For some reason, I've been thinking lately about an LDS romance novel I read years ago. I can't remember the title or author and can't find that information online. I do remember the plot, including many minor details. But most of that doesn't really matter.
What does matter for my purposes, and what I've mainly thought about it (besides trying to remember the title and author because it bothers me that I can't), is that the main character, Sydney, is reading through the Book of Mormon, one chapter a day. And every day, she tries to apply what she reads into her life. When she comes across a chapter and can't quite embrace the message she is getting from it, she rereads that chapter the next day. And the next. And the next. She does not move on to the next chapter until she feels that she is really improving in that area (I feel like it had something to do with hope, but I'm not 100% on that).
As I remember her pattern of scripture study, I wonder how following a similar program would work with me. Would it help me focus more on self-improvement? Would I get overwhelmed by the constant addition of new attributes to focus on? Or would I get stuck on one chapter for so long that I would get sick of it and move on to some other system?
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
They Are Also Sayd to Love
I don't really believe in love at first sight.
As I said on here before, the word love can actually be a bit unspecific. So, to clarify, it is possible to care about somebody the first time you see them. It is even possible to care deeply about someone early on.
But when it comes to being actually in love with somebody, it takes more time. In Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, after Tad tells Rosie that he loves her, she says, "You maybe wanna love me, but I think what you love right now is the idea of me. You can't love someone for what they stand for or what they seem to be. You have to love them for their details; for the little things that are true for them and only them." And I'm not sure how exactly I share that feeling, but I do know that for certain types of love, including what I tend to think of in association with the phrase "love at first sight", you need to know somebody well.
This past spring, I was really bothered by how often in literature characters are depicted as being 'in love' with someone they barely know. The offender I remember most clearly is The Three Musketeers, probably because of a combination of it being what I was reading when I got really irritated and because it is particularly bad in this regard. As I remember it, d'Artagnan, the protagonist, falls in love with two different women he knows absolutely nothing about. The first woman he finds out is really bad news, and he falls out of love with her fairly quickly - more quickly than I think would be possible for anything I would consider more than a crush. If it had come out that he had just thought himself to be in love, that would be one thing. But no, it is referred to as though he really had been in love and just got over it. I sometimes thought that maybe it was a problem with the translation; that the French had different words that more exactly expressed the nature of the feelings. But I wasn't completely convinced. Partly because I had noticed similar issues in books I read in their original language - English.
Last Wednesday I was reading Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. In Chapter VI, Hobbes defines a number of the terms he will be using throughout the book. About love, he says, "That which men Desire, they are also sayd to LOVE: and to HATE those things, for which they have Aversion. So that Desire, and Love, are the same thing..."
As I read that, I thought that reading 'love' to mean 'desire' would work really well for me in books such as The Three Musketeers.
As I said on here before, the word love can actually be a bit unspecific. So, to clarify, it is possible to care about somebody the first time you see them. It is even possible to care deeply about someone early on.
But when it comes to being actually in love with somebody, it takes more time. In Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, after Tad tells Rosie that he loves her, she says, "You maybe wanna love me, but I think what you love right now is the idea of me. You can't love someone for what they stand for or what they seem to be. You have to love them for their details; for the little things that are true for them and only them." And I'm not sure how exactly I share that feeling, but I do know that for certain types of love, including what I tend to think of in association with the phrase "love at first sight", you need to know somebody well.
This past spring, I was really bothered by how often in literature characters are depicted as being 'in love' with someone they barely know. The offender I remember most clearly is The Three Musketeers, probably because of a combination of it being what I was reading when I got really irritated and because it is particularly bad in this regard. As I remember it, d'Artagnan, the protagonist, falls in love with two different women he knows absolutely nothing about. The first woman he finds out is really bad news, and he falls out of love with her fairly quickly - more quickly than I think would be possible for anything I would consider more than a crush. If it had come out that he had just thought himself to be in love, that would be one thing. But no, it is referred to as though he really had been in love and just got over it. I sometimes thought that maybe it was a problem with the translation; that the French had different words that more exactly expressed the nature of the feelings. But I wasn't completely convinced. Partly because I had noticed similar issues in books I read in their original language - English.
Last Wednesday I was reading Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. In Chapter VI, Hobbes defines a number of the terms he will be using throughout the book. About love, he says, "That which men Desire, they are also sayd to LOVE: and to HATE those things, for which they have Aversion. So that Desire, and Love, are the same thing..."
As I read that, I thought that reading 'love' to mean 'desire' would work really well for me in books such as The Three Musketeers.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Scientifically Rigorous Faith
When you read through Church lesson manuals, like the ones for Primary or Family Home Evening, it isn't unusual to come across a sentence saying something like, "Share a time when your life was blessed through obedience to the principle of ________."
Well, I've always had a hard time singling out exact cause and effect for my blessings. Even during my most dramatically difficult or tempting times, no blessing has ever jumped out at me as coming because I obeyed that specific commandment that had given me trouble. If I paid my tithing and then found some money I forgot I had, I didn't make any connection between the two things.
So maybe I should take careful note of all the blessings in my life, then stop obeying various commands one at a time. That way, I can see what I stop being blessed with and what comes back when I resume my obedience. It's the most scientifically rigorous study of the issue I can think of at this point.
Well, I've always had a hard time singling out exact cause and effect for my blessings. Even during my most dramatically difficult or tempting times, no blessing has ever jumped out at me as coming because I obeyed that specific commandment that had given me trouble. If I paid my tithing and then found some money I forgot I had, I didn't make any connection between the two things.
So maybe I should take careful note of all the blessings in my life, then stop obeying various commands one at a time. That way, I can see what I stop being blessed with and what comes back when I resume my obedience. It's the most scientifically rigorous study of the issue I can think of at this point.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
In God We Trust
Our closing hymn in sacrament meeting today, in recognition of Independence Day, was The Star Spangled Banner. We sang all three of the verses included in our hymnal. When we got to the line saying "And this be our motto, in God is our trust," I wondered how many people in the United States would currently take that as their motto.
In my Book of Mormon institute class (the first half), we were discussing Mosiah 29, where it talks about how when the people were righteous, they would tend to choose righteous laws and leaders. But when they started choosing iniquity, the time had come to meet God's judgments. At that time, we felt that about half the country was righteous. Our teacher said that when he was growing up, most of the country was living in righteousness. I don't know if our answer would have changed since that time.
But back to the motto. We don't really hide it. It's written on all our money, for one thing. But I wonder how many people are really aware of it. And I wonder, if we consistently sang every verse of the national anthem every time, would that have a noticeable effect on the religiosity of American citizens? Or would it just lead to more protests against state-supported religious displays?
In my Book of Mormon institute class (the first half), we were discussing Mosiah 29, where it talks about how when the people were righteous, they would tend to choose righteous laws and leaders. But when they started choosing iniquity, the time had come to meet God's judgments. At that time, we felt that about half the country was righteous. Our teacher said that when he was growing up, most of the country was living in righteousness. I don't know if our answer would have changed since that time.
But back to the motto. We don't really hide it. It's written on all our money, for one thing. But I wonder how many people are really aware of it. And I wonder, if we consistently sang every verse of the national anthem every time, would that have a noticeable effect on the religiosity of American citizens? Or would it just lead to more protests against state-supported religious displays?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)