What Different Creeds Want

A socialist wants to take over the government to control your economy, to make you share.

A conservative wants to take over the government to control your morality, to make you righteous.

A politician wants to do whatever it takes to stay in office, to make you appeased.

An anarchist wants to take over the government to destroy it, to make you subject to whomever fills the vacuum it creates.

A libertarian wants to take over the government to protect a very limited set of rights, to leave you be.

A christian wants you to accept Jesus, to make you free.

Books about Money

I've read many books about money, building wealth, etc. While many have been helpful, insightful, etc., I've settled on the following collection of discourses more than any book as the most solid foundation for financial understanding, even if they require a bit more study to tease out the principles.

• The Use & Abuse of Blessings by Brigham Young -- https://jod.mrm.org/1/248
• True and False Riches by Brigham Young -- https://jod.mrm.org/1/264
• Constancy Amid Change by N. Eldon Tanner -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1979/10/constancy-amid-change?lang=eng
• Household of Faith by Bishop Clarke -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1980/10/the-household-of-faith?lang=eng

That said, I did recently find one book that was more holistically complete about generating wealth than any other I've read:

• Katie Bell and the Wishing Well by Nephi Zufelt

Admittedly, I've read better written books, but it's solid enough that I can't not recommend it.

Lastly I'll comment about money itself. This is just a nugget I've teased out from my own study.

Money is a medium of exchange. It's a technological blessing! It makes so many more products and services possible. Imagine having to barter without money -- what good or service would you give a farmer in exchange for food? How often? And with how many, to get different types of food? What would you offer a builder for a home? Or rather, the framer, the plumber, the electrician, the hvac guy, the drywall, the... and on and on. Personally, I can't imagine going to the grocery store (if those would even be possible) and saying "hey, can I write you up a few lines of back-end server code for some bananas, oatmeal, eggs, and yogurt today?" lol!
Money is a technological blessing as a medium of exchange!

A currency is a specific implementation of money, e.g. dollar, peso, bitcoin, etc.

There are three requirements for an effective currency:
1) Ease of Use -- if each dollar were a 1 lb igneous rock, imagine how heavy and hard that would be to lug around. And what a pain to have to weigh them with every exchange! Credit / Debit cards and other connected electronic systems have improved ease-of-use even further. (Some may find there to be unworthy trade-offs, here, but such tech does increase ease-of-use.) Ease of use also includes how easy it is to keep secure from theft.
2) Transparent Supply Management -- How scarce (or not) is the supply? How does it get inflated / deflated? How clearly well known is that to the society that uses it? (Inflation, btw, is not rising prices, it is an increase in the currency supply, nothing more, nothing less. Rising prices is an effect of inflation as the decreased scarcity also decreases the value.) This includes, how easy is it to counterfeit? If easy, it will not serve as good money because it can be inflated without transparency. Transparent supply management is crucial to the societal credibility of the currency in question.
3) Trust of social use / adoption -- I'm not going to accept a specific currency as exchange from you unless I believe I can exchange it somewhere else for something I want. It may as well be monopoly money at that point. Sometimes this comes by a ruling government saying "you will accept this currency or else." In a free market system, this often comes by "backing" the currency with an already trusted money or asset, e.g. gold. So even if I don't trust that I can exchange your currency with someone else to get what I want, I know that I can exchange it for an asset that I will be able to then exchange with someone to get what I want.

The Four Personality Types and Core Associations

Four personality types and their fears.

Task Oriented vs. People Oriented

Reserved Nature vs. Outgoing Nature (not the same as Intro/Extro-vert)

I'm wondering about this. Do I have these more or less right? Are these four fears the basic core fears humanity faces? I wonder.

* An Oracle (Task + Reserved) fears being in the wrong. The bigger the decision, the greater the fear.

* A Visionary (People + Outgoing) fears doing wrong by someone. Often this looks like hurting someone, but not only.

* A Warrior (Task + Outgoing) fears failing in an accomplishment. The more important the task, the greater the pain of failure.

* A Healer (People + Reserved) fears failing to matter/make-a-difference to anyone. To put in effort and have it be brushed off as irrelevant or unimportant because no one cares.

Hindsight Ignored

You know how we talk in hindsight about how unjustified it was for SS soldiers in concentration camps to say "I was just following orders," or "I was just doing my job." 

It is incongruous, then, that as a society we continue to punish and ignore those who stand up and say "no" to similar circumstances.

Here's a brief overview from Exhibit A:

Appearing in an Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom, the 33-year-old Hale told U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady that he believed it “was necessary to dispel the lie that drone warfare keeps us safe, that our lives are worth more than theirs.”

“I am here because I stole something that was never mine to take — precious human life,” Hale said. “I couldn’t keep living in a world in which people pretend that things weren’t happening that were. Please, your honor, forgive me for taking papers instead of human lives.”

U.S. drone operations abroad since 2004 have killed as many as 2,200 children and multiple U.S. citizens, [but] U.S. military has a practice of labeling all individuals killed in such operations as “enemies killed in action” unless proven otherwise. 

“Hale was also charged with disclosing a secret rule book detailing the parallel judicial system for watchlisting people and categorizing them as known or suspected terrorists without needing to prove they did anything wrong. Under these rules, people, including U.S. citizens, can be barred from flying or detained in airports and at borders while being denied the ability to challenge government declarations about them. The disclosure of the watchlisting rule book led to dozens of legal actions and important court victories for the protection of civil liberties.” 

“With drone warfare, sometimes nine out of 10 people killed are innocent,” Hale said on Tuesday. “You have to kill part of your conscience to do your job.” 

Hale’s defense lawyers said that he had “felt extraordinary guilt for having been complicit in what he viewed as unjustifiable killings” through his involvement in the drone program and argued that his disclosures were compelled by a sense of moral duty

“According to Hale, what he did was legally wrong but morally right.” 

Hale is a descendant of Nathan Hale, the American patriot who was hanged by the British for stealing documents in 1776. Addressing the court Tuesday, Hale quoted the words often attributed to his famed ancestor: “My only regret is that I have but one life to give to my country, whether here or in prison.” 

“I believe that it is wrong to kill,” Hale said, “but it is especially wrong to kill the defenseless.” 

America would do well to make Daniel Hale's name lauded nationwide, but most will likely never know of him.

Exhibit B could be Edward Snowden, who lives in exile as a wanted criminal. Why? For exposing evidence that the NSA was illegally spying on US citizens. Where are the criminal charges against the NSA? Why only against Snowden?

Exhibit C could be Julian Assange who's been detained or in prison since 2012, currently under maximum-security conditions, despite having never been convicted. 

It could go on and on.

Principles of Liberty

NOTE TO SELF: I feel like this post isn't well written. It needs more maturing and development.

So what are the principles of liberty?

The context of the word liberty can be vast, and while some of the principles I'll discuss here hold true to the vast sense, some are more specific to my intended topic of the moment: political liberty.

Please note that no principle is axiomatic, i.e. self-evident or unquestionable, but rather each is worthy of deep consideration and discussion. What I propose here as principles, I believe truly so to be. I might be wrong. Wresting with such matters, however, is not what this post is about. What this post is about is putting multiple principles together and considering the implications that result.

The first principle of political liberty to consider is this: government is force. Government is incapable of taking any action except through coercion.

Next is this: government consists of human actors. Government doesn't do anything--it is people who are the actors.

So to be more precise with a previous comment, government representatives, i.e. human actors i.e. people, can not act on behalf of that government without it being backed by either the threat of or actual coercion.

In our consideration then of government action, it is prudent to consider principles of human nature such as this one: "as soon as [a human] get[s] a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." (D&C 121:39)

Now, much could be made of the words unrighteous dominion, and I do not doubt that various insights could ensue from so doing. However, for the object of simplicity here, I will simply sum it up with the idea that said authority is used in ways that perpetrate against others.

Much can be expounded upon with just these three principles, but I don't want to dive in just yet. Let's consider just a few more principles of liberty.

By definition, a free society is one in which the individual liberties of all people in said society are protected and maintained. So how are individual liberties maintained? An individual's liberties can only be maintained as individual responsibility is also maintained. When one person wrongs another, intentionally or accidentally, they can choose or not to try to see things through and make it right, inasmuch as is possible. When a person is unable or unwilling to act thus responsibly, they have unavoidably infringed on the liberties of another.

Of note: this statement does not imply its converse. If my liberties are restricted, directly or indirectly, by another's actions, it does not necessarily mean that that person has wronged me.

How does justice interact with liberty? Justice is the consequence of responsibility. Responsibility is the boundary by which liberty is protected and maintained. Without responsibility, there is no justice. The enforcement of justice, then, is no more nor less than the enforcement of responsibility. Devalue or dismiss justice and you gut responsibility of its meaning, with liberty lost as a price paid. 

Does this mean rigid, cold, heartless justice should master our hearts and our politics? No. Justice can be satiated with, but not robbed by, mercy. For this to avail, mercy must be given freely, either by a third party who freely makes reparations on behalf of the debtor (debtor to justice), or by the creditor of justice directly. Mercy can only be given freely, or it is not mercy at all. It is common to see favoritism promoted under mercy's guise, which ironically is a robbery of justice.

Aside: In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand unsuccessfully attempted to spurn mercy. She only succeeded in spurning its counterfeits, and, pun intended, justly so.

Lastly, the purpose of government is to provide liberty by upholding justice. Frederic Bastiat said it this way: "the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop [the] fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work."

Now, before we come to the point of all this, here again are the aforementioned principles listed out for reference.

• Government is force.
• Government consists of human actors.
• As soon as [a human] get[s] a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
• A free society is one in which the individual liberties of all people in said society are protected and maintained.
• An individual's liberties can only be maintained as individual responsibility is also maintained.
• Justice is the consequence of responsibility.
• Mercy can only be given freely.
• The purpose of government is to provide liberty by upholding justice.

So now, with these principles together, let us consider what the best approach toward government might be.

Consider the scenario. An unavoidably human actor, who will be inclined to exercise unrighteous dominion, is given or takes the ability to use force over others. How likely is it that justice will be upheld and liberty maintained? How likely is government to become the very perpetrator against the justice and liberty its whole purpose is to uphold and provide? Do not the annals of history abound with example after example after tyrannous example of this?

I am unaware of any type of organization, instrument, or idea that has had a more eviscerating effect on the liberty of the human race than governments.

So what are we to do? How are we to approach government, if given the chance?

I believe Thomas Jefferson understood well what to do. "In questions of power then," he said, "let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

Thus the intent of the constitution of our country: to hold back man's natural inclination for unrighteous dominion so that government can fulfill its true purpose, that of providing liberty by upholding justice.

As long as man is fallen, anything more or less than this is folly.

Principles and Positions in Current Politics

I'm currently reading "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer. If any book describes how the common German became engaged with the Nazi party, this is it. In many aspects, it's startlingly... normal.

At this moment, we're in the heart of the Corona Virus/COVID-19 pandemic. Pretty much everywhere has a mask mandate in place.

Some, myself included, are concerned about this intrusion into our liberties. Most of society, however, is quick to judge and call anyone who doesn't wear a mask "selfish," that wearing a mask is compassionate, and if you don't wear one, then you're obviously not.

There are many principles being breached here including an unwillingness to seek understanding, haste in judgment, victimhood, inappropriate assignment of responsibility, inconsistency in risk assessment, and more.

However, what I wish to focus on at the moment is the need for principles to be our guide rather than opinions or emotions.

Many individuals concerned about liberty are using a "slippery-slope" type argument. e.g. "today it's mandated masks, tomorrow it's mandated vaccines." Logically, this argument on its own is a logical fallacy.

Quoting from Your Logical Fallacy Is .com:

"You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture."

By using this argument/fallacy, we're allowing the discussion to be based on "where's the appropriate line?" In other words, we're focused on the position, not the principle.

From a principled perspective--principles of liberty, that is--mask mandates are a breach of appropriate government powers. Mandated vaccines would be as well. And while one may seem more sever than another in consequence and extent, from the perspective of principles, they are no different. If you don't believe one shouldn't be mandated because freedom, then you will be in a logically self-contradicting state to also believe that the other should be mandated because safety. You may not realize it, and you may rationalize it, but when you look at and understand the principles, it becomes clear.

Circling back, the experiences in Nazi Germany were certainly a slippery slope. Each little item was justified because "it wasn't so bad," even if the person wasn't totally comfortable with it, until it got to the point that there was nothing they could do about it. If they had stood on principle from the beginning, there would never have approached the slope. Easy to say in hindsight, harder to say when we're in the middle of living it.

Am I saying that mask mandates are the path to becoming like the Nazi party? No, certainly not. I am saying that they go against principle, and the more that happens, the more our liberty is compromised.

When arguments are discussed, the strongest presentations will be built on principles, not positions.

Consistency and Principles in Political Views

One of Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Effective People is "seek first to understand, then to be understood."

This is a principle of healthy relationships and of humanity at large. Online social media would be a much friendlier place if this principle were more widely applied!

In an effort to live this principle in the political space, I've often asked people questions about their views and beliefs, especially when contrary to my own. I've found I much prefer discussion to debate and understanding to competition. Not that I don't have some of the competitive edge in me, but I value understanding much, much more.

As I've considered various political views, my own have drifted further and further toward libertarianism. The views themselves I will likely include in other posts; at the moment, I'm more interested in exploring why my views have gone that direction.

One of my great fears in life is being in the wrong. I... hate it. And yet, it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the experience.

Still, this has driven me to seeking logical and philosophical soundness in my ideas and views. Politically speaking, libertarianism holds a lot of appeal here; namely, it's consistent.

It seems that most Republicans and Democrats (and often Independents), whether they consider themselves conservative, liberal, or moderate, seem to struggle with consistency. This is most pronounced in the two major parties.

Politicians today are pressured to adapt their views for so many things, be it public opinion, party solidarity, campaign funding, lobbying, other remunerations some above board, some not, and on and on. It's widely accepted that politicians largely yield to all these pressures and more. It seems a moral failing to me that we, as a people, elect and re-elect such politicians.

Libertarianism is different--it's consistent. Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about the Libertarian party. I'm talking about libertarianism (lower case 'l') as a philosophy.

It's tempting at the moment to explore the principles of libertarianism, but to stay true to the focus of this post, I'll try to only touch on them lightly. Actually, this last sentence holds the key to why I think libertarianism is consistent: it's not based on opinions and facts around issues, it's based on principles.

The principles that frame libertarian ideas are principles like non-aggression, agency, individual sovereignty, and the proper role of government.

When people discuss (or debate) political views, they often come up with "but then what about x-y-z?" When I tried to discuss the views I grew up with (classical Republican, so-called conservative), I found it hard to navigate without internal indicators going off saying "that's not quite a true representation of things."

When I first watched Republican debates with Ron Paul, I didn't yet agree with his ideas, but I was drawn to him because he obviously did not play the games that other politicians did. He was clear, and he was consistent. I'd laugh because, even though I didn't agree, I thought he made the other candidates look like laughing stocks! (Amusing considering many considered him the laughing stock. I now think that was a deliberately orchestrated tactic as it was the only one available to Republican party leaders who didn't like him.)

All this caused me much pause and reflection. As I heard more libertarian-type arguments in my discussions and listening, I found myself drawn to their consistency. After a time, I began to argue their point of view for the sake of testing out their ideas. As I did, I found my arguments more and more persuasive because I didn't have any of those alarm bells going off! The viewpoints (I wouldn't claim them as mine yet at that time) came out sound, time after time. I had concerns come up sometimes, some "but what about this situation?" type ideas, but with some thought, I was each time able to find a sound conclusion within libertarian ideas. By sound, I mean logically consistent.

Since then, I've studied more and have much yet to learn. Yet I've experienced enough to feel confident in saying that libertarian principles of government are morally, ethically, and logically sound.

Happy Wife, Happy Life... and, Happy Life, Happy Wife

Not long ago my nephew Nate got married to his beautiful bride, Rebecca. It was a lovely experience as weddings often are. At the luncheon, there was a time for open-mic to tell stories and give advice. I didn't offer any advice at that time, but it got me thinking, and here's what I would probably say if I had the chance to go re-live the experience.

Some people say "happy wife, happy life." While it holds some merit, this phrase is incomplete. Yes, "happy wife, happy life," but also, "happy life, happy wife."

Rebecca, when you met Nate, I'm pretty confident you weren't thinking along the lines of "oh, he's just so... pathetic! He has no hope in life of being happy or... anything unless I go save him from himself!" Mmmm... nope! And visa-versa, Nate, right?  You fell in love because the other person brought something to the relationship--they had something to offer that was attractive to you.

Nate, Rebecca's going to have a bad day sometimes. At least once a month is predictable, but probably more than that too, right? If you think it's your job to make her happy, then it won't take you long to become a failure. And visa-versa, this all goes both ways, right? Before long, when she has a bad day, you'll let it drag you down and you'll have a bad day too, because "if the doña ain't happy, nobody's happy." Right?

But what are you really doing? You're pushing the responsibility for your own happiness on to her. Pretty soon, she's going to resent that. She'll feel like she isn't allowed to have a bad day because if she does, then you will too, and it'll all be her fault. For the record... that's not very romantic!

So Nate, don't think it's your responsibility to make her happy, and don't think it's her responsibility to make you happy. It isn't. Your happiness is your own responsibility! It's something you generate, you create, and you bring it as an offering to your marriage. "Only when you're at home inside yourself do you have someplace good to invite your spouse to visit."*

When Rebecca has a bad day, of course you care for her--love is all about having an anxious concern for her well-being!** But you don't care for her by putting on your grumpy pants! You do it by holding on to your own self, your own happiness, without trying to force it on to her. Let her be grumpy! And you be happy. And when she's feeling better, she'll love you all the more for it.

And visa-versa.

* From Passionate Marriage by Dr. David Schnarch, p.180
** From quote: "True love is not so much a matter of romance as it is a matter of anxious concern for the well-being of one's companion." --Gordon B. Hinckley

Faith, Repentance, and The Gospel

Do you ever wish in your heart to draw closer to God? Do you wish it seemed easy?

I do. I desire this. Sometimes it seems easy, and often it seems afar off, but ultimately this is what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about.

John recorded the Savior saying "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (17:3)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie expounded “It is one thing to know about God and another to know Him. We know [the Father and the Son], in the sense of gaining eternal life, when we enjoy and experience the same things they do. To know God is to think what he thinks, to feel what he feels, to have the power he possesses, to comprehend the truths he understands, and to do what he does. Those who know God become like him, and have his kind of life!” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–73, 1:762.)

 I want to look at this idea for a moment-- to have God's kind of life. That seems so astounding! I believe achieving this all begins with two principles: faith and repentance.

In my attempt to illustrate this, I'll begin with a story.

Have you ever experienced wanting to pretend something didn't exist? Like dirty dishes, for example? And when no bowls are clean for your cereal, you grab a tupperware instead, all while never looking at the sink even as you go back again for the milk? It's like you cover your eyes or plug your ears and sing "la-la-la-la! I'm not liiiiiisteniiiiing!!" You simply didn't want to face it!

Well, when I was a young father, I had something like that, and it felt... heavy, and scary, and even wrong and bad. I didn't want to look at it, but I... I wasn't so sure I wanted to be a dad. It was a bit late for that, granted--I already had two kids! I was doing my best by them, but I hated it. Being a dad was hard, exhausting, unpleasant, distracting, and just didn't seem worth it! But at least I loved my kids... right? I was scared to admit to myself that I wasn't so sure.

Beliefs and Faith

It's my experience that we, as people, act as though what we believe is true regardless of its veracity.

Let's look at Lehi's family. After Lehi's dream in chapter eight, Nephi "desired to know the things that [his] father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto [him], as [he] sat pondering in [his] heart [he] was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord" and shown the vision. (1 Nephi 11:1)

But what about Laman and Lemuel? They were arguing about what some of their Dad's vision meant, and Nephi comes and asks "have ye inquired of the Lord?" Their response was "we have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us." (1 Ne 15:8-9)

I can only imagine what Nephi must have been thinking at this moment. I imagine his hands covering and pulling down on his face while thinking "are. you. freaking. KIDDING ME?! Y... y... YOU DIDN'T EVEN ASK!!!"

But of course they didn't ask. They didn't ask because they believed God wouldn't tell them. Regardless of the veracity of this, they acted as though what they believed was true. And was it? It was true because they made it so; it was a self -fulfilling prophecy.
(Do I know if God would have revealed it to them if they had asked? No, I don't personally, but 1 Nephi 10:18-19 answers that question sufficiently.)

So what do we have here? Well, Nephi acted according to his belief and Laman and Lemuel acted according to their belief. In other words, they each exercised faith and obtained the fruits thereof.

"If men were duly to consider themselves and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action in them; that without it both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental." --Joseph Smith Jr. (Lectures on Faith, Lecture First)

So what beliefs do you put faith in? Have you chosen into some, however unwittingly, that keep you from being like God? From having His kind of life? Of course you have. We all have.

For me, some of these beliefs were "fatherhood sucks," "my kids hold me back from doing what I want to do," "my kids prevent me from living my dreams," "I don't know how to be a dad," "my kids are only a burden," "being a dad isn't worth it," etc. etc. etc.

I didn't want to look at them though. One I particularly didn't want to look at was "the only way to show something's important to you is to get mad about it; if I'm not mad, I must not care." Yikes!

Beliefs about Self

Some of the most common beliefs that hold us down are related to how we see ourselves and our worth.

One of the core beliefs that church doctrine and culture try to pound into us is who we are. I am a child of God is perhaps our most well known hymn, young women recite "I am a beloved daughter of Heavenly Parents" each week, and the young men's theme begins similarly: "I am a beloved son of God."

And yet how common are the beliefs "I'm not good enough," "I can't do anything right," "I'm stupid/dumb/an idiot," "I'm worthless," "I'm a bad Mom," "I must be one of the worst fathers ever," etc.

Is this "think[ing] what [God] thinks" or "feel[ing] what He feels"? No, of course not. "But I'm not perfect like God yet," you might say, "my actions aren't like His yet." Agreed. But remember Joseph Smith's quote above? Your beliefs do not come from your actions; your actions stem from your beliefs. That's what faith is all about.

So consider President Monson's advice: “Don’t limit yourself and don’t let others convince you that you are limited in what you can do. Believe in yourself and then live so as to reach your possibilities. You can achieve what you believe you can. Trust and believe and have faith.” (Living the Abundant Life, Ensign, January 2012)

I mentioned my belief that "the only way to show something's important to you is to get mad about it; if I'm not mad, I must not care." Let's look at what putting faith into this belief, especially in already insecure context, looked like.

I was scared that I might not love my kids as I thought I should, so to prove to myself that I did, I essentially had to live mad at them. If I was mad at them, then I could feel okay about myself because surely I loved them. See how sick and twisted this can get? It's insane!

"The moving cause of all action" is faith. So when you do something, what beliefs are you exercising faith in?

Faith Unto Repentance

So far, we've talked about faith in a general sense, but the first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is not simply faith, it's "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Why?

What beliefs must you have in order to exercise faith in Jesus? Here are a few that come to mind:

1. He successfully performed the Atonement, paying the price for your sins
2. As the Mediator, He has set the terms of salvation and mercy
3. His terms include you trying to become like Him through the gift of repentance
4. Salvation is something desirable

Amulek invites us to "exercise your faith unto repentance" (Alma 34:17). How could we do this without these fundamental beliefs in Christ?

Repentance is often viewed as a way to shame ourselves out of wicked behavior into righteousness. This is a counterfeit. Even the idea of repenting of behavior is a misnomer. Actions are a result, not a cause. Repenting of actions is like avoiding getting wet while swimming by making the water less moist. Repentance isn't a behavior thing, it's a heart thing. We don't repent of actions, we repent of beliefs, which then may change behavior.

For me, this meant facing my beliefs about fatherhood.

It wasn't until I looked more deeply at my angry behavior and way of being that I realized the belief driving it. When I was able to put words to it, I realized that this idea of "the only way to show something's important to you is to get mad about it; if I'm not mad, I must not care," was ludicrous. But how to change it?

President Packer offered an insight when he said "I’ve had to evict some thoughts a hundred times before they would stay out. I have never been successful until I have put something edifying in their place." (October Conference 1977, The Balm of Gilead) 

So what could I replace it with? What could I do to show I care that could be just as, if not more effective than anger? It probably seems obvious to you, reader, but I had to labor over it some time before I realized that love was, quite literally in this case, the answer.

So I decided to adopt a new belief, a belief that said "the best way to show something's important to me is to show love about it." But the belief alone is insufficient, I needed to experiment upon the word, to exercise faith. I decided I would pour love into things that were important to me.

When kids color on the wall, show love. When they pour milk and cereal and hardly eat it and leave it out most the day -- show love. When poop gets everywhere! -- show love. When they are disobedient and defiant -- show love. This is putting faith into a new belief. This is putting faith unto repentance. This is what faith in Christ looks like in practice.

Repentance is not behavioral therapy, repentance is heart therapy.

Conclusion

President Uchtdorf said "seeing ourselves clearly is the beginning of wisdom." (General Conference, October 2014, Lord is it I?) We need Christ to see ourselves clearly. He is the courage giver, granting us the grace and strength to face ourselves! He is the hope giver so we can emotionally survive the experience! To change, we need Him; we need Him to become like Him.

So no, repentance is not about shame, it's about love, and if seeing ourselves clearly is the beginning of wisdom, then loving ourselves wholly is the beginning of accountability. In the words of Brad Wilcox, "it's not about earning heaven, it's about learning heaven." ( https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/brad-wilcox/his-grace-is-sufficient/ -- this, by the way, is one of the most amazing talks ever)

If the purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ is to help us become like Him, is it any wonder that faith and repentance are the first principles of the gospel?

I have a long, long way to go yet to learn the practices of divine fatherhood. So far, I've learned to deeply love and care for my children's well-being. I'm ever so humbled and grateful for the opportunity to be their father, and to continue learning how to be better at it.

What is a great marriage?

A great marriage is emotional connection and attachment.

It’s deeply beautiful that we each experience emotional connection and attachment in our own unique way, though this difference can often feel like a frustration.

Emotional connection and attachment is neither emotional dependence nor gridlock, which are the results of resisting the path to deeper emotional connection and attachment.

To more deeply obtain emotional connection and attachment with our spouse, we must choose it because we desire it, not because we fear losing it. The seeming paradox is that the capacity to make this choice is derived from our individual strength of character.

A functioning marriage pushes us toward deeper emotional connection and attachment which in turn pushes us to develop the individual character necessary to obtain it.

To take an account of one’s marriage, one might best seek evaluation on his or her own level of engagement in (or resistance to) this process.

There are many ways to resist. Common resistance techniques include spousal-blaming (if s/he would, then I would, but I can't, because s/he won't), avoidance (pretending it's not there, hoping that will make it eventually go away), entitlement (I shouldn't have to, it's not my responsibility), and despair (it's not worth it, I can't make it work no matter what I do).

There are many more forms of resistance -- which one is most common for you?

Is now the time to take a step in a new direction?

Conversations are Rivers, Especially Important Ones

Conversations are rivers, they flow and progress, each its own journey.

In any relationship, especially close, important ones, when you avoid a conversation, you dam a river, trying to not let any of it continue flowing.

If the conversation is important to either person or to the relationship at large, you will have to avoid more and more forcefully. Because the water keeps coming, you must keep building that dam higher and stronger.

However, the more you build, the more intense the pressure becomes, especially deep down.

It may be painful to let that river flow. There may be rapids, waterfalls, or uncomfortable turns along the way. Avoiding that pain is why you built the dam in the first place. But to what end?

Ultimately, there are only two possible results:
1) You create a spill way and start opening up the flow. That is, you stop avoiding. You begin having the hard conversations. You face the pain of self confrontation and growth that ensues.

Or

2) You build and build until finally the pressure is too much. The dam breaks, decimating, devastating, and wreaking havoc all over. Relationships destroyed, hearts broken, families torn apart.

That may sound overly dramatic and it may well be oversimplified, but it's frequency can not be overstated.

A Funny Paradox of Conscious Thought

I had a visionary hope when I was around 18 years old. Looking back, it seems almost cute!

My dream? To be conscious and deliberate with every single thought in my mind.

I had tried time and time again to do this! I don't know if my record lasted beyond an entire minute.

Approaching 19 years old, I received a calling to serve as a Christian missionary for two years. And so, boldly and naively, I decided that being a missionary would automagically (yes, that's a word now) grant me this skill! I would come home with the ability to maintain perfect control over my mind and thoughts at all times!

Aaaah dear. See what I mean? Almost cute.

While I've yet to achieve this lofty goal, I have learned some lessons along the way.

First and foremost, our thoughts are a choice. I can take conscious control of my brain at any moment and direct it to whatever thought I choose. I can choose to think about that book I just read or what ice cream flavor sounds really yummy to right this moment or about bird migration patterns! We can choose our thoughts.

Personally, I have not yet developed the ability to consciously focus all of my thoughts 100% of the time--not even close! But I'm not sure that's my goal anymore anyway. Instead, I want to have desired, positive thoughts even when I'm not consciously guiding them!

So what does guide our thoughts when we're not consciously controlling them? Please note, I'm not claiming scientifically researched answers here--my comments are anecdotal in nature.

I see two primary influences on our not-so-conscious conscious thought: neurological habit and belief system.

From my understanding of my light reading and study of the brain, our neuro-pathways can be likened to a ditch and our thoughts to the water flowing through it. Our most common thought patterns are like deeply dug trenches--well worn paths through which water naturally and easily flows.

However, we have the power to shift these neuro-pathways and create new ones. It takes some mental effort, just as digging a trench building a dam, and redirecting a stream or river takes physical effort! Without conscious, deliberate effort, our neurological habits create do not change.

Recent research has disproved an old idea that our brains, after a certain (young) age, could no longer change. We now know that our brains maintain neuro-pasticity--the ability to grow new pathways and change neuro-structure--even into old age.

So to reach my goal of positive thought even when I'm not intentionally directing them, I want to develop the neurological habits and pathways that will naturally create that result.

The second primary influence is our paradigm. Our paradigm is our belief system. This includes religious beliefs, self-esteem, culturally influenced beliefs, and so much more.  Like our thoughts, our beliefs are choices. Everything we believe has been, at some level and point in time, a choice.

If I believe the current President is a dud, this belief will influence my thoughts. If I believe monogamy is morally correct, this will influence my thoughts. If I believe I'm too dumb to succeed, this will influence my thoughts!

Okay... but so what?

Our thoughts create our lives.

"For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he." --Proverbs 23:7

Everything we create, our lives, our results, our joy, our suffering, all of it--it all begins with thought. Thought is the common denominator.

So if we can change our neurological habits, which we can, and if we can change our paradigm, which we can, then we can change our lives! We can create the lives we want! We can achieve what we desire... IF. IF we are willing to do what's required. IF we are willing to change our mindset and, as a result, our choices.

So no, I no longer have a goal of 100% competency in controlling my conscious thought. Instead, I have a goal of creating the life I want by developing 100% unconscious competency in conscious thought.

The Purpose of Education

What is the purpose of education?

I don't mean school, I mean education.

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain

What is education anyway? And what does it mean to be well educated?

I believe there is no one-size-fits-all answer for everyone.

"There is no one best way to do anything. . .There are as many best ways as there are creative minds." --Crawford H. Greenwald

And yet how often do we set expectations on what it means for anyone to be considered "educated?"

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” --Albert Einstein

Many of our judgments upon others are in reality rules we have for ourselves that we project onto those around us. So let's start with ourselves!

What does it mean for you to be educated? What is education even about for you?

A man who gave much of his life was clear in his own view as he expressed:

"Character is the aim of true education; and science, history and literature are but means used to accomplish this desired end. Character is not the result of chance, but of continuous right thinking and right acting.
"True education seeks to make men and women not only good mathematicians, proficient linguists, profound scientists, or brilliant literary lights, but also, honest men, with virtue, temperance, and brotherly love. It seeks to make men and women who prize truth, justice, wisdom, benevolence, and self-control as the choicest acquisitions of a successful life.
"It is regrettable that modern education so little emphasizes these fundamental elements of true character." --David O. McKay

For him, education was about the development of character!

What is it for you?

My answer for myself and, as a father, for my children until they leave, are five-fold:
1) Character -- Virtuous, Kind, Diligent, Respectful, Faithful, Etc.
2) Relationships -- With God, Self, Family, and Friends. Emotional intelligence. Etc.
3) Mission -- A sense of clarity and purpose about one's life's works
4) Scholarship -- Reading, Writing, History, Mathematics, Speaking, Etc.
5) Stewardship -- Financial intelligence, Health, Wellness, Generosity Etc.

As I seek to develop myself, I seek improvement in these five areas.

I've never arrived! I love growth! I love learning! I love change!

So what is it for you? What is the purpose of your education? And is it complete? If not, what's your next step?

Just What Is Intimacy?

How often have you heard someone use the word intimacy when what they really meant was sex?

It's as though there's a stigma on using the word sex, so we use the word intimacy to soften the blow or something.

Here's the problem -- they're not the same thing! 

Sex is sex. Intimacy is intimacy.

So what is intimacy if it's not sex?

Intimacy is letting someone see you see yourself.

Wha... Huh?

I like the word play of intimacy meaning into me, see.

Any time we include another in our own act of self-discovery, we create intimacy.

When we explore our own selves -- our minds, our hearts, our greatness, our imperfections, our desires, etc. -- and include another as we do so, we create intimacy.

When we take accountability to another, we create intimacy.

When we offer loving feedback, we create intimacy.

When we work together to find a solution that represents all party's true interests, we create intimacy.

Intimacy is thought of as an airy, romantic ideal, but true intimacy is often uncomfortable.

Intimacy is exploring the reality of you, and letting someone else join you on that journey.

What is Righteousness?

"Remember the greatness of the Holy One of Israel. Do not say that I have spoken hard things against you; for if ye do, ye will revile against the truth; for I have spoken the words of your Maker. I know that the words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken." (2 Nephi 9:40)

"Words of truth are hard against all uncleanness; but the righteous fear them not, for they love the truth and are not shaken."

Pondering this verse, does it imply that the righteous have no uncleanness? Nope. Does it imply that the truth may be less poignant or harsh upon the sins of the righteous as the sins of the unrighteous? Nope.

It occurs to me that two people may appear to have the same vices, the same outward sins, the same actions of error, and, for that matter, the same outward strengths, whilst one God would label righteous and the other wicked.

How so?

We all have sins. We all have weaknesses. We all worship the lies of Satan in one form or other. So why does one person get to be considered righteous and another not?

Because righteousness is a state of soul -- a state of heart, mind, and spirit.

When we receive reproach, do we take offense? When we are given correction, do we shun the messenger? Or are we willing to confront ourselves in a spirit of self-honesty and self-love?

President Uchtdorf said "seeing ourselves clearly is the beginning of wisdom." I add that, with that vision, loving ourselves wholly is the beginning of accountability.

The righteous "love the truth and are not shaken." Why? Because they love wisdom! They love to see themselves clearly! And they love themselves enough to take accountability in what they see. They desire to serve God and to fulfill His purposes for them on this earth.

When confronted, the righteous do not go into fight, flight, or freeze. Rather, they confront themselves and they grow.

May my heart be turned ever more toward righteousness day by day.

What Goes Around...

I've never felt such a motivation to be merciful. I almost shudder to think of how unmerciful I've been, am, and will yet be due to my inherently imperfect nature.

"For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored;" Alma 41:15

In common day speak, its saying "what goes around comes around," but I feel like the verse's language is more poignant.

Preceding it are these words: "see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy, justice, a righteous judgment, and good rewarded unto you again." (Alma 41:14, slightly modified for easier reading)

Something about this struck me right into the pit of my stomach. How much am I in need of mercy?! Oh so greatly! How much am I in need of grace? Infinitely!

Then it is to me to send out those things!

The more clearly I see myself, the more I see that I, a man, am nothing, while in the same breath boldly declaring that I am a son of the Most High.

I have so much to learn, so much I'll yet stumble over, so much mercy to depend on -- out of sheer survival I must needs extend great mercy! One of these things to learn is to more fully believe in myself.

How interesting it is that, the more I see my own nothingness, I may simultaneously see my greatness, my divine nature!

To recognize man, one's self included, as nothing is not abasing or self-deprecating. Rather, it recognizes one's divine nature, worth, and potential as well as that of others, and it extends mercy and grace. To be otherwise would be counterfeit.

Getting Burned

Warning: this post holds the potential to trigger many people. The content here is well outside our cultural norms. I'm okay with that. I invite you to be aware of what comes up for you and why.

Yesterday, I walked on fire, and I got burned. What's more, I am grateful for the experience and do not feel regret.

This is not my first fire-walk. I've done it before. In fact, on my first experience I walked across the glowing coals about four times and received no injury! Yes, I felt the heat of the coals, but my feet remained in perfect condition, albeit a little dirty. I expected the same again. In fact, I didn't believe I could get burned, even though the director said that, having done this hundreds of times, even he has on occasion been burned.

As I crossed the coals I was surprised to feel not just heat, but burning! I fell onto the rug placed on the other side in anguish! There was a bucket of cold water there and I immediately put my feet in it.

The water eased the pain quickly and felt oh so good! ...Until I pulled my foot out. The burn was there and it was strong!

After a time I put my socks on and then put my foot back in the water. I thought having the sock hold the water on my foot would help! It may have, but not much I don't think. Then I soaked my shoes and put them on. The pain would ease with the water, but only moments after, pain would surge! I began putting my feet, shoes and socks on, into the water bucket.

The pain was excruciating! It ebbed and flowed... and burned! Someone offered me some lavender oil which I took my shoes and socks back off to apply. It seemed to help for a few moments, but the burning quickly returned. I continued to soak my socked and shoed feet in the bucket.

A woman then commented to me, "you know, Matt, there are Priesthood holders here who could give you a blessing." That idea had started forming on its own, and her comment encouraged me. I sought out two friends and asked if they could administer to me. They did.

I don't remember a lot of what was said, but while the blessing was happening, I knew what I needed to do: I needed to go get medical attention.

At this point, the firewalk had been completed and everyone was being called over for an evening wrap-up and debrief. I knew I was not to stay, but go and get care.

There was a good bit of pride to swallow here, for me. I felt some measure of embarrassment and shame at the idea of telling health professionals "I walked across hot coals and got burned!" "Gee whiz there Sherlock, ya' think?!"

My dear wife also felt burns on her feet, but she seemed to be doing better than myself. We intended to go to InstaCare but realized it was closed, so we went to the emergency area at the hospital. As she drove, I broke down in tears and wails as the blistering burning sensation seared through my senses!

Upon arrival I sat down and got checked in and was in tears. They took my information and got me a wheelchair. Bonnie had dropped me off to get started and then she came in and got checked in as well.

There in the waiting room I was gripping the wheelchair sides breathing hard and weeping, trying not to ball out loud with perhaps only a small measure of success.

Soon they brought us back and we got my shoes and socks back off. The pain seemed to lessen with this, though part of it may have simply been the distraction of getting to interact with someone who was there to help me! I loved them! I just... loved them! I felt so grateful for them!

After initial vitals and being asked at least 3 times if we had any allergies to medications, we were taken back to a fast track room where I got on the bed and Bonnie sat in the chair next to me. I had numerous second degree burns on my feet and Bonnie some first degree burns.

The nurse (no, she wasn't technically a nurse, but I don't know what to call her and I don't care!) put some cream of some sort on my foot and something to hold it in place. My how it tickled!! I laughed and tried not to squirm! She seemed a bit surprised and amused!

Anyway, I'll cut this part short. We were well treated in every sense of the word. As we explained a few times what happened, Bonnie was awesome at being positive about it and even saying how awesome it was that we did it! She would tell them that getting burned this time was the perfect experience for us to learn the lessons that would best serve us to learn!

I leaned on that a lot. Her attitude helped me when, by myself, I would most likely have gone into shame and taken on the idea that what I had done was complete stupidity! I think this would have changed our entire visit at the hospital. Instead, it was a very positive one, we hit it off well with all the personnel, and we enjoyed very much our time there!

So... what's the point?

I mean, if we learned something, what was it? How about this one: don't walk across hot coals barefoot! That's stupid and you'll get burned!

We could choose that. But we're not.

Okay then... what? What was so important that you needed to go get second degree burns on your feet for?

That's not really a question I can answer. I don't feel to play the judge and, well, that's just not even a question for me. Making sense of something means trying to make it fit in your belief system. When we can't make sense of something, then we tend to dismiss it as stupid, senseless, or crazy. Either that or we make a change to our belief system, and though I believe its often helpful, this is less common it seems.

(We call it belief breakthrough, and actually I believe it is key in becoming more aligned with Divinity.)

So what I can say is that I've learned more about how to love myself unconditionally. I've let go of a lot of self-judgments that used to hang on me. I now see pain as neither good nor bad -- it simply is. Also, just because something is painful doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. Pain is a part of life -- we hurt and we get hurt -- and sometimes we choose it with good reason.

In fact, I learned a lot about pain, and I feel that my friend Kerstin explained it masterfully in her blog post.

I learned more about taking accountability and what that does and doesn't look like. I own my choice to walk on hot coals, and I own the consequence. Had it turned out like my first experienced where I was not burned, I would have owned the choice and consequence, so why should I not do so now that the consequence was different?

I believe in myself more profoundly now. This is not in the sense of  "I'm a tough guy, I can handle 2nd degree burns! That's nothin'!" Uh, no -- remember the part about me balling in the E.R. waiting room? Yeah, not very tough guy! LoL! No, this is more of a quiet confidence that stems, at least in part, from that greater sense of unconditional self-love and accountability.

To say I do not regret my choice is not to say I think I did the right thing, and that's also not to say I did the wrong thing. It's just a thing I did. It had a consequence. Yes, there is right and wrong in the world, there is good and evil, but sometimes things are good or bad only because we judge them to be.

After all, the only thing that exists in our world is our perception. What can we possibly experience that is not filtered through our perception? I believe that God is real, but all I know, read, or learn of Him is filtered through my perception.

This is true even of myself! All I experience of myself is my perception. What I believe about myself when I look in the mirror is all a perception.

I love my life. I love who I am! I love every bit of me! I own my choices and their consequences, even when they are not what I'd hoped. I have made choices I regret, but I own them just the same. Interestingly, the choices I regret are not usually because of the consequences attached thereto, but because I believe they were out of alignment with who I was and my understanding of goodness at the time.

I'm doing my best. I am incredibly imperfect! I have flaws galore! And -- such an important and -- I love myself, wholly and completely.

Update: A little miracle that has happened: the pain has subsided. The hospital staff told us the burns would continue to feel painful for the next couple days, even getting worse than what I'd felt so far. This did not excite me, as you might imagine. I took a single IbuProfen and headed home. I still have big blisters, but it's been about 30 hours now and I have experienced little to no pain since leaving the hospital. I am very grateful!

Love is more than an emotion

"Love is more than just an emotion; it's a verb." I've heard that so many times, but I don't know that I've ever felt like its meaning has really reached me.

Is love really a feeling?

I know what it is to feel loved. It's wonderful, really. It feels great!

To feel love, on the other hand... well, I'm not so sure. There are times I've thought "I love her so much, I'd do anything for her!" Seeing myself more clearly now, I realize that what I was really saying was "I'd do anything to get her love." That's not loving someone, that's simply a business transaction!

To feel love for someone, yes, it's a feeling, even a motivating feeling, but it's not a give-to-get, or even any kind of a get feeling. It's simply a genuine interest, even a commitment, to someone's success.

There are times when I'm in a romantic mood and hope I can get my wife to swoon over me, and too often that is mistaken for feeling love or in love. In fact it seems to have the dog by the tail -- it is the emotion of wanting to feel loved, not of wanting to love!

Love is a motivator of unconditional giving. Love does not ask "what's in it for me?" Love asks, "how can I assist you in obtaining your success?" Sometimes the loving thing to do is not always the most pleasant.

It is thence clear why Daring Greatly author Brene Brown says "we can only love others as much as we love ourselves." Just as a person with no food for himself can not provide food for others, so a person who does not love him/herself can not love others. Who would dare reach to a level of vulnerability with another beyond that which they will tolerate by themselves?

Notably, self-love does not lead to selfishness; self-love is not pride but the essence of humility. Seeing ourselves clearly is the beginning of wisdom; with this vision, loving ourselves wholly is the beginning of accountability.

How much self-love can I own if someone calls me out on my shortcomings and I can simply say "thank you, I know." How much loving space can I then hold for such a person?

In the Savior's perfect and infinite love for us, a love which led Him to and through the Atonement, Death, and Resurrection, He also loves Himself.

We would do well to love ourselves and thus become more accountable and content.

Yes, love is a feeling, but it is oh so much more!

A Little Poem

In every day
there is time for work
and time for play.

There is no chronology
required to say
which comes first
or in what way.

But when one finds
the end result
is not what was in mind,

then surely look
and be not blind,
toward the work
one was not sufficiently kind.

Temper costs too much

Temper sabotages in insisting its claim be worth any cost, by which one vastly overpays.