It will all depend on whether that ant believes the visitor, and whether or not that visitor can be trusted.  And who is going to believe the ant who reports about the visitor?

Who are you believing?  And Why?    

I know this type of analogy has been written in many forms.  Terry Pratchett brilliantly presents similar paradigm paradoxes in a lot of his work (try The Bromeliad Trilogy).  Another great analogy can be found in Flatland, by Adwin Abbot.  Like all analogies, it can break if abused, but I think it can also be very helpful in discovering important questions that we must all answer for ourselves.

Now, on to the Maxwell talk.  He quotes someone else, in this following passage:

I should like, if I may, to share with you on this point the fine writing of your own A. Lester Allen, a dean and scientist on this campus. This is what I have come to call the “Allen Analogy” about time. Let me read you these lines, if I may. Their application will be obvious. Dean Allen writes:
Suppose, for instance, that we imagine a “being” moving onto our earth whose entire life-span is only 1/100 of a second. Ten thousand “years” for him, generation after generation, would be only one second of our time. Suppose this imaginary being comes up to a quiet pond in the forest where you are seated. You have just tossed in a rock and are watching the ripples. A leaf is fluttering from the sky and a bird is swooping over the water. He would find everything absolutely motionless. Looking at you, he would say: “In all recorded history nothing has changed. My father and his father before him have seen that everything is absolutely still. This creature called man has never had a heartbeat and has never breathed. The water is standing in stationary waves as if someone had thrown a rock into it; it seems frozen. A leaf is suspended in the air, and a bird has stopped right over the middle of the pond. There is no movement. Gravity is suspended.” The concept of time in this imaginary being, so different from ours, would give him an entirely different perspective of what we call reality.

Juxtapose the Allen Analogy (focused on time) with the Ant and the Rock Analogy (focused on space) and I think some interesting questions and insights appear.

Science is a great tool.  Perhaps we can understand much of the rock, part of the backyard, and a good part of the fence.  Science will most likely get the house wrong, though.  Some scientists will be humble and admit to an impartial (and potentially incorrect) understanding.  Others will adamantly defend their ridiculous conclusions about the foundation, the siding and the front window, and the planes overhead.  Science will get us only so far.

Revelation will give us more.  But our understanding will still be a weak shadow of reality, hopelessly confused by our limited worldview.  We have to know that we can trust our visitor, or the messenger (who met with the visitor).

What am I missing?   I've love to play in these analogies with anyone that wants to join me.  I'm on a Facebook fast right now (how liberating), so if you want to chat about this, leave a comment below.

The Hurt and the Healer

Jesus Christ reaches down to help the woman taken in adultery,
who is about to be condemned by the people .
Image courtesy of LDS.org

Home from church today with Lizzie, who is has a stomach bug.  I felt a blog post about Jesus would be a good Sabbath day activity.  

I often listen to KLOVE and much of the music they play inspires me.  As I sing along (usually in the car) I find myself pondering the lyrics and applying them to my life.  In doing so I find direction, comfort, and insight.  One of my favorite songs is Mercy Me's The Hurt and the Healer.

Verse One:

Why?
The question that is never far away
The healing doesn't come from being explained
Jesus please don't let this go in vain
You're all I have
All that remains

So here I am
What's left of me
Where glory meets my suffering 

Chorus: 

I'm alive
Even though a part of me has died
You take my heart and breathe it back to life
I fall into Your arms open wide
When the hurt and the healer collide

One can readily see the purpose of this song to comfort those that have lost a loved one.  It's funny, though, because this is not the message that resonates with me.  The first time I intently listened to the lyrics happened to be during a time of my life where I was making major changes in my heart.  As the song says, I felt that a part of me had died; and even though that part of me needed to die (it was cancerous) it was hard.  I love the imagery of Jesus taking my heart and breathing it back to life.  And I absolutely love the phrase 'when the hurt and the healer collide'.  

Verse 2:
Breathe
Sometimes I feel it's all that I can do
Pain so deep that I can hardly move
Just keep my eyes completely fixed on You
Lord take hold and pull me through

Refrain:
It's the moment when humanity
Is overcome by majesty
When grace is ushered in for good
And all our scars are understood
When mercy takes it's rightful place
And all these questions fade away
When out of the weakness we must bow
And hear You say "It's over now"

The words of the refrain are like scripture to me.  Beautifully written.  The songwriter was clearly inspired in penning these lyrics.   

Last part:  

Jesus come and break my fear
Wake my heart and take my tears
Find Your glory even here

This a prayer that I need to utter more often.  I let fear hold me back too often.

 As I re-read the lyrics, I find so many phrases that merit mentioning.  But I don't want to comment too much (perhaps I already have).  If this song inspires you in any way, it will most likely be for what you discover, and not for what I point out.

Climate Change

Here we go.

Man-made climate change?  This has not been proven.  Period.

If you embrace the man-made climate change position, consider what you are doing:

• You are trusting Al Gore and Barack Obama (can I stop now);
• You are trusting what many scientists propose might happen, even though their predictions over the past thirty years have all been erroneous;
• There has been no change in average temperature since 1995, and barely an increase in temperature of 1 degree since 1970, yet you are saying that man has caused global warming;
• You are taking as truth the suggested hypothesis that greenhouse gases cause global warming, even though the scientist that first proposed the theory all but retracted it, cautioning the world that we had taken his ideas past their intended limits and purpose.
• You are believing the same scientists whose hacked emails exposed their frustration, worry, and ensuing shenanigans upon discovering that their data didn't support their claims.

Consider this:

• The earth has been through many ice ages.  Does not that fact alone logically debunk the theory of man-made global warming.  The earth heats up just fine without our SUVs.
• It used to be called global warming, now it's called climate change -- precisely because scientists understood that global warming was a misnomer with the lack of data to prove their argument;
• The "97% of scientists agree" argument stated by Obama, and clung to by natural climate change deniers, came one Cooke, a scientist in Australia.  When his methodology was questioned as flawed, the university he worked for threatened a lawsuit on the person who challenged him.   It's actually 0.3 percent of scientists in Cooke's study that agree in man-caused global warming.
• Polar bear scare = completely false
• ice coverage decreasing = completely false
• Over 4.5 billion dollars in government grants go to climate change research
• How does this impact the tax-payer?  One example: Solyndra

And finally:

• Being that men live on earth (not as intruders, mind you) we obviously contribute in some way to the earth's ecosystem;
• It simply has not been proven that man's activities contribute to climate change in the way the computer models have tried (and failed miserably) to predict.  Just because a bunch of "smart scientists" think something is going to happen, it does not make it so;
• I support reasonable efforts to reduce pollution
• I oppose government subsidies for green energy

The very tangential fine-print post script stuff:

• I believe in the the revlations of John, as noted in the Bible, and crazy climate changes will abound in the last days.  Hmmm?
• There are some who assert that civilizations far more advanced than us have lived and died on this planet.  Could they have caused global warming in the past?  

#Benghazi: My take

Argh!  This entire Benghazi debacle frustrates me.  My opinion:

(Some) Conservatives insist on calling it a scandal because of the four dead Americans.  I see the Benghazi incident as a failure in policy and operation—clearly the State Department had (has) entirely too much influence in matters of defense.  Notwithstanding the poor performance up to and including September 11, 2012, that performance alone is not scandalous (unless they were running guns, as some suspect).  Instead, the lies to the American public, the Libyans, and especially the families of the slain Americans, by the highest levels of government—this is the scandal.   It was common knowledge from before the attack even ended that this was a terrorist attack.  It had nothing to do with a video.  Yet Hillary Clinton went on Libyan national TV and apologized for the video; and she and President Obama both continued this lie in their dealing with the grieving families of the slain Americans. Another appendage to the scandal (not mentioned by most conservatives) is the injustice perpetrated on the producer of 'the video'. 

Liberals push back has taken many forms:

a) We’ve wasted time and money on this already.

Rebuttal:  If more investigating is needed because people have been lying, the blame for the “waste” belongs to the liars.

b) Bush lied, too! 

Rebuttal: Irrelevant

c) The republicans are politicizing an issue of 4 dead Americans for their gain.

Rebuttal:  That the dems look bad because this administration lied, that’s not the Republicans fault.  So Republicans are guilty of politicizing an issue that the democrats politicized?

I watched the entirety of Jon Stewart’s latest commentary on the issue.  He concedes that the white house has lied.  He concedes that four Americans are dead because of poor policy and bad decisions.  Then he proceeds to outline how Bush had done the same.  And his conclusion is that 1) Republicans are hypocrites for being outraged now when they were not outraged by actions in the Bush administration; and 2) democrats aren’t outraged because we’ve seen all this before. 

The major flaw is Stewart's approach is his assumption that anyone outraged over Benghazi must be a Bush-loving, die-hard anti-liberal, Republican-at-all-costs, conservative.  This simply isn't the case. Many people who are concerned with Benghazi are and have been concerned with any scandal or corruption in any level of government.  What Stewart and many others have done to this issue (as with most politics nowadays) is that they've constructed the argument as a taking-sides, prove-the-other-wrong, debate.  Reducing the argument to two sides contributes to a divisive populace.  Why can't we stand as one people, united, against any injustice or dishonesty perpetrated by any elected official?  Idealistic, I know; and I'm not so naive as to think that we've ever really behaved this way.  From even before day one, our citizenry has been divided.  The natural flow towards party politics creates major division that does more harm than good.   

So, am I divisive if I pick apart Stewart's arguments?  Let me try to pick it apart without using a single "defend the republican party" line or argument:

1) He begins by poking fun at the fact that Fox News and others are talking so much about Benghazi.  So he’s a funny guy.  I get that.  But how is that in any way a logical argument?  "You guys are talking about this too much!"  So what.

2) He flashes a picture of Bush on the carrier with the Mission Accomplished photo.  Irrelevant.  What does this prove?  He was trying to prove that Bush took advantage of situations for political gain, particularly around election time.  So.  The Benghazi lies are still in front of us.  And I'm not a Bush-lover.

3) He makes much ado about Rumsfeld's (lame) statement/excuse regarding not having adequate tanks for our troops.  Irrelevant.

4) He nails the Republicans for having planted a false story and using it for political gain, then refusing to admit it was a planted lie.  Irrelevant.  And he's right, they lied.  They are liars! Still irrelevant.

5) His main point is that dems can't be outraged in the face of hypocrisy that they've seen over and over and over.  This amounts to "your guys lied, so don't be mad when my guys lie; just get over it!".  This is where he again frames the entire play as a battle of two parties.  He's just telling people to shut up. That's not an argument. 

We'll never get anywhere as a nation with this type of discussion.  And sadly, I don't see it changing.  It would take some incredibly brave politicians (there are a few, I imagine) to break out of the system and challenge the people on their own "side".  Someone, or some people, will need to stand up and say "this is wrong!" even as they are denouncing people of their same political color.  As a conservative, I see this amongst conservatives.  Some tea party candidates.  Unfortunately, the established Republicans have declared war upon anyone who will not step in line with their agenda.  As I am not a democrat, I am not as aware as to whether or not this is happening on the left.  My impression is that dems are pretty darn good at sticking together.  I do think that there are some rather prominent public figures that espouse the practice and mindset of unity over divisiveness.  Though many wouldn't believe me, this is one of Glenn Beck's central themes, in talk and in practice.  I also understand that Jon Huntsman is pushing for this type of mind-shift in politics.    

Back to Benghazi.  Speaking for myself, am I OUTRAGED (said in my best Jon Stewart condescending tone I can muster)?  Why yes.  But what does this mean?  What do I want to happen? If wishes were fishes, I would like there to be an investigation and that people lost their jobs over dishonesty and corruption. This will not happen.   Mostly,  I just want voters to understand that Hillary Clinton is a liar, and that this scandal alone renders her unqualified and unfit for the highest political office on the planet.   Sadly, millions will vote for her (she's on their side, after all!).  And she might win.  And this just boggles my mind to no end.     

Nephi's face palm

If you've not read Ender's Game*, you'll not get this reference, but in my latest reading of 1st Nephi, it occurred to me that the angel is to Nephi as Graff is to Ender.  Hear me out:

Remember on the flight to battle school, when Ender was the only one who laughed at the concept of zero gravity, and then Graff put a target on his back (so to speak) by telling all the launchies that they weren't nearly as smart as Ender?
Well, I can imagine the scene with Laman and Lemuel hitting Nephi with a rod.
And the angel appears.
Nephi is probably pretty grateful until he sees where the angel is going with his lecture:
Then, from behind his brothers' back, I can imagine Nephi's futile attempt to shush the angel.
And. . .wait for it. . .the face palm as the angel finished his sentence, telling Laman and Lemuel that Nephi is more righteous than they are and that he will rule them one day.

Thanks angel.

*I guess you wouldn't get it without having read The Book of Mormon either.  I recommend both books.

What is true?

Lately, I've engaged in a number of conversations surrounding the nature of God, the definition of sin, the veracity of LDS doctrine, etc.  It occurred to me that it may be helpful for all parties involved to take a step back in our discussion -- go down a couple of rungs on our ladder, so to speak.  Instead of bantering about the truth of these various concepts, would it not be better to first address the question: 'How do we know something is true?'?

I think back to the single most influential experience of my life: a 6-credit course I took my first semester at BYU entitled Philosophical Skills and Doctrines of the Gospel, taught by Chauncey Riddle. There are two reasons why this class was the most influential experience of my life: 1) I met my wife there (and we studied 3-5 nights each week for the class); and 2) the professor and teachings impacted the way I look at life and approach thinking.

Dr. Riddle explored with us the nature of truth.  How does one come to the knowledge of the truth?  I recently found this article from a website devoted to Dr. Riddle's work.  I invite you to read the article in its entirety.  Here, I will offer a review and then my commentary.

The ways of knowing fall into the following epistemological categories: authoritarianism, rationalism, empiricism, statistical empiricism, pragmatism, mysticism, skepticism, scholarship, science, conscience, and personal revelation.

Using authoritarianism, a person knows the truth by asking an authority on the subject.  This is convenient, but who is to say who is an authority; 

With rationalism, a person uses reasonable (and widely accepted) premises and reason to reach certain conclusions.  This is helpful, but one must be careful that the premises are correct to begin with: 

Empiricism relies upon using the physical senses to determine truth.  The weakness here is that many important truths cannot be sensed with our physical bodies; 

Statistical empiricism combines empiricism and reason, using large data sets, to reach conclusions; 

Pragmatism is relying on what works, whether or not it can be explained with reason.  This is very useful when the goal is to get something done quickly; 

Mysticism is weird to me.  This branch of knowing asserts that the person knows because he/she is actually part of what he is knowing; 

Skepticism denies anything as truth that cannot be proved without a doubt.  This is more of an attitude of being careful and exhasutive in using any forms of epistemology.  It can be useful, but carried to the extreme leads to impassable obstacles; 

A scholar attempts to determine the truth by examining everything that has ever been written about a subject.  I see this as close to authoritarianism, because an authority many who are authorities have practiced good scholarship to achieve their status.  The weakness here is that not all truth has been written, or can be accessed by a scholar; 

Science seems to me a combination of empiricism, statistical empiricism, and rationality.  The weakness in science is that a conclusion can be faulty if built on a false premise, and those practicing science sometimes apply their findings to areas they cannot know about; 

The epistemology of conscience uses the Light of Christ to determine what is truth; 

And the epistemology of personal revelation is the communication of God to a person's heart or mind. 

<end of article review>

I fail to see what's missing from the list.  Any and all claims find their origin on one or more of the above epistemologies.  How can this be helpful in our discussions?  I find it most helpful to me as I consider how I know my truth.  I would say that I use authoritarianism and personal revelation as my primary modes of knowing, with some sprinkles of scholarship and pragmatism.

• Personal revelation:  I consider this the most influential of my epistemologies.  The truths that I hold most dear have to do with my nature as a human being, the nature of God, and my purpose here on earth.  These truths I've learned after study, prayer, and meditation through the influence of the Holy Ghost.  I believe that God has touched me with pure knowledge.  I wouldn't claim this knowledge to be a perfect knowledge--it is faith-based--but I believe it to be the closest thing to perfect knowledge that I can attain in this life.  
• Pragmatism plays an important role in my pursuit of knowledge, and it complements personal revelation.  My faith directs me to live a certain way, and the fruits of my living include the promptings and impressions from the Holy Ghost, testifying of the truth.  In this way, I am "doing what works" (pragmatism) as I pursue knowledge. 
• If I measured my epistemologies by most used (as opposed to most important), Authoritarianism would be highest on my list.  I fully realize that many of my political opinions come from those I consider authorities on the subject.  When I consider the authorities that I choose to trust, I consider their motives and their fruits.  I also consider my feelings when listening to them (this can tie into Personal Revelation).  What type of person do I want to be when I listen to them? What actions do these individuals encourage me to take?  
• I use some scholarship when reading primary source documents, as well as rationality.

 How could this knowledge (or post) help me in my debates and discussions?  I'm not sure, because another might look at the nature of knowledge completely different than I.

As a final note, I must admit that I find a lot of comfort and security in trusting certain authorities, especially when I deem them to be good men (and women).  And on the flip side, I tend to see those with whom I disagree as people who are following ignorant, poor authorities.  I don't write this to judge, but to candidly share my thought process.  I am aware of my bias, and I try to keep it in check as best as I can.

More on Adams

Just finished McCullough's book John Adams.  Took me long enough (it is 651 pages and I took weeks off at a time)!  I was greatly touched by this biography and I thank McCullough for introducing me to such a great man.  There is too much to include in one post, but I wish to highlight some of my impressions.

• Adams' life of simplicity, hard work, and integrity inspire me to be a better man.  He stayed above party bickering.  This is not to say he didn't have strong opinions about the law and government, and he, admittedly, made mistakes along the way.  Yet it appears that his opinions and passion were not born from being tied to a party line; and he apparently never stooped so low as to participate in 'character assassination plots'.  His refusal to publicly attack others, and repeatedly turn the other cheek whilst being lambasted by jealous slandering from others, speaks to a humility only found in truly great men.
• Abigail.  Oh Abigail!  She was not one whit behind John in intelligence, and perhaps much more insightful with regards to human nature.  Our country is blessed to have had her; for without her, we would not have been blessed with the full power of faculties that comprised John. 
• I drew a few question marks in the margins.  This statement of Adams puzzles me:  "I think instead of opposing systematically any administration, running down their characters and opposing all their measure, right or wrong, we ought to support every administration as far as we can in justice."  I like the sentiment, and our nation would do very well to follow this creed; but the disclaimer "as far as we can in justice" gives us a little leeway for opposition, I think!  I simply cannot see any reason why I want to support the current administration, or the last, or the last, or the last, or the last.  But I still think there is wisdom in Adam's statement, and I believe I an push myself to find out how I can be supportive to an administration about whose actions I find appalling.  
• I absolutely love this statement (it merits a post of its own): "Admire and adore the Author of the telescopic universe, love and esteem the work, do all in our power to lessen ill, and increase good, but never assume to comprehend."  Wow.  More on that later.
• And "The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know. . . Do justly.  Love mercy.  Walk humbly.  This is enough. . ."
• I feel a bit foolish at coming to a realization of my naiveté.  People in politics back in the day  were no more honest or less conniving than the politicians of the day.  Human nature has not changed.  At first I felt disillusioned.  Yet I realize that, in all times, there are amazing, singular, men and women whose courage and efforts are able to change nations and the world for the better.
• Would I have believed Adams a great man had I read the Jeffersonian papers of his day?  Are there politicians today whose characters are so muddled by the media that we know not of their true nature?  Who are the Adams of today?  
• Adams' best friend was Benjamin Rush.  I'm reading his biography next.  
• If you are ever in a DI browsing the book section and see a book by McCullough: buy it!  I'll pay you what you paid for it plus a dollar for your efforts!

That's all.

:)

Perspective

I've posted more about politics on FB in the past two months than I have in the past 4 years.  I am getting more comfortable debating.  Frankly, the reason is because I am getting better at loving others.  It may seem weird, but I don't feel like making the connection in this post.  That's not the focus I'm after.

So today, I am perusing FB and participating in one or two political discussions.  I am feeling good about participating in thoughtful debate and enriching some of my friendships.  I am also thinking that the things I am debating are very important, of course.  I mean, what can be more important than the recent speech of the POTUS and ensuing reactions?

Then I click on a video my sister posted.  I love my older sister and when she writes: "Stop what you are dong and watch this, I trust that it'll be worth my time."  I loved the song in the video, and I was moved by the message portrayed by the actors.  There are many ways to Come Unto Christ: Forgiveness, Repentance, Kindness, among others.

Then I made a mistake.  I went to the Pearson Syndrome Family FB group to read the latest news.  This is a group made up of about 35 families around the world (and their friends) who have children suffering with Pearson's Syndrome, the illness that took my daughter, Emily.  The latest post in the group was from a parent asking for advice on a feeding issue: her little son is suffering and she is struggling to know what to do.

I lost it.  Already softened up by the video, my heart overflowed:  Sadness.  Yearning.  Compassion.

And perspective.  

A living testimony of Christ

Today, my Mom and I attended a funeral service.  We were neighbors and friends with this man's family from our time living in Simi Valley.  While I didn't really know the man personally; I knew some of his siblings to different degrees; and this man's father served as my Scoutmaster for some time--something I remember with fondness and gratitude. 

I expected a nice service; and I felt happy and blessed to have a work situation such that I could take a day off for a funeral service.  Since the passing of my own daughter, funerals no longer hold for me the uncomfortable uneasiness that I used to feel.  I used to feel as though I were an intruder at funerals; and the concept of death made me nervous around the family of the deceased.  Having been on the receiving end of people's kindness during Emily's funeral (and my Dad's), I look at things differently now.  I value the opportunity a funeral service provides to express my gratitude and friendship not only for the deceased, but for his or her family as well.  

My Mother and I arrived quite early, because I wanted to make sure we had a couple of minutes to greet the family during the viewing time.  Consequently, after greeting the family with hugs, and expressing our condolences, we sat in the chapel with almost a 75 minute wait.  "Darn," I thought to myself.  "I should have brought my scriptures!"  You see, I am trying to read the Book of Mormon during the month of January.  I am behind pace (and behind all three of my oldest children) and this would have given me the perfect opportunity to catch up.  I glanced up at the pulpit, in case there was a stray triple combination laying around.  No such luck.  So, I read what I had in my hand: the writings of the man whose life we were celebrating.  What followed was one of the most uplifting and inspiring experiences of my life.  

Through his words, this man (who I never really talked to in life) taught me about gratitude, about loving others, about valuing that which truly matters.  Most importantly, this man taught me about Christ, His atonement, His teachings, and His love for each one of us.  His testimony stirred my soul:

All that is good in my life, all that I truly cherish and hold dear is upheld, empowered, preserved, protected, sustained, defended and given life by Jesus Christ and the infinite power of His Atonement and His light.  Indeed, "all things which are good cometh of Christ" [Moroni 7:24 in the Book of Mormon].  

The services that followed were no less inspiring than the words I had just read.  In sharing about their sibling's and friend's life, the speakers taught simple and powerful gospel principles, adding their testimony to that of their dear friend/sibling.  The music was simply beautiful.  I heard the song, Homeward Bound,  for the first time.  I want to find it on Youtube and add it to my Gospel Songs playlist, though I'm afraid that any version I search for will not be as beautiful as what I heard today.  I also heard the last two verses of the Hymn, More Holiness Give Me, for the first time.  Beautiful.  Powerful.  As the service ended, I felt a very real, physical sensation that my heart was full to overflowing with the love of God.  I've no doubt that all present felt the Holy Spirit, and recognized the sacredness of the occasion.  

I am grateful for the experience I had today.  I thank the family for their exemplary lives.  I thank this man for his life and testimony (which for him, was one in the same).

I know God lives.  I know He loves us.  I know He sent His son, Jesus Christ to redeem us.  I feel the happiest when I am striving to live His commandments.  These things I know through the power of the Holy Ghost.  I invite any who happen to be reading this to believe in God, believe in Christ, and follow His teachings.

The Mystery of Lovica White

She was born around 1790 in Saratoga, Albany, New York.  Some say 1788 and one source even has her at 1784.  We know she married George Albro and they had a full life together, parenting 4 children and eventually having a rather large posterity.   She died on March 18, 1860.  But, going back to her birth, Who are her parents?  

The federal census shows a Sanford White that lived near her in-laws at the time she would have been 10 years old.  Could it be that she and George were neighbors or childhood sweethearts?  Nothing else can be found about Sanford, leaving us to question if that is her father.

Then I discover a Lovica White on a web site devoted to the Burdick Family.  This Lovica had the parents of Harvey White and Eliza Brown  (Harvey’s mom was a Burdick, in case you are wondering).  Could this Lovica (“the Burdick one”) be our Lovica?  It does not show any dates for her birth.  The only date associated with this family is that of her grandmother Mary Burdick’s death in 1831.  If this Burdick Lovica were our Lovica, it would mean that her grandmother died when Lovica was about 40 years old.  That’s plausible.  Then I check the location to see if geography can be of any help.  Eliza was from Troy, that’s in the neighboring county to Saratoga, just to the east; and Harvey was from Brenton, and that’s in the neighboring county immediate North of Saratoga.   Boy and girl are about 60 miles apart and they get married; then a daughter (fourth child, actually) is born just about in the geographic middle of where they are each from.  Still seems plausible.

Then I discover a possible wrench.  Remember the Burdick Lovica has one Harvey White and Eliza Brown as parents.  Well, a Harvey White and Lovica Brown show up on a marriage certificate down in New York City as parents of the groom.  The groom is one Albert White.  Checking with the Burdick records, it does show that Lovica had a older brother named Albert.  Seems okay at first, but what’s wrong with this picture?  The marriage certificate lists Alberts birth year as 1851.  Oops. 

Are Albert, Harvey, and Eliza from this marriage certificate the same parents and brother of the Burdick Lovica?  Or does there happen to be another family with a Harvey White married to Eliza Brown with a son named Albert in the state of New York just a few years after another family with the same names.  Seems unlikely.  Maybe the Burdick Lovica is not ours after all.  

Hmmm.  Where to look next? I need to prove one or the other or neither.   I still need to exhaust my research of Whites and Browns in and around Saratoga County around 1800 to see if I can find Harvey or Eliza’s parents, siblings, or cousins.  Perhaps they went to Saratoga to live with a family member on either side and Lovica was born there. 

Good thing I’m working with some pretty rare surnames: White and Brown.  It’s not as if I had to pour through the ton of records associated with names like Kammerman or Kempton. Whew!

Excuse me, Ms. Dickinson. . .

“The Heart wants what it wants - or else it does not care”

― Emily Dickinson

It's nice timing (with the New Year upon us) that I have been engaged in some soul-searching and goal-setting during this holiday vacation.  Many factors have contributed to my desire to better myself as a person, husband, and father: chatting with my brother-in-law, the John Denver song "Sunshine on my Shoulders", and two great talks in church this past Sunday. The second greatest factor in my change of heart would be my sweet wife, Patricia; and she is second only the promptings and help that I've felt from the Holy Spirit of God. 

Emily Dickinson (bless her heart) had it all wrong.  Jesus taught us otherwise: He can give us a new heart.   In his Psalms, David pled with God for a clean heart, a new heart: "create in me a clean heart" (Psalms 51:10).  God promises a new heart to those that accept Him: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."(Ezekiel 36:26).  

Here was my experience (in general terms):  I've always known that I must conquer the evil that I do not want.  There are sins I commit that fall under the category of giving into temptation at the moment, or (more frequently) not yielding to the Spirit in the moment.  Those sins are easy.  When I do something that I know in my heart is wrong for me, I naturally want to repent and change.  But what about the evil that I do want?  What about the corners of my heart wherein live the vices I enjoy, embrace, and relish?  How to change those?

In August of 2012, while hiking Bryce Canyon and chatting with a dear friend, I made a realization that marked the beginning of this learning process:  I can desire something with my heart, and at the same time not want to have that desire.  For me, it is something deeper than a passing temptation.  A passing temptation is usually at odds with my heart's desire.  I see a passing temptation as a surging of the natural man inside me; I can recognize it; suppress it; and move on.  And if I cannot do so, I can (and want to) repent.  In Bryce Canyon, I experienced my version of Alma's words, when he said ". . .even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you. . ." (Alma 32:27).  I falter at explaining the connection here; but I saw myself as one step removed from change.  I didn't have the belief yet, but I desired to to have it.  I didn't want to change, but I wanted to want to change.  

The next major obstacle to overcome was severing the huge steel cable that connected my  infected heart to my brain.  This cable has a name.  It's called justification.  As if steel isn't strong enough, this cable of justification had an inner core of carborundum (hardest material on earth) known as selfishness.  Usually selfishness is easy to see.  Not when it's wrapped up in a steel cable of justification. 

So how did I sever that cable?  I had to recognize it first.  And for my stubborn self, that took a long time.  Once I recognized the ugly cable for what it was, I had a choice to make.  I could ignore it: "What cable?", Protect it: "That cable belongs there.  I'd die without it.  Don't touch it!"; or take some Jaws of Life and cut it out: "But that's gonna hurt!"  

What helped me?  Pondering.  Talking with those I trust.  Reading the scriptures.  Listening to good music.  Recognizing the bad fruits of my infected heart.  More talking.  Hearing hard things.  Allowing the Spirit to work in me.  Making the choice to put my relationship with God, my wife, and my family above anything else.  Talking about that choice.  Writing it down.  Embracing it.

For me, recognizing the existence of the justification and selfishness was the key to change.  I had realized that I wanted to desire a change of heart some time ago; but not until I exposed the selfishness associated with my infection did I truly want to change.   That process of realization took me over a year.  From there, the process of making a decision to change--that took about 8 hours.  The miracle was in the recovery time.  Once I gave my old heart to God, I immediately  felt a new heart within me.  I felt purity in this new heart that didn't exist in my old one.  This purity is inextricable intertwined with another powerful feeling: freedom.  Wow.  Praise be to God.  He works miracles.  

I stand guard.  I like this new heart.  I know it's fragile and that it needs protection.  I also know that that cable of justification and selfishness dies hard--and it can re-position itself in a heartbeat (literally) if I am not careful.  I also know that there will come a time again (if I listen carefully) that this new heart will need to be replaced again.  Or at least that it will need regular monitoring and cleansing. 

God can give you a new heart.

He wants to.

Let him.