I feel somewhat proud that my Google ads. It's nice to know that Google has decided that the center of my ramblings is God and my faith.
Also, I'm doing the Rex Lee Run 10K today. No hope of coming close to winning, but I've never run in a race so this is exciting.
Race Update: Yeah! I managed to finish just ahead of my Chemistry teacher at 75-ish minutes. But to me, the important thing is I finished. I have never run that many miles consecutively in my life. :D
In response to Katherine's post:
Interesting, but very party line, Katherine. I mean, "stigma and condemnation?" "Oppression and persecution?" Without concrete examples, these phrases are meaninglessness buzz words designed to generate mindless outrage.
Homosexuality is not a stigma: it's a sin. We have this pretty clearly from the Bible and modern revelation. As a church, not a social club, we are basically required to condemn sin. It comes with the job description. And can you be more specific than "oppression"? What exactly would you have BYU change about our policy about homosexuality?
And although listening is nice, in this case I believe it to be mostly fruitless, seeing as we are working from an essential difference of opinion on which neither side can compromise. The basic premise of Soulforce's agenda goes against what the Church tells us about homosexuality in all the typical ways. True, we can agree with their message that we should love everyone, but how can we possibly benefit from listening to them "make clear the harmful effects of the false notion that homosexuality is a 'sickness and a sin,'" since that is exactly what we know to be true?
I don't see that this group will be able to tell me anything new or enlightening. I've heard the pro-GLBT rhetoric before, and this sounds pretty much the same. I agree that we should be more supportive to those struggling with this problem, but those who want us to just accept this as 'the way they are' simply cannot fit in here at BYU or in the Church. (See blog for more on that.)
The principle argument for GLBT goes against a core principle of the gospel, and of my personal beliefs: agency. When we deny that people have the ability to reason, decide, and do, in any matter, we have given in to hopelessness and can no longer progress. To me, this is a fruitless point of view. Which is perhaps why moral relativists bother me so much: if there is no right, no truth, then how can we ever learn more? We can't just sit around and not choose for fear of offending or being wrong. We must try, improve and correct, and try again.
Feeling a little better today. Thanks for asking.
On a completely different and less depressing note than yesterday, I've been thinking about how the church deals with homosexuality, especially given this article in the Daily Universe about homosexual in Canada who thinks it's unfair that he's been excommunicated, a recent email from BYU about the visit of Soulforce to the Provo area, and (less recently) my reading of Orson Scott Card's (in)famous article on the hypocrites of homosexuality.
My main question is why anyone who has decided to give in to their homosexual tendencies, convinced they are not a sin, would want to remain in the church. (I won't deal with those who are trying to change; that is a completely different issue.)
First, the church's policy on homosexual behavior is clear, and not likely to change. Homosexual behavior is a sin, and has been declared so by God through scripture and modern revelation.
Second, a believing member of the church must believe in revelation, and thus knows that church policy is not up for debate. A church is not a democracy, open to change and suggestion by mutual concensus, or at least it shouldn't be. By definition, a church is an organization founded because it believes a particular way about God, especially in the case of our church, since we believe in direct, continuous, modern revelation from God to a prophet who leads our church. Any believing church member must commit to this before being baptized
Given these two principles, I don't see why anyone who has decided to be homosexual would want to be a member of the church. By acknowledging either of these statements, they must know that they disagree with the church. The point of being a member of a church is that you believe in the same way as other people in that church. There's not any getting around that. A church that doesn't hold its members to specific doctrines is hardly a church at all, but more of a "feel-good" society. How can a homosexual disagree with such fundamental doctrines of the church and still even want to be part of it?
Perhaps for cultural reasons, but really, the church's "culture" is incidental. Unfortunately, when you have a lot of people who get together every week, you are bound to form some traditions. However, if you don't believe the same as the rest of the church, you really can't participate in its culture: you can't hold a calling, do home teaching, bear your testimony. I guess you can go to church bake sales or whatever, but you're just as welcome to do that when you aren't a member. It just seems so silly and superficial. Really, you aren't part of the church anymore. It's not to be mean; it's just a fact.
(To any random people who find this post: Please keep your comments kind and considerate. Remember that I am entitled to my beliefs as much as you are to yours. I appreciate all people as such, but I happen to think homosexual behavior is a sin. This does not mean I think they are evil people. It means I think they are people, capable of making mistakes and equally capable of repenting of them.)
Today at church, I realized the main fear I have in my life. Most of the time, I don't think about having fears per say. I mean, I live in a relatively stable environment. Sure, I worry about things, but these are not life-threatening, or even quality-of-life-threatening, things.
But today I was struck with an overwhelming feeling of fear. The fear of being alone. My whole life this has kind of been in the back of my head. I am not a naturally pretty girl, or for that matter gregarious, considerate, or kind. In fact, I would fairly accurately describe myself as a loner. If I go to a party, I have to spend several hours afterward alone to recover from the over-exposure to people. (The exception to this is my family, and possibly roommates, at least sometimes, but that's another story.) I can be perfectly content to spend a week at a time simply going about my business, class, work, homework, eat, read, sleep. No interaction with people necessary. Really, I don't have much going for me in terms of finding someone to spend the rest of my life with.
However, everything I have learned and believe about life teaches me that life is about people. The way the gospel works into this is obvious, but pretty much everything else also points to this. In English, what matters is people, how they relate to each other, what they think, feel, care about. Some post-modernist novels seem so meaningless to me because they deny the ability of people to connect. Not so much in science, except that what is the final point of understanding the universe if not to help people. The mere pursuit of knowledge is simply empty and meaningless. Sheesh, it's even in Harry Potter. Why is Voldemort evil? Because he doesn't care about people. He doesn't have friends and doesn't want them. He doesn't love, only controls, manipulates, learns, dominates. Basically, the one thing the world seems to be teaching me right now is that if you can't connect to people, you might as well not exist.
In my heart, I know and feel this. When I argue issues, I try to always be considerate of the welfare of people over anything else. I am sensitive to the plight of other, to the point of ridiculousness (as my mom says, crying at dog food commercials). And yet, in my life, when I should put these principles into practice and connect, I am paralyzed. Completely unable to find anyone, much less a male, available someone, with whom I can connect. I feel so completely isolated, and I know so many steps I could take to try to get out of it. But I am afraid. Simply afraid. And perhaps a little jealous. Jealous of those to whom this comes so easy. Who can talk to people and actually care what they have to say.
Our high council speaker today read us D&C 67:10:
To me, the important part was the connection between ridding oneself of fear and trusting in God. The solution to this problem is to rely on God. To cast away my fears and simply trust that if I fall, if I fail, He will catch me. And He will help me try again. I am determined that I must at least try. I refuse to let my life be wasted without even putting up a fight.
And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a apromise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you bstrip yourselves from cjealousies and dfears, and ehumble• yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the fveil shall be rent and you shall gsee• me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual.
Ah, so much to write about, so little time to do it in. So let's cut to the chase. First, I got an extremely humorous reply to my BYUSA rant from Mike and Caleb:
Liz:Dude, he totally missed the whole point. :D Being changed as a person by BYUSA is great and all, but that doesn't make it into anything more than a self-improvment organization. I see exactly what BYUSA does, and what it does is not a student government. I see no point to BYUSA Presidents running on a student government-like platform when what they are actually going to do has nothing to do with that. Service is great, and an important part of campus in its own way, but that way is not a student government kind of way. And I don't think we should be disguising BYUSA as something it is not. But anyway, I'm glad these peoples didn't win. I like the other guy's colors better.
Thank you for your email. It is unfortunate that you don't take the time to see what BYUSA actually does. It has been my experience that anyone who has actually taken the time to be involved in it has been changed by it. I know that for me it has been a phenomenal addition to my BYU experience and one for which I will always be grateful. The opportunity to serve and the people with whom I have served have made me a better person in so many ways and, I hope, have helped to make this campus a better place to be.
Mike Maughan
Secretive RiddleI won’t go! I absolutely refuse!
This place, it’s the only thing I have to lose.
She’s sent you to take me away, that git.
Professor, you call yourself? I doubt it.
I know she doesn’t like me, that Mrs. Cole,
Who’s kept me in this orphanage since I was small.
I’m sure she’s told you her little rant.
But she can’t prove a thing, I know she can’t,
I’ve made sure. You can ask them, they’ll tell you.
Amy Benson, Dennis Bishop. Even Billy Stubbs too.
He’ll swear I had nothing to do with his pet rabbit
Swinging back and forth in lazy orbit
Over his bed that summer Sunday morning.
He was quite shook up (despite my warning).
We played in the cave, Amy, Dennis, and I, nothing worse,
There’s not connection to why they scream for the nurse.
I have done nothing but teach this throng,
No more than get the respect that to me should belong.
So I won’t let you take me to your school diverse.
What? You say that this is magic, not a curse?
I wasn't planning on doing another BYU political rant so soon, but I just finished having an argument with my roomie over the importance of voting in BYUSA elections. Here are some of my not-unbiased thoughts about BYUSA elections:
BYUSA has no power to do anything on campus: they can't publish teacher evaluation results, add eating areas to the library, "partner" with anyone (that implies they have something to contribute), or even change hours at the weight room. Remember, it's not a student union, it's a student service association. They can't effect any change on campus, so why should we even bother voting for them? One puppet student government is the same as another.
As for what BYUSA actually does (get volunteers, advertise, and run on-campus events): Much as I would like to some of these events change or be consolidated, none of the candidates gives out their specific plans for these events ahead of time. So, really, my voting is a shot in the dark at who plans the coolest parties.
My roomie contends that it's better to vote than not because you are at least trying to do something about it. I believe exactly the opposite. The differences between the candidates are miniscule, so the only choice is whether I vote or don't vote. If I vote, it says that I am fine with the way BYUSA currently represents the students. Voting will accomplish nothing in the long run, simply perpetuate an ineffective system of popularity contests and broken promises.
Instead, I choose not to vote, in the hopes that by not voting I will help increase the administration's awareness of BYUSA's unimportance to students. If I were not-voting out of apathy, I would see my roommate's point that I have no right to complain if I don't at least try. However, I am actually making a choice here.
Oh, and I just decided to mail this rant to both campaigns. How's that for taking action?
I just rediscovered Zeno's Coffeehouse, a site that I found by accident when working on a paper on Zeno's Paradox for my Pen and the Sword class freshman year. The site may not look like much--well, it looks like junk, frankly. But the puzzles are really challenging. The most recent puzzle there is pretty frustrating to me. I figure it has something to do with the product of the integers being non-unique. Something like there are two sets of numbers that add up to the sum that multiply to the product.
Or something. I'll keep thinking about it.
Someone help. . . .
BYU has an interesting political dynamic. Unlike most American universities, the majority of students are white, church-going conservatives, who tend to be staunch Republicans and think Bush is the greatest thing since sliced cheese. They support the war in Iraq, defy the UN, and dare anyone to tell them they're wrong. But the small but vocal Liberal Mormon minority has dramatically increased its presence in recent years. They are vegetarian,--perhaps even vegan--watch R-rated movies and drink caffeine on a regular basis, and are distinctly disappointed in the narrowminded views of their flag-waving fellow students. What they lack in numbers, they make up in their outspoken opinions about their clearly "enlightened" ways.
And in between? There isn't one. There is a distinct void where moderate voices should be on BYU campus. Those who aren't in one of these two camps seem either apathetic or oblivious in the "bubble." If you've ever tried to speak out moderate position, you've probably been accused of being in one of these groups (probably by someone further right or left than you).
Example in point: the BYU Political Review's recent articles on President Bush's wiretapping program (or domestic spying/eavesdropping, if you're against it). In the February 27th issue, we have an article from Dave Lassen, praising the virtue of the government and deriding anyone who would criticize zecret programs. "We have duly elected representatives who the voters have charged with the responsibility to keep our country safe," he says, firmly trusting the government and its current system of checks and balances. Though he acknowledges that the program may or may not be legal, he still insists that questioning the government in matters of national security is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Predictably, the next week, Max Stoneman fires off an article from the LM point of view. His "fears of government surveillance" show a complete distrust of the government reminiscent of the 60s or 70s. He concludes that the only way to be sure the government doesn't initiate some Black-Helicopters-type program is with a constant stream of leaking and whistleblowing.
Both of these articles really bother me. Though both acknowledge they know little about the wiretapping program and aren't sure it is legal or not, they are quick to pull out the standard party lines on what's right and wrong, just in case. Neither complete trust or distrust in the government makes any sense in my mind. Each issue must be weighed individually, and as of yet, the public doesn't have enough information to form any sort of decent opinion on the wiretapping.
And yet we keep forming opinions. I can understand this from career politicians who need to support their ideals no matter their correctness, but I expect better from church members and specifically from BYU students. For a school that purports to put out morally-aware students, we've done a pretty poor job.
Yup. Yesterday I discovered the fun you can have reading random articles on Wikipedia. I spent about three hours reading instead of working on my sacrament meeting talk. Just some of the fun facts I found out:
-IB actually runs global high schools? And Ken Jennings graduated from IB? What's up with that?
-The game of Life, not just a board game with strange tiles anymore. Actually it's a really simple mathematical game That yields very surprising results. The object is to keep the pattern going as long as possible. If you're hungering for a logical challenge, check of this derivative clickmazes game. Much better than those simple Sodoku.
-The hyphen in the church's name is British? Interesting.
-Since when is NYU a private university?? I could have sworn it was public . . . .
-And the CEO of Dell is Mormon? Hmm.
The story of the brass serpent in the Bible has always bothered me. I never really understood why in the world the Israelites would refuse to look if there was even a chance it could save their lives. It just seemed so irrational not to try anything you could when you knew the only other option was death. However, in reading the story in the context of Alma, I've found two possible ways this story works:
Oh, I just realized I never actually put down my New Year's Resolutions, so here they are:
1. Keep committments, especially to the Lord and myself.
2. Find peace by working ahead instead of playing catch up.
3. Make time for service.
4. Bring up my grades so I don't have to stress about my scholarship.
5. Visit the temple twice a month.
Well, I'm finally back from Christmas vacation. Today was really crazy. Between dropping Heather off at USU, picking up Joni from the airport, and driving to Provo, I spent about 10 hours in the car, plus two in the airport. Sheesh. I hate waiting for things and riding in cars. I don't feel like I can get anything done because something might happen and I need to be on alert. (Plus in cars, I'll get sick if I try to do much of anything.)
So, I thought I had this semester all planned out until I got my grades for last semester. Then I realized that in order to keep my scholarship, I need to retake a few classes. Thus, this semester has suddenly become a lot easier than I thought it would be, but I feel sort of ashamed retaking classes. I mean, I should have done better in them in the first place. Almost without exception, my bad grades are due to my lack of participation. On tests and papers, I almost always do well, but quizzes and participation points are usually enough to bring my grades down to the B range. Not bad for some people, but in trying to keep a scholarship, huge problem.
I think the reason this happens is because I used to be able to get by in school on pure talent. No effort was really necessary to get A's (or E's, since my elementary school didn't use traditional letter grades). But in high school, they start including so many participation points and busy work, which I hate. For example, I failed (yes, with an F) two quarters of AP Biology. However, I got a 5 on the AP Bio test and a 7 on the IB Bio test. It was just ridiculous. Why should people who know everything in the class get poor grads because they refuse to do busy work?
Here's my solution to the problem. Give each student two grades at the end of the semester, one based only on important papers and tests, one including those plus all the busy work points. Either put both on the report card, or let students choose which one they want. I guess my main frustration is the lack of a standard grading system for all classes everywhere. If I were in charge, all classes across the US (maybe the world) would have a standard grading system. That way things can actually be compared. This is why I am a huge fan of testing systems. They provide a scale of comparison. All this nonsense about the tests not being fair just seems silly to me. People complain about them because they reveal the difference between a 4.0 student who learns and a 4.0 student who just does the work.
This detour brings me back to the real point. Through out my school career, I have avoided doing more work than necessary to learn the material. Basically, I'm a self-made slacker on purpose. But now I need to reform and get some actual study habits. Yeah, that would be good.
Wow, it's amazing how stuff seems to just fall into place when you bother to think about it. Really, like everything today was helping me with what I was worrying about yesterday. For instance, on KBYU there was an Elder Oaks talk about gaining faith even in trials and a talk by President Hinkley that really comforted me about my grades situation. Then, Cherie Thomas gave a talk in church which was also exactly what I needed to hear and pointed me towards reading the rest of Moroni, which was also full of info that I needed. It was totally insane.
I just have a lot of thoughts right now, and I don't really feel like organizing them well. Since this is a blog, I'll just post a list and let you sort it out:
* Optimism v. Pessimism: People tend to look down on optimists because they think they have a poor sense of reality. The general consensus is that if you think life is good, you must be deluding yourself. However, I disagree. I think optimism is the only practical way to live and progress, as long as you do it right. As a pessimist, you are stuck only seeing the bad, looking at your failures and feeling hopeless. If you are what I've decided to call a "realistic optimist," you recognize your failures, but you don't let those things (or circumstances beyond your control) get you down. Instead, you have optimism, or hope, that you can change.
* New Year's Resolutions: On a related note, happy New Year's! Hurrah. Along with this of course come the resolutions, which we are all classically doomed to fail at. A few years ago on January 1, I wrote in my journal something to the effect of this: humanity is inherently optimistic because even in a situation which we have faced a thousand times and failed, we always see the possibility for success. This is either the worst or the best thing about humanity. As awkward as it is to quote myself, I really like how I said that. I thought of writing it into a poem once, but it never turned out. Anyway, I like New Year's Resolutions. Doomed to failure or not, the process has something very human about it.
* Relativism: Which brings me to another idea which has been floating around for a while. I hate people who insist on being absolutely relative about truth, who refuse to draw conclusions out of a sense of angosticism. It just seems so pointless. If we aren't allow to decide and come to conclusions, how in the world can humanity progress? Yes, there's a lot to be said for tolerance, but tolerance is just that: you tolerate the idea that other people have ideas different from ours. However, this does not mean we can't come to a universal perception of truth. In fact, as I see it, the whole point of humanity is come to understand itself and its environment. Moral relativists and agnostics discard this purpose in favor of the ambiguous, ever present diversity. But how can diversity help humanity? How can simply knowing about others help us? Once we learn everything about another culture, what can we gain? Nothing, unless we use our human judgement. If we learn about other cultures and then determine what makes them better or worse than our own (by some moral standard), we can use the things we learn to eliminate our own errors and avoid their pitfalls. (Sorry if this sounds obnoxious. Just remember that I'm typing off the top of my head. If I ever actually get to writing an essay on this, I'm sure it would sound much better. I just needed to get it out of my head.)
So, I've been thinking a lot lately about what makes people happy, partially because of some stuff Katfish wrote in her blog over Christmas break. Apparently, some really wacked out stuff is going on in her life. It almost makes me feel like I have no right to talk about being sad, since my life is comparitively stable. Actually, I take that back. Every human being has the right to be happy and sad. Of course we all have a different scale; sometimes our scales aren't even measuring the same things. Why shouldn't we have a different scale? We're different people.
Anyway, what I wanted to write down was that life is simply a matter of centering yourself. As cliche as that may sound, I'm pretty sure it's true. (Isn't that how cliches get started? Something that is true that people say over and over because it sounds right? Maybe . . . interesting.) I got this idea out of the old Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens book. You see, what determines whether you are happy or sad is what you center your life around. People are usually miserable when they center their life about things they can't control: friends, a relationship, money, grades, etc. When those things change, the foundation of your life just disappears, leaving you freefalling.
The obvious solution is to find something to center on that will not change. In my case, I believe that thing must be the gospel. For instance, right now I'm really worried about losing my scholarship. My grades were much worse this semester than I thought they would be, and if I don't get straight A's next semester and retake some classes, my scholarship is bye-bye. When I first thought about this, I panicked a little. However, I went home that night and read my scriptures and just felt the reassurance of faith. I have something to fall back on. No matter what, I know the gospel is true, and its principles and precepts will get me through anything.
Which leads me to the real problem that I've been thinking about. Several blogs I've read recently have said they want to find a testimony, but just can't get it. I wonder what's wrong there. Exactly how does one go about gaining a testimony? For me, it was during my sophomore year of high school when I really started reading my scriptures every night, no matter how late is was. At one point, not during any particularly important part of Alma, I just felt a wave of peace and love, and I knew it had to be true. Sure, before that you had your EFY moments, and since then I can't say I haven't had my moments of doubt, but down inside I know its true. That seed of truth makes me feel guilty when I go against it and gives me peace when I do right.
But what can you say to someone who has tried and doesn't have a testimony? I can't possibly know what they have done, felt, tried. I cannot judge the sincerity of their desire. To me, it seems there must be one universal answer, a fool-proof method of finding truth for one's self. I've decided to make this the guiding principle of my scripture study for the next little while, until I find myself a satisfactory answer.
Pretty interesting stuff. It's true that my religion guides my life. I don't see this as a bad thing, like many people do, nor do I see this as being in competition with my #2, existentialism. Religion is a good (in my opinion, the only real) way to find meaning in life, which is what existentialism is all about. *broad overgeneralization alert* Yadda, yadda, stole quiz from Katfish . . . .
You scored as Divine Command.
Your life is directed by Divine Command: Your god and religion give you meaning and direction.
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.
--King James Version of the Bible
Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, there is one religion--human religion--but any number of faiths.
--Mahatma Gandhi
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Divine Command | 95% | ||
Existentialism | 75% | ||
Hedonism | 65% | ||
Kantianism | 65% | ||
Justice (Fairness) | 55% | ||
Utilitarianism | 55% | ||
Strong Egoism | 30% | ||
Apathy | 0% | ||
Nihilism | 0% |
Time to kickstart this old clunker. I've been thinking about it all semester ever since I found Katfish's blog the other month.
So, I'm thinking something that could motivate me to write more in this thing is to give it a more specific purpose. Specifically, make it a bit of literary analysis. I'm going to try to write a little bit about what I read in the scriptures each day and little entries when I finish reading assignments for classes just to get me thinking. (Did I mention I'm an English/Biochemistry major? Yeah, it's true.) I'm also thinking about doing a Sonnet-a-Week type thing where I analyze one of Shakespeare's Sonnets every Saturday. I've always wanted to read more of them and have time to think about it, since I get a sonnet-of-the-week mailing list, which I promptly categorize in Gmail and then archive it unread.
Scripture thoughts:
Reading: 3 Nephi 21-25
I'm almost finished with the prophet's challenge to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year. It's pretty exciting that I actually followed through with something. So, I always love reading 3 Nephi because, of course, that's when the Savior comes. Somehow I always forget that there are a whole bunch of Isaiah chapters in there. They always slow me down a lot, and, like most people, I usually speed read through them as fast as possible.
However, this time I noticed that after Isaiah, there are chapters from a couple of other Old Testament places. (I am probably noticing this more because this is the first time I have read the BoM since finishing the Old Testament.) Specifically, chapter 24 quotes Malachi 3 and verses 13-18 stuck out to me a lot. These verses talk about something I thought was peculiar to modern times, but clearly has been going on throughout time. Those who obey God and try to live righteous lives are not always blessed. Not just that, really, because I knew that, but more that "now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are delivered." (3 Nephi 24:15) This is so completely relevant to our day, when traditional values have been turned on their heads, and we overtly worship those who are immoral and self-centered and we "set them up" by giving them our money. (They're called celebrities, people.)
But the best part about this is the verses that follow, which reassure us that the Lord of Hosts keeps a book of records on this matter, in effect reminding us that justice will eventually be served. We don't need to worry about the comparative righteousness of others, only of ourselves, because the Lord will return and "discern between the righteous and the wicked." (3 Nephi 24:18) I've never thought of the final judgment in this way - as a comfort. We don't need to worry about judgments because the Lord will see to that.
It's quite a nice thought. And I think it's enough for today.
