The murderer of relationships is fear. Any broken relationship can be traced back to a root of fear, though often we don't recognize it. Coercion is no more than fear. Selfishness is no more than fear. Love casteth away fear (Moroni 8:16) and is the life of relationships. The facade of a relationship can exist without love for a period of time, but it will indubitably crumble at the earliest sufficient convenience.
This is not the use of the word fear when "fear of the Lord" is used in the scriptures. Just as nut free and financially free relate a core difference in the meaning of the word free, so does the fear of men and the fear of God relate a core difference in the meaning of the word fear.
Trust is a building block of love. Hate is a product of fear.
"Charity never faileth. . .all things must fail--but charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever."(Moroni 7:46-47)
This life is not the end. Christ is the source of all love and because He did not betray us, nor Himself, nor His Father in the face of ultimate pain, His love is the hope and lifeline of our faith. His love is the conqueror of our fear.
Godlessness, once having passed the extremities of its fruits (either ultimate coercive control or ultimate pain and torture), is revealed as meaninglessness.
It is only by and through the light of Christ that meaning can be found. Without it, there is nothing for which to build, nothing for which to create, nothing for which to love, nothing for which loss or suffering can be worthy.
Life endureth forever, for resurrection is the gift of charity. Inasmuch as charity is infinite, so too, now, is life. Life then, shall never fail. Meaning needn't ever fail for us either, but to obtain this eternally, we must know Christ (John 17:3). Love, faith, meaning, and peace are among the fruits of this, (Galations 5:22-23) along with the complete obliteration of fear (Moroni 8:16).
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Liberty or Death?
Patrick Henry's immortal words "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" (Emphasis mine) are heralded as a stirring principle high on the pedestal of American freedom culture.
He was arguing at the time for official engagement in the revolutionary war. He was arguing that the war was inevitable and indeed had already begun, and that to pretend otherwise would be to "retreat [into] submission and slavery." "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" he exclaims. (Source)
Having been raised with this culture and history, I have taken this mindset as absolute truth most of my days.
However, could it be possible that this is not always the appropriate response? As inspiring as are his words, and as appropriate as they seem at his time, I do not feel confident that life is to be sacrificed on the altar of mortal freedom as a rule of course.
I find Gideon's words in the Book of Mormon interesting. His people had been placed in bondage due to a previous wicked king who, to put it kindly, left them vulnerable to their enemies (Mosiah 11:16-17). When threatened with annihilation due to a misdirected accusation, Gideon spoke these words: "And now let us pacify the king. . .for it is better that we should be in bondage than that we should lose our lives." (Mosiah 20:22)
When I recently read this I felt a bit confounded! "Wait!" I thought, "what about the nobility of 'give me liberty or give me death?!'" It gave me cause to wonder and search a little.
In speaking to our day, Mormon said "Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war. . .and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you." (Mormon 7:4) Taking up arms is not the default. Indeed, we are not to engage in battle with any nation save God shall command us to do so. (I wonder how things would change were this counsel heeded today!)
And then I came across this beautifully insightful verse. "We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do." (Alma 61:12) Here they are -- the conditions of when to submit and when to physically fight. So how does this apply to Gideon above?
In the very verse prior, he says "For are not the words of Abinadi fulfilled, which he prophesied against us--and all this because we would not hearken unto the words of the Lord, and turn from our iniquities?" (Mosiah 20:21) I understand this to mean that Gideon recognizes their bondage to be "requisite with the justice of God!" Later, the people do not remember to subject themselves willingly and they try to fight their way out. It doesn't go so well and they are decimated three times over before finally submitting and repenting! (Mosiah 21).
In contrast, the people of Alma are also subjected to bondage requisite with the justice of God (Mosiah 11:21-25, Mosiah 24) They had already repented and so they were willing to submit to whatsoever the Lord saw fit. As such, no one perished and the Lord delivered them.
Note, in all this, I am in no way discrediting Patrick Henry or his speech or statement! Indeed it seems appropriate and inspiring for his situation. My desire is to seek understanding about how I have interpreted his statement in a way that may not be aligned with Truth.
"Give me liberty or give me death" could well be the catch phrase of Captain Moroni, but not because he was bloodthirsty. (Nor, do I believe, was Patrick Henry.) I think I, in the past, have garnered a sense of coercive power from this quote that was not intended and is not appropriate.
There may be times wherein we are to yield up our liberty even when it is not "requisite with the justice of God." There may also be times wherein we are called to defend our liberty with arms.
I believe in this quote that Patrick Henry's is eloquently expressing his belief that God was calling them to defend their liberty. May I have the courage to say the same if so called upon, and may I have the courage to yield up that liberty if so called upon.
He was arguing at the time for official engagement in the revolutionary war. He was arguing that the war was inevitable and indeed had already begun, and that to pretend otherwise would be to "retreat [into] submission and slavery." "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" he exclaims. (Source)
Having been raised with this culture and history, I have taken this mindset as absolute truth most of my days.
However, could it be possible that this is not always the appropriate response? As inspiring as are his words, and as appropriate as they seem at his time, I do not feel confident that life is to be sacrificed on the altar of mortal freedom as a rule of course.
I find Gideon's words in the Book of Mormon interesting. His people had been placed in bondage due to a previous wicked king who, to put it kindly, left them vulnerable to their enemies (Mosiah 11:16-17). When threatened with annihilation due to a misdirected accusation, Gideon spoke these words: "And now let us pacify the king. . .for it is better that we should be in bondage than that we should lose our lives." (Mosiah 20:22)
When I recently read this I felt a bit confounded! "Wait!" I thought, "what about the nobility of 'give me liberty or give me death?!'" It gave me cause to wonder and search a little.
In speaking to our day, Mormon said "Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war. . .and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you." (Mormon 7:4) Taking up arms is not the default. Indeed, we are not to engage in battle with any nation save God shall command us to do so. (I wonder how things would change were this counsel heeded today!)
And then I came across this beautifully insightful verse. "We would subject ourselves to the yoke of bondage if it were requisite with the justice of God, or if he should command us so to do." (Alma 61:12) Here they are -- the conditions of when to submit and when to physically fight. So how does this apply to Gideon above?
In the very verse prior, he says "For are not the words of Abinadi fulfilled, which he prophesied against us--and all this because we would not hearken unto the words of the Lord, and turn from our iniquities?" (Mosiah 20:21) I understand this to mean that Gideon recognizes their bondage to be "requisite with the justice of God!" Later, the people do not remember to subject themselves willingly and they try to fight their way out. It doesn't go so well and they are decimated three times over before finally submitting and repenting! (Mosiah 21).
In contrast, the people of Alma are also subjected to bondage requisite with the justice of God (Mosiah 11:21-25, Mosiah 24) They had already repented and so they were willing to submit to whatsoever the Lord saw fit. As such, no one perished and the Lord delivered them.
Note, in all this, I am in no way discrediting Patrick Henry or his speech or statement! Indeed it seems appropriate and inspiring for his situation. My desire is to seek understanding about how I have interpreted his statement in a way that may not be aligned with Truth.
"Give me liberty or give me death" could well be the catch phrase of Captain Moroni, but not because he was bloodthirsty. (Nor, do I believe, was Patrick Henry.) I think I, in the past, have garnered a sense of coercive power from this quote that was not intended and is not appropriate.
There may be times wherein we are to yield up our liberty even when it is not "requisite with the justice of God." There may also be times wherein we are called to defend our liberty with arms.
I believe in this quote that Patrick Henry's is eloquently expressing his belief that God was calling them to defend their liberty. May I have the courage to say the same if so called upon, and may I have the courage to yield up that liberty if so called upon.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Some Questions about how Math is Taught
Recently someone I don't know posted this video in a Facebook group.
She posted it along with a complaint that "This kind of math is so damaging to [children's] critical thinking skills! It was so worth my time to watch her explain the new kind of 'fuzzy' math, and why it's so bad." She even said she's considering homeschooling her children over it! *Gasp*
In case you didn't know, we are homeschoolers, so yes, sarcasm intended.
This led me to some questions that I think would be worth asking ourselves. They will make more sense if you watch the video above.
Disclaimers: I'm a math minor, a computer programmer, and love mathy things.
1) This first question is really the most important one, and the rest are moot if this one is not clearly and specifically answered: What is the purpose of math education for your child individually? Worth some real deep thought.
Another important question: what is the purpose of education for your child individually? But we'll just stick with the math part for this post.
2) Is there anything inherently wrong or bad if our children do not learn to do something the same way we did? That seems to be the premise of one set of her comments; that because parents are not as familiar with a certain way of doing things, it somehow must be bad. Is that true?
3) Is she arguing for rote memorization without understanding? Going back to question #2 a bit, is there something inherently wrong if kids not not have the 12 x 12 multiplication table memorized? Is it somehow more noble to just write the answer to 36 / 6 because it's memorized? Which child understands how math works better, the one who has it memorized? Or the one who can show how to solve the problem in a myriad of different ways? Again, what is the purpose of math education for your child individually?
4) Is the "standard method" standard for any solid reasons? She claims it is the least error prone. Even if this could be statistically proven, is it possible that a method that is more error prone for one child is less error prone for another?
5) What is the appropriate role of a calculator in learning math? Or better said, in considering the purpose of math education for an individual child, how can a calculator best be used to achieve that purpose? Are there places where it could best be left out to achieve that purpose?
6) What does it mean to "learn multiplication and division with mastery by the end of 5th grade"? (This seems to be Miss/Mrs. McDermott's bellwether for whatever her answer is to question #1 above.) If her answer is "has the 12x12 multiplication table memorized and can work through standard algorithms with great skill," then I can see the sense of her argument.
- However, is that what it means to "learn multiplication and division with mastery?" I wouldn't consider a chess-master someone that only knows how to win a game of chess if the opponent can only use one specific sequence of moves. That's just not what the word mastery means to me.
- It seems to me that these books/methods she argues against are trying to help kids explore what the arithmetic means. They are trying to help kids gain a mastery, albeit perhaps not a memorization. Because we as parents expect kids to be able to rattle things off like we did, then not knowing 4*6 without thinking about it is labelled as bad.
- So going back, what is the purpose of math education for your child individually? With a clear answer to this, then maybe not having 4*6 memorized is bad, meaning it doesn't advance or serve that purpose. But then, it might not be. Depends on the answer to question #1.
In conclusion, I am not for or against these books she's speaking of. Heavens, I know nothing about them besides what you just saw in the video. But let's think deeply about question #1, because that will give us context to consider wisely whatever (math) education is thrown at us.
For example, the man in this TED talk has a bit of a different idea of the answer to question #1, which is why his ideas are interestingly different than many regarding math ed.
She posted it along with a complaint that "This kind of math is so damaging to [children's] critical thinking skills! It was so worth my time to watch her explain the new kind of 'fuzzy' math, and why it's so bad." She even said she's considering homeschooling her children over it! *Gasp*
In case you didn't know, we are homeschoolers, so yes, sarcasm intended.
This led me to some questions that I think would be worth asking ourselves. They will make more sense if you watch the video above.
Disclaimers: I'm a math minor, a computer programmer, and love mathy things.
1) This first question is really the most important one, and the rest are moot if this one is not clearly and specifically answered: What is the purpose of math education for your child individually? Worth some real deep thought.
Another important question: what is the purpose of education for your child individually? But we'll just stick with the math part for this post.
2) Is there anything inherently wrong or bad if our children do not learn to do something the same way we did? That seems to be the premise of one set of her comments; that because parents are not as familiar with a certain way of doing things, it somehow must be bad. Is that true?
3) Is she arguing for rote memorization without understanding? Going back to question #2 a bit, is there something inherently wrong if kids not not have the 12 x 12 multiplication table memorized? Is it somehow more noble to just write the answer to 36 / 6 because it's memorized? Which child understands how math works better, the one who has it memorized? Or the one who can show how to solve the problem in a myriad of different ways? Again, what is the purpose of math education for your child individually?
4) Is the "standard method" standard for any solid reasons? She claims it is the least error prone. Even if this could be statistically proven, is it possible that a method that is more error prone for one child is less error prone for another?
5) What is the appropriate role of a calculator in learning math? Or better said, in considering the purpose of math education for an individual child, how can a calculator best be used to achieve that purpose? Are there places where it could best be left out to achieve that purpose?
6) What does it mean to "learn multiplication and division with mastery by the end of 5th grade"? (This seems to be Miss/Mrs. McDermott's bellwether for whatever her answer is to question #1 above.) If her answer is "has the 12x12 multiplication table memorized and can work through standard algorithms with great skill," then I can see the sense of her argument.
- However, is that what it means to "learn multiplication and division with mastery?" I wouldn't consider a chess-master someone that only knows how to win a game of chess if the opponent can only use one specific sequence of moves. That's just not what the word mastery means to me.
- It seems to me that these books/methods she argues against are trying to help kids explore what the arithmetic means. They are trying to help kids gain a mastery, albeit perhaps not a memorization. Because we as parents expect kids to be able to rattle things off like we did, then not knowing 4*6 without thinking about it is labelled as bad.
- So going back, what is the purpose of math education for your child individually? With a clear answer to this, then maybe not having 4*6 memorized is bad, meaning it doesn't advance or serve that purpose. But then, it might not be. Depends on the answer to question #1.
In conclusion, I am not for or against these books she's speaking of. Heavens, I know nothing about them besides what you just saw in the video. But let's think deeply about question #1, because that will give us context to consider wisely whatever (math) education is thrown at us.
For example, the man in this TED talk has a bit of a different idea of the answer to question #1, which is why his ideas are interestingly different than many regarding math ed.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Happiness, Frustration, and Agency
"I am happiest when I live in a world where others get to make their own choices." This principle is so true for me!
When I write my own script for people it only leads to my own frustration. And naturally so, for "self-appointed expectations lead to self-induced frustrations."
With the greatest of ease my mind can unconsciously create these scripts and shoulds and expectations!
As such, it is an act of kindness to me when someone does not follow my script, for by so doing they shine the light of consciousness upon it, and I can see it as my own ill-imagined story.
If I am in frustration with others, it is likely that my mind is fighting against the reality of their agency. Guess which side will win.
When I write my own script for people it only leads to my own frustration. And naturally so, for "self-appointed expectations lead to self-induced frustrations."
With the greatest of ease my mind can unconsciously create these scripts and shoulds and expectations!
As such, it is an act of kindness to me when someone does not follow my script, for by so doing they shine the light of consciousness upon it, and I can see it as my own ill-imagined story.
If I am in frustration with others, it is likely that my mind is fighting against the reality of their agency. Guess which side will win.
Need vs Want: A different perspective
Words in different contexts carry different meanings. I don't mean like homonyms because those are different words that happen to be spelled (or just pronounced) the same. I mean the same word put in a different contextual basis can carry a different sense to it.
For those analytical-brains like myself, please know that in this post, I am using the words need and want with a sightly different sense than we often do. I am not, here, trying to argue that to need anything is somehow bad. For example, we have basic needs such as food and water and I recognize that. What I am suggesting is that, even the need for food and water have a context, i.e. we only need food and water in order to live. Assuming we want to maintain life, we indeed need corporal nourishment.
We can often see our needs more clearly when putting them into the context of wants. Also, it can serve us to do so by changing our mindset and helping us be more healthy about those needs. That is what the following is all about.
To Want a Need
The best way to get what you need is to stop needing it and let it come in/on its own due gestational time and course.
The best way to get what you want is to go to work, overcoming temporary setbacks, and having a determined resolve to obtain it.
Note that a want is not a need: if you turn your want into a need, you will push it away as you try to grab at it.
Note that a need is not a want: if you turn your need into a want, you will be able to manifest it in the shortest healthy period of time.
Needing something creates a self-appointed timeline and invites desperation.
Wanting something creates a self-appointed journey and invites inspiration.
Needing is a sibling of coercion and manipulation. It requires others obey and serve me.
Wanting is a sibling of self-determination and vision. It requires serving others to obtain my desire.
Needing invites scarcity and entitlement.
Wanting invites abundance and gratitude.
Needing sees failure as the end of the journey.
Wanting sees failure as a step in the journey.
Needing is damnation.
Wanting is eternal progression.
The point of damnation is so we will lift up our eyes and see a new perspective. We can choose to do this without damnation, but when we don't, it is there to remind and help us.
For those analytical-brains like myself, please know that in this post, I am using the words need and want with a sightly different sense than we often do. I am not, here, trying to argue that to need anything is somehow bad. For example, we have basic needs such as food and water and I recognize that. What I am suggesting is that, even the need for food and water have a context, i.e. we only need food and water in order to live. Assuming we want to maintain life, we indeed need corporal nourishment.
We can often see our needs more clearly when putting them into the context of wants. Also, it can serve us to do so by changing our mindset and helping us be more healthy about those needs. That is what the following is all about.
To Want a Need
The best way to get what you need is to stop needing it and let it come in/on its own due gestational time and course.
The best way to get what you want is to go to work, overcoming temporary setbacks, and having a determined resolve to obtain it.
Note that a want is not a need: if you turn your want into a need, you will push it away as you try to grab at it.
Note that a need is not a want: if you turn your need into a want, you will be able to manifest it in the shortest healthy period of time.
Needing something creates a self-appointed timeline and invites desperation.
Wanting something creates a self-appointed journey and invites inspiration.
Needing is a sibling of coercion and manipulation. It requires others obey and serve me.
Wanting is a sibling of self-determination and vision. It requires serving others to obtain my desire.
Needing invites scarcity and entitlement.
Wanting invites abundance and gratitude.
Needing sees failure as the end of the journey.
Wanting sees failure as a step in the journey.
Needing is damnation.
Wanting is eternal progression.
The point of damnation is so we will lift up our eyes and see a new perspective. We can choose to do this without damnation, but when we don't, it is there to remind and help us.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Agency in our Beliefs
"...and we [would] have been like unto our brethren,. . .who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct." --Mosiah 1:5
I wonder how often this applies to me, in big or little things, consciously and unconsciously. How often do I not believe or outright refuse to accept something that could bless my life simply because it doesn't fit with the tradition I've been taught, or perhaps that I've chosen!
We get to choose what we believe. We can believe whatever we want. This doesn't just mean religious beliefs, it means all beliefs! Beliefs about politics, about education, about marriage, about families, beliefs about ourselves, our potential, what we can and can't do, what we are good at or not, what others can or can't do, what we/others should or shouldn't do... we believe all sorts of things if we really look into it!
I believe (a choice) that we all have a whole lot of funky beliefs around these areas. "For now we see through a glass, darkly." But oh what meaning can come from choosing beliefs more aligned with our divine natures as children of God! And oh what peace can come from choosing beliefs that reflect our God's respect for the agency of other individuals!
The more our beliefs and thus our faith are aligned with God, with actual Truth and not just our perception of it, the more blessed we will be.
I wonder how often this applies to me, in big or little things, consciously and unconsciously. How often do I not believe or outright refuse to accept something that could bless my life simply because it doesn't fit with the tradition I've been taught, or perhaps that I've chosen!
We get to choose what we believe. We can believe whatever we want. This doesn't just mean religious beliefs, it means all beliefs! Beliefs about politics, about education, about marriage, about families, beliefs about ourselves, our potential, what we can and can't do, what we are good at or not, what others can or can't do, what we/others should or shouldn't do... we believe all sorts of things if we really look into it!
I believe (a choice) that we all have a whole lot of funky beliefs around these areas. "For now we see through a glass, darkly." But oh what meaning can come from choosing beliefs more aligned with our divine natures as children of God! And oh what peace can come from choosing beliefs that reflect our God's respect for the agency of other individuals!
The more our beliefs and thus our faith are aligned with God, with actual Truth and not just our perception of it, the more blessed we will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)