Unthinkable

As some of you are aware, I spend a lot of time watching movies. Since I don't usually choose what is to be watched, we often watch 'R' rated movies minus anything with nudity. Recently we watched 'Unthinkable' with Samuel L. Jackson. The point of the movie was to take a personal inventory as to how you feel about torturing terrorists. The terrorism took place within the United States and the suspect had information involving three planted nuclear bombs in very populous cities. The terrorist happened to be a United States citizen with a wife and two children. So, 4 lives versus millions is what it boils down to for the high ranking individuals tasked to save us from terror. The movie also implied that if the three bombs did go off, we would be faced with a Constitution-less nation and government. So, 4 individuals vs. millions plus the United States as we know it. Where does one draw the line? The spectrum ranges from a zero tolerance to torture policy all the way to a zero tolerance for terrorism policy (do whatever necessary to get answers). What is at stake? Our morality as a nation vs. our freedoms and potentially our lives. Why our morality? Is it against our moral code to torture someone to confess something in order to save many innocent lives? What about the conviction that we have the best possible government at this time? How far are we willing to go to ensure the Constitution stays intact? (In a way, allowing torture, especially of an American citizen goes directly against the Constitution). The reasoning was the fact that the threat included a very short timeline for the bombs to detonate. There was literally no time for due process. The suspect deliberately allowed himself to be turned in to prove a point about torture, yet it didn't make that apparent in the movie, only to the movies audience. Everyone involved would be able to keep things quiet from public knowledge, so that part didn't make sense to me. In any case, it is something to think about I suppose.

The Complete Realist

“No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down.

“A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because he was the only man who never yielded to temptation, is also the only man who knows to the full what temptation means–the only complete realist.”

- C.S. Lewis, from Mere Christianity

I love this quote very much, but what gets me thinking is the last line in it. Christ has been called many things, but this, 'complete realist' title is quite different and less popular. To me, there is much to contemplate in this idea and I am far from getting to the real chunk of the iceberg under the water. For now, the idea is straight from the dictionary: Jesus represents things how they really are. This is interesting to me. I have no idea what temptation means. First, we learn that we have no idea what suffering means compared to Christ. Now we learn that we have no idea what temptation means compared to Christ, not to mention what love means, or aligning our will and lives perfectly with Father....the list goes on. It also makes you wonder what other dimension is added to our quest toward Godhood: to know what temptation truly means.

Strabismus-less

As well as we could take pictures of it, these are post surgery pics of Orson.
In person and up close, his eyes looked very creepy with all the blooshot in them. They have since died down a bit. He went in for a follow-up and the doc is very pleased with not only the progress, but the complete lack of Strabismus in his eyes.

My first bike at 30 years old.

So here is my bike. 1982 Suzuki GS 650 GL. Really good condition for its age. I rode it through the Springs which was a big deal for me. All I have done previous to this was ride around the quiet roads of Bountiful, Utah.
I figured it was also a good time to put pics up on my blog since it is visually barren thus far....not that these are aesthetically appealing to anyone but me.
Anyway...Now I have to get the course accomplished so I can get motorcycle on my license and be able to ride to work.

A good article I ran across.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11971

Linear Time.

I very well may have posted on this topic before, but it has been on my mind and I need to clear some space in my tiny brain.
Everyone is familiar ( I would hope) with the concept, 'I wouldn't change the past, it has made me into who I am today'. Well you guessed it, that concept bugs me and I don't like it. The past is a complicated thing to talk about because you can't change it, so you have to live with the life you have created or live with 'the hand you have been dealt'. However you look at the things that shape our lives, we cannot change what is behind us. We thus comfort ourselves by saying that we love who we are, where we've come, the hardships we've survived....blah blah blah. Even though we can't change the past, I don't think we should take this approach. I hate a lot of my life. I regret much. I wish I could do it over. I would 'fix' many things 'wrong' with what I am today. I bet a lot of people would. I think I could have gone through many things to learn many lessons without having to go through what I went through to learn anything. All I have learned is how much I hate much of my history.

Yet I do not dwell on this. I don't mope around wishing. I don't sit and daydream about what could have been. I realize I have to look forward. I realize I have a certain hand which came to me by my choices and maybe by outside influences. I can't get up and walk away from the game. I can't call any timeouts. The beauty of this game too is that you have no competitors. You are playing for a better hand. Once you succeed, you play for a better hand again. You should not settle for a straight when you know you could get a flush.

Anyway. One reason I don't like people saying things that vocalize this concept is that the person saying it presumes to know that their life wouldn't be as appealing to themselves if they didn't get such a bad hand. You cannot change what you have become, but you don't have to concede that what you have become is irreplaceable or the most desirable. If you HAD lived differently, in a better way, I doubt you would say that you wished for harder times to make who you are today better. Another thought: I think for the most part that the people you catch expressing this concept aren't necessarily in hard times. They have either had it good all their life, have risen up from hard times, or their testimony is destructively, hopelessly optimistic. In the face of the very jaws of hell their entire lives, some people will smile, bounce along, and not allow it to effect them. To these people, I direct them to the local pharmacy for there is much more going on that is dangerous than meets the eye.

So there you have it. I regret much of my life and much of the decisions I have made. I don't dwell on the past for I cannot change it, but I know I could be a much better person if it weren't for the things in my past that I regret. I know I can change my life now and for the future, but you can never make up lost time, no matter how you look at it. The past is the past and you can't make it up. You can fool yourself into thinking you can, but in the end, the marathon you didn't run isn't going to help you because you just ran two.

Satan's Plan.....modified.

I often wonder about the spirit child once called Lucifer, son of the morning. Great potential, I am sure at one point very close to his slightly older brother and other siblings and his Father. I can imagine everything going wrong with him when favor fell on Jesus, the firstborn. Maybe this fueled his contempt for Father and how Lucifer wanted neither of them to have privilege and power. Is this where it came from? Ambition and selfishness? Surely he must have been smarter than that, yet could emotion do that much to us without a physical body? As a son of the morning with so much potential, I find it hard to believe Lucifer believed his plan could work, except for one thing. Lucifer succeeded in gathering a following of 33%. I know presidencies have been lost with much greater percentages, but we aren't talking Democrat vs. Republican. We are talking our second estate. We are talking about the potential of God losing his glory.

Does that say something about God, or does it say something about his plan? Right now I am thinking the plan is pretty crappy, but I am subduing my universalism a bit. Surely all is not lost ad infinitum for 33/100 of our spirit brothers and sisters who thought Lucifer had something. We have all undoubtedly fought for something under misdirection or misinformation. I can't see how we could have battled it out in the war of heaven under half-truths though.

This all brings me to my running theme this summer. I have heard one scripture twice this week in two different settings, completely unrelated to each other. Found in Ether, it is the familiar, 'I give men weakness so that they may become humble...' What struck me was that first phrase: I give men weakness. Really? I understand the concept, but is that a little off sounding if you think about it too much? We talk about all the gifts God gives us before we came and during our lives here. What about the anti-gifts? What about those things called weaknesses? Did God give King David a sexual weakness so that he may become more humble after he fell? A man learns humility through relying on God and the Atonement to become strong. All men fall. Do all men fall in part because God gave us these weaknesses? I am willing to bet that this scripture does not apply to Jesus. God also knew that after losing 33/100 children to outer darkness, he would continue to 'lose' children to lower kingdoms where, we are currently taught, that there is no progress - you are damned. By the numbers, it doesn't seem very successful. (Enter Universalism).

All I want is to be with my family and get away from all the sadness in the world and go back home. Given the perspective that this life is merely a glimpse, I am willing to bet the drug addict, the serial killer, the abused orphan that steals on the streets, the prostitute....all want the same thing more or less. Yet the plan doesn't teach us this. Yes the Atonement heals. Yes people will be raised to perfection and 'happiness'. Yet they don't get their Father back except temporally.

So I was thinking about all this and about the pathetic times in our lives when we just want to give up.....or....
Instead of giving up, do you ever want to just be led? In pre-earth we are led. As children we are led. We are given boundaries and crayons, or a yard and we grew and played. At the end of the day we were that much more god-like just as happy, and safe in mommy's and daddy's arms. Aside from the fact that this concept destroys faith, I often wonder if it could be done a bit different. Laman and Lemuel saw angels all the time and yet fought vehemently against the scoldings they received from them.

I have been having dreams of my dad of late. I can't parallel it to any reasoning in my current life for having them, but I have had a few in the last few weeks about random memories. I went to work at the bishops storehouse for him in one. They were pleasant dreams. I miss him, as I am sure most would in a similar situation. I would miss my children even more after such a brief time being with them. The bond my dad had to me, I can therefore presume was stronger than the one I had with him. Yet that is the closest thing I have aside from the veiled sentiments of pre-earth relationships.

One thing that softens the blow of this plan: The supposed length of time we are here. So many of Father's children crumble under the strain of mortality, I could not bear to witness it for much more than a few seconds. The statistical perspective on the plan is just so overwhelming. Maybe I'll go watch a movie that makes me cry over somebody's pure love or some crap like that.

Times of need.

A post by another got me thinking. Popular thought is that Father reaches out to us during our greatest time of need. Why is that such a popular idea? I suppose it provides comfort and we can talk ourselves through many situations that we struggle with if this idea is in our head. Yet is that healthy? If we look to Christ for an example, we see that Father actually withdrew his support from Christ during his greatest time of need. If we expect support from Father when we need him most, and that support or help doesn't come, what interpretation can we gather from that? How is our testimony impacted? If I trust in something to occur, and it doesn't occur, then my trust was misplaced and now gone.
Then comes the question of what is help from Father? If you are quite flexible with the answer, then I suppose the health of one's testimony may be robust. We must therefore be careful in specifying certain perspectives. I for one would say that Father allows liberal help to come under very liberal circumstances, yet does withdraw from time to time for our own benefit and for the sake of the supreme gift, that all other gifts give heed: moral agency. Yes, even the Atonement gives heed to this gift, given to all that have kept their first estate. It is quite interesting this plan of ours. As a mortal father, I would never think to do this to my children...then again, I don't rule any universes, even the one at 5756 Red Onion Way.

Follow Up

As a follow up to my last post, I wanted to empty my head further on human suffering. Much of what we learn in a religious setting applies to how we react to others and the curve balls of life. Do we stiffen our backs or crumble under the wind? Then there is the concept that, 'God doesn't give us anything we can't handle'. I am not sure I believe that either. To keep things clear, I believe Father is more compassionate and merciful than we give Him credit for. I merely think our perspective on things is limited. Keeping moral agency out of the equation, and only considering 'fate' 'luck' or one's 'fortune', I fail to see how the aforementioned concept holds water. Father, it seems, often doesn't take into consideration the object acted upon while allowing moral agency of the actor. This is not to say that Father is mean or cold. Again, it is our limited perspective on things. I have been thinking more and more about the big picture, and more and more am I leaning toward this and this and this. These things, for me, help explain the mercy and love Father has for his children. Although they present problems of their own and the doctrines aren't mentioned in public church settings, they can be found, alive and well.

They give me hope. They allow me to stiffen in the wind rather than crumble. Everyone seems to have a breaking point. It is finding something else to lean on when you think it's too much to handle that is key for me.
I realize life isn't fair. My dad reminded me of this from day one, on up to day 10,384, or thereabouts. I also realize everyone has a different blueprint to follow. Father intended it to be this way. Yet I cannot dismiss the possibility of a loving Father allowing a child to live a full mortal life in a second chance when the first one was snubbed out as a baby. Yes, this mortal experience is hell. Yes, babies who die after receiving a body are automatically celestialized. Yet I must interject and dismiss yet again another popular concept: 'Father loved these children too much to allow them a prolonged mortal life.' On the contrary, you may argue the opposite being true: Father loves me so much that he has spared my life time and again, and not just for those mortals close to me. Either way you look at it: Reincarnation or One Life to Live, mortality is more of a blessing than merely receiving a body....except for the suffering of helpless children. Sins against children would seem to condemn one to hell, yet in this very post it seems I don't believe in that condemnation in the traditional sense.

What is it about perspective? What is it about this frail mind of ours that grabs at straws? Thank the heavens that we are not in charge, allowing mortal weaknesses to play into judgments passed on sinners. I may break down at the suffering of children, but I realize that there should not be direct application of those emotions toward the evildoer. Our perspective is limited, as is our love and mercy and capacity to experience proper or maximum emotions.

The beginning of my end...

29 June 2010

I don’t presume to know much about the atrocities that occur on a daily basis by the hand of humanity. I haven’t been exposed to it first-hand or even the literature on the matter. The half-second glimpses and summarized horror stories I have heard or been privy to cut through me like darkness that seems to have come directly from the gates of hell. It passes through me like I am leaves on a tree, but then it lingers as though the sun had set for the last time. I thank whatever controls my fate to have blinded me to these gross abuses, for knowing more, I would not know the negative impact it would have on me. The evil in the world and in my life that I do experience has created a cynicism that seems to be a subconscious shroud over my emotions.

30 June 2010

Currently I am not overwhelmed with a state of sadness or depression to have me contemplate leaving mortality or hiding away in a dark room. Yet when I hear of the horrors mortality can produce – namely sins against the innocent specifically – it makes me wonder. I wonder about my perspective on the big picture. The numbers are too disproportionate to be acceptable to me. I understand the concept of interpreting evil and sorrow into something that can strengthen your testimony, but there seems to be a limit. If we just look at the porn industry: the majority of porn stars come from sexual abuse, only to relive their abuse and get exploited for it by the pornographers. Child abuse is one of the worst evils one can think of. To prey upon the innocent and weak, to permanently damage body and spirit, to deepen the cycle of abuse, damage, production of the next generation of abusers. The sorrow from merely knowing this cycle seems unbearable. To then wade into this filthy body of water to try and help, one seems to be irreversibly connected and transformed to and by the black sludge that stains everything it comes in contact with.

So about my perspective. Am I missing something? I used to be sad for others who get mad at God for these sorrows on earth. I used to wish they could have my perspective and how the gospel and the plan only helps strengthen my testimony that everything works within God’s design. I am beginning to question my own perspective. Maybe I am just reaching a point either in my life or in knowledge that is a limit to how much I can handle pertaining to what the devil is capable of. I fear this is the tip of the iceberg and I don’t think I can handle any more of it. I don’t want to know anymore about this place and what evils it can produce. I just want to know of the good things. I know this cannot be and I am scared. I don’t know how to build up a protection against it. I don’t know how to handle such terrifying facts. I don’t want my children here to be exposed to it. These things no one that kept their first estate deserves to be subject to. Lying, cheating, stealing, physical abuse, starvation, wars… I can accept these. I don’t understand why the children have to be involved. There is nothing anyone can say to me to convince me or put my mind and my heart at ease that sins against children are a way to condemn people, a way to strengthen testimony, or a way to show how others can give compassion and healing. No. There is plenty of pain and sorrow in the world for all those things. I understand God giving variety to the world through the living things, but why allow variety in sin in these ways? It is not only unfair, it is unacceptable to me.