A couple posts ago, I said I was going to look up some terminology, then explain why the "Why are you Mormon?" question is so hard for me. Well, I looked and could not find the terminology - if I still have the notes from that class, I'm not sure where they are. If it was in a textbook, I didn't save that one. I looked for online syllabuses and class notes from the classes I thought might be applicable, but couldn't find anything helpful. And I tried searches on a couple general search engines and on Google Scholar, but didn't find anything.
I bet I could have found something with Google if I had remembered the terms I was looking for.
So I'm going to forget the terminology and just try to explain the idea myself.
In one of my college psych classes,we talked about how people make decisions about their lives. You can organize the decision-making process with a sort of rubrik with four possible outcomes. So across the top, there are two options - if you have chosen or not. Down the side are two different options - if you have explored your options or not. So the four possible outcomes are having decided without exploring options, undecided without exploring options, decided having explored the options, and undecided having explored the options. The most optimal outcome is having made a decision after exploring your options.
When we were discussing this in class, I felt a little uncomfortable. Because I thought that in my life, I really hadn't explored all the different religions out there - I settled into the first religion I was exposed to. And according to the theory, just settling into a decision without first exploring is pretty bad. I eventually came to the conclusion that I was alright - that I had made a conscious decision, not just going along with what my parents chose for me. I prayed about it, and I got my answer. So it really wasn't -fill in word for that outcome-.
But when thinking about what to put for why I'm a Mormon, I am a little concerned that when I say I've been Mormon all my life, I will give the impression that is the reason I am. I want to get across that I made an active choice. But I'm not sure if I can.
On an unrelated note, Santa brought me my tiger this Christmas.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Developing
A while ago I read an article in Scientific American talking about rates of cancer in developed countries (I believe they were referring to Europe and North America) versus developing countries (specifically mentioned were Egypt, Brazil, and Nigeria).
As I understand it, when people talk about developed countries, they mean countries that have achieved, or developed to, a certain point. Developing countries are progressing to that point. I'm not sure exactly what that cut-off is, and am not even sure that there is a real fixed marker. If anyone knows for sure where the cutoff is, feel free to enlighten me.
But when I read the article, the terms seemed, briefly, to be saying that the developing countries are still climbing and growing and achieving new things. Developed countries, however, are done and are just stagnating. I know that isn't what was meant. And that isn't actually the case. But the thought did grab hold of me for about one second.
As I understand it, when people talk about developed countries, they mean countries that have achieved, or developed to, a certain point. Developing countries are progressing to that point. I'm not sure exactly what that cut-off is, and am not even sure that there is a real fixed marker. If anyone knows for sure where the cutoff is, feel free to enlighten me.
But when I read the article, the terms seemed, briefly, to be saying that the developing countries are still climbing and growing and achieving new things. Developed countries, however, are done and are just stagnating. I know that isn't what was meant. And that isn't actually the case. But the thought did grab hold of me for about one second.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Mormon.org
For the past couple of weeks I've been working on setting up a profile on Mormon.org. It took me a while to decide to do it, and even after deciding I've been taking my time about it, because I don't really like being so public. I don't really want to throw my name and face out there for anybody and everybody to see worldwide. It actually bothers me a little knowing that people can click through to here from other people's blogs. And I know they do because I look at my blog stats. And if I have friends in Hong Kong and Argentina, two of the countries where somebody has looked at this site from, then a couple somebodies haven't been keeping me very updated about their lives.
But the Mormon.org feels even more exposed than that somehow. Probably because there's that lack of a friend-to-friend link.
Anyway, there are certain sections in the profile that you have to fill out before making it public. Some of them were pretty easy - name (they don't allow you to use your full name, which I like), ethnicity, and previous religious background required no real thought. About Me and How I Live My Faith required some thought, but not too bad. I hesitated about uploading my picture, but I found one I liked okay and made myself go ahead with it.
But I'm still having trouble figuring out exactly what to say for Why I am Mormon. I'll probably write a bit more about this later, because to really describe my thought process will require me to look up a little terminology that I have forgotten and because this post is long enough already.
But the Mormon.org feels even more exposed than that somehow. Probably because there's that lack of a friend-to-friend link.
Anyway, there are certain sections in the profile that you have to fill out before making it public. Some of them were pretty easy - name (they don't allow you to use your full name, which I like), ethnicity, and previous religious background required no real thought. About Me and How I Live My Faith required some thought, but not too bad. I hesitated about uploading my picture, but I found one I liked okay and made myself go ahead with it.
But I'm still having trouble figuring out exactly what to say for Why I am Mormon. I'll probably write a bit more about this later, because to really describe my thought process will require me to look up a little terminology that I have forgotten and because this post is long enough already.
Bread and Water
When I was very young, I looked forward to taking the sacrament. Not because I was particularly holy, but because I saw it as a mid-meeting snack, and I liked snacks. I don't think I'm particularly unusual in this.
During sacrament meeting today, I realized that I feel a bit more of a focus on the sacrament on fast Sundays. And I started to wonder if this was a good thing or a bad thing. As a general rule, does my extra attention to the sacrament on fast Sundays help me get more out of sacrament meeting, or am I busy thinking about the food as an opportunity to eat that I focus less on the atonement than usual?
During sacrament meeting today, I realized that I feel a bit more of a focus on the sacrament on fast Sundays. And I started to wonder if this was a good thing or a bad thing. As a general rule, does my extra attention to the sacrament on fast Sundays help me get more out of sacrament meeting, or am I busy thinking about the food as an opportunity to eat that I focus less on the atonement than usual?
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Jolly Old St. Nicholas
Last night was our ward Christmas party. We were told over the pulpit to come in our pajamas, but most of the adults didn't. Sinners.
Anyway, we had the usual dinner, then the Taylorsville Madrigals came and did their program. I mouthed the words to a lot of the songs, but there were a couple new ones I didn't know, too. And then Santa came.
After the party was over, I felt a twinge of wrongness about the Santa thing. Every so often the idea of having such big institutionalized lies bothers me a little. Especially when it's supported at church. But at the same time, I think that Santa and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy bring a lot of fun to childhood, and will probably do them for my own children.
And then I remembered something else that has bothered me about Santa. The gift requests. No, not the making of the requests. But that you write a big letter to Santa telling him everything you want for Christmas, but then when you sit on his knee at the mall or at the ward Christmas party, he asks you what you want. Shouldn't he know from the letter? I'm not sure when I first thought of this, but I'm pretty sure at least once I purposefully told him something I left off of my letter to keep from being redundant.
More recently, though, I've felt like the child in the song Jolly Old St. Nicholas, who says in the last line, "Choose for me, dear Santa Claus, what you think is best." I don't really have a lot of real material desires. Sure, I enjoy new books and movies, but I have a library card that serves me very well. And I can listen to music online. And a lot of the time, I don't even remember what it was that looked good by the time my birthday or Christmas comes around. So I eventually created a file on my computer to list things I liked, so I could later pull from that list to make my gift request lists and give my family something to work with.
There are a couple things that have been in my letters for Santa for a very long time out of tradition. I've been asking for a Gameboy since I was about six, and don't intend to stop. And I've been requesting a tiger for a few years now. This year, I'm adding a sonic screwdriver. And it just may become one of those traditional items. But maybe not.
Anyway, we had the usual dinner, then the Taylorsville Madrigals came and did their program. I mouthed the words to a lot of the songs, but there were a couple new ones I didn't know, too. And then Santa came.
After the party was over, I felt a twinge of wrongness about the Santa thing. Every so often the idea of having such big institutionalized lies bothers me a little. Especially when it's supported at church. But at the same time, I think that Santa and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy bring a lot of fun to childhood, and will probably do them for my own children.
And then I remembered something else that has bothered me about Santa. The gift requests. No, not the making of the requests. But that you write a big letter to Santa telling him everything you want for Christmas, but then when you sit on his knee at the mall or at the ward Christmas party, he asks you what you want. Shouldn't he know from the letter? I'm not sure when I first thought of this, but I'm pretty sure at least once I purposefully told him something I left off of my letter to keep from being redundant.
More recently, though, I've felt like the child in the song Jolly Old St. Nicholas, who says in the last line, "Choose for me, dear Santa Claus, what you think is best." I don't really have a lot of real material desires. Sure, I enjoy new books and movies, but I have a library card that serves me very well. And I can listen to music online. And a lot of the time, I don't even remember what it was that looked good by the time my birthday or Christmas comes around. So I eventually created a file on my computer to list things I liked, so I could later pull from that list to make my gift request lists and give my family something to work with.
There are a couple things that have been in my letters for Santa for a very long time out of tradition. I've been asking for a Gameboy since I was about six, and don't intend to stop. And I've been requesting a tiger for a few years now. This year, I'm adding a sonic screwdriver. And it just may become one of those traditional items. But maybe not.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Reading Responses
When your typical day involves spending between 4 and 5 hours riding or waiting for buses and trains, it's pretty easy to find time to read. So I've done a lot of reading since this April. And a couple of books that I read last month have been demanding that I make mention of them on here.
The first is a book that I've been trying to read since I bought it as a recommended book for a class I took Fall of 2006. It normally doesn't take me anywhere near 4 years to read a book, especially of this length - it's only about 160 pages. But this one, Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition by Barbara J. Risman, was tough because it is based on an assumption that I just cannot get behind. In fact, it goes completely against what I believe to be true. The underlying belief of this book is that we, as a society, need to move beyond gender - that any difference between the sexes beyond basic anatomy is something that we need to get rid of. And it is hard work to read something that directly challenges deeply held convictions, such as that gender is good, right, necessary, and eternal.
There is a lot I could talk about here. She does include some pretty interesting studies, mostly with very solid methodology, and I could discuss what I think of her measures and results. Or I could try to evaluate what exactly I think gender is, because most of her measures I don't really consider accurate reflections of the real differences between masculinity and femininity. But I also can't figure out, if those measures aren't the difference, what is.
But what struck me most is her reasoning behind wanting a post-gendered society. In her introduction, she says, "Although some foraging societies may have had both a gender-based division of labor and near equality of men and women, such a scenario is unlikely in a post-industrial society, where ideology dictates that social position be based on achievement." She herself acknowledges that it is, or has been, possible to have gender divisions and at least near-equality. But there has never been a time in human history where gender was not an important structure in organizing society. So why this insistence on moving beyond gender? Wouldn't it be at least as easy to change society's view to see an equal value in "women's work"? After all, she herself says in the forward "The most important lesson I have learned, and from my mother, is that our post-gender families must elevate the traditionally female values of nurturing and homemaking above all else - for it is this work, what women have always done, that turns isolated individuals into families and communities, brick and mortar in hearth and home, and gives meaning to our lives." When she argues that the work traditionally done by men has greater prestige than that done by women, then says that the traditional women's contributions should be elevated above men's, I see the possibility of making them equal.
The other book I need to talk about is Lost Horizon by James Hilton. I actually did read this before but, oddly for me, remembered nothing other than the most basic ideas behind it. So it was a lot like reading it for the first time.
Before moving on, I must warn you that there may be spoilers coming.
From everything I've heard and read, Shangri-La is supposed to be a utopia. But in reading this book, I found it to be really disturbing. The main reason is probably that nobody is allowed to leave. It doesn't matter how nice the place is - if you can't leave, it is more prison than paradise. And that's the way things are in Shangri-La. And to add to it, they bring people in without warning them of this condition beforehand. Maybe it wasn't quite so bad when they were dealing with lost mountaineers who would have died anyway, but Conway's group was kidnapped for the very purpose of forcing them to come and stay.
Then the knowledge that when someone leaves the mountain they age drastically to where they would have been without the life-preserving properties of the mountain adds a little more creepiness to the situation.
I can see some of the appeal in the place, don't get me wrong. To have so much time to devote to little studies and hobbies and projects that you couldn't do in the regular world does have its draw. But I would still rather live a short life, maybe even in as confined an area, just to have the knowledge that I chose it.
The first is a book that I've been trying to read since I bought it as a recommended book for a class I took Fall of 2006. It normally doesn't take me anywhere near 4 years to read a book, especially of this length - it's only about 160 pages. But this one, Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition by Barbara J. Risman, was tough because it is based on an assumption that I just cannot get behind. In fact, it goes completely against what I believe to be true. The underlying belief of this book is that we, as a society, need to move beyond gender - that any difference between the sexes beyond basic anatomy is something that we need to get rid of. And it is hard work to read something that directly challenges deeply held convictions, such as that gender is good, right, necessary, and eternal.
There is a lot I could talk about here. She does include some pretty interesting studies, mostly with very solid methodology, and I could discuss what I think of her measures and results. Or I could try to evaluate what exactly I think gender is, because most of her measures I don't really consider accurate reflections of the real differences between masculinity and femininity. But I also can't figure out, if those measures aren't the difference, what is.
But what struck me most is her reasoning behind wanting a post-gendered society. In her introduction, she says, "Although some foraging societies may have had both a gender-based division of labor and near equality of men and women, such a scenario is unlikely in a post-industrial society, where ideology dictates that social position be based on achievement." She herself acknowledges that it is, or has been, possible to have gender divisions and at least near-equality. But there has never been a time in human history where gender was not an important structure in organizing society. So why this insistence on moving beyond gender? Wouldn't it be at least as easy to change society's view to see an equal value in "women's work"? After all, she herself says in the forward "The most important lesson I have learned, and from my mother, is that our post-gender families must elevate the traditionally female values of nurturing and homemaking above all else - for it is this work, what women have always done, that turns isolated individuals into families and communities, brick and mortar in hearth and home, and gives meaning to our lives." When she argues that the work traditionally done by men has greater prestige than that done by women, then says that the traditional women's contributions should be elevated above men's, I see the possibility of making them equal.
The other book I need to talk about is Lost Horizon by James Hilton. I actually did read this before but, oddly for me, remembered nothing other than the most basic ideas behind it. So it was a lot like reading it for the first time.
Before moving on, I must warn you that there may be spoilers coming.
From everything I've heard and read, Shangri-La is supposed to be a utopia. But in reading this book, I found it to be really disturbing. The main reason is probably that nobody is allowed to leave. It doesn't matter how nice the place is - if you can't leave, it is more prison than paradise. And that's the way things are in Shangri-La. And to add to it, they bring people in without warning them of this condition beforehand. Maybe it wasn't quite so bad when they were dealing with lost mountaineers who would have died anyway, but Conway's group was kidnapped for the very purpose of forcing them to come and stay.
Then the knowledge that when someone leaves the mountain they age drastically to where they would have been without the life-preserving properties of the mountain adds a little more creepiness to the situation.
I can see some of the appeal in the place, don't get me wrong. To have so much time to devote to little studies and hobbies and projects that you couldn't do in the regular world does have its draw. But I would still rather live a short life, maybe even in as confined an area, just to have the knowledge that I chose it.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Get the Basics, and Hustle
While watching a football game one day, my friend Sean made a comment about how the coaches usually say the same things in their halftime interviews, usually focusing on very basic things. And I thought that was a lot like the way things go at church. When it comes down to it, we always need to focus on the basics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)