Let's talk about God some more

The first question most people ask me about my beliefs is: "Do you still believe in God?" I think this question is sort of only half the question. Maybe one third of the question. In order to get at my actual views on God I think you actually need to ask three questions:

1. Do I Want God to Exist?
2. Do I Believe God Exists?
3. Does God Exist?

My answers at the moment are:
1. Yes
2. No, maybe?
3. Probably not, but I don't know

I think each of these questions is really important. They're related, but different. I especially like calling them each out separately, because I think they're often conflated for one another.

For #1 - Do I Want God to Exist?

When someone asks if I believe in god, I sometimes think they're actually asking this question. The problem is that me wanting something super duper bad doesn't have any bearing on reality. I hear people say "I don't want to live in a world where God doesn't exist." Well, I don't want to live in a world where there isn't a million dollars buried in my back yard. I think the reason I want God to exist is because if that's the case, it makes it more likely that there's life after death. All I know is existing, so I'm kind of uneasy about the idea of not existing anymore.  So, yes, I want God to exist. Too bad this doesn't influence reality in the slightest.

For #2 - Do I Believe God Exists?

I'm not sure! It's complicated.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most of the time I don't. Does that make my an atheist? Depends on your definition of atheism and if you believe agnosticism actually exists (saying "I don't know" to a question of belief doesn't really make sense when you think about it. How can you not know if you believe in something or not? I quibble...) I'm wrestling with whether or not belief is even a choice. I'll write about that another time - whether or not I think belief is a choice or not. Right now I think I could make the choice to believe someday, but it would have to be a very different idea of God than what I grew up with. I haven't put in enough time thinking to define a concept of God that I could get behind. I'm sure it's out there, but, again, that doesn't make it real. So, for right now... No. I don't believe God exists, but it could change. Again, me believing is independent of the actual reality of the situation. It's a tense subject, which is why I prefer to talk about question #3 in terms of probabilities - it's a better way to discuss it than discrete yes/no values.

For #3 - Does God Exist?

Speaking in terms of probabilities is the only way that I can make sense of this question. I know this approach won't appeal to everyone, but it's all I got!

I think it is highly unlikely that traditional Mormon concept of God exists. There are so many problems with how he is defined that I, again, think it is highly unlikely  that this guy exists. This is a separate statement than that of belief. This is what I consider the best way to discuss the existence of God. Belief is too discrete. At the end of the day THERE IS NO WAY TO RELIABLY ANSWER THIS QUESTION with a yes or no. It's unknowable! Science can't prove it or disprove it (although based on what we know through the scientific method the answer would also point to highly unlikely). Feelings can't prove it or make it real (though the evidence from most of the planet claiming to have spiritual experiences could be interpreted as pointing toward likely). Atheists who say "God does not exist" must actually mean it's highly unlikely or that they don't believe he exists. Mormons who say "I know God exists" likely mean they have strong convictions of belief and want him to exist. But how can anyone actually definitively answer this question? I used to believe that God could reveal himself to me through my thoughts and my feelings. There could be people out there reading this who are screaming at their computer screens wishing I could believe that, and that would be the key to answering "yes" to this question. Another time I'll support my view that this method of revealing himself would provide a much different world than we inhabit today. Geeze, the list of things I have to write about later is getting pretty long.

So, combine my three answers and what do you get? Hopeful Agnostic? Skeptical Believer? Optimistic Atheist? Wishy-washy lame-o? I mean, come on... make a stand! I wish I could, but I can't. I'm uncertain about everything, and I don't know how to be otherwise. What I've learned from writing this post, though, is that #1 is the least important question because wanting something doesn't influence reality. Question #3 is the next least important because there's no way to know, though I like it because it allows for more dialogue and exploration. Question #2 , eh, it's unclear to me whether or not it's important. It's definitely the question that requires someone to put their foot down and actually say something. Maybe that's why people keep asking it, and not the other two. Still, I feel like I need to justify my "no" answer with the "yes" and "I don't know" in order to paint the full picture of how I approach it. I'm super sensitive to being stereotyped now that some consider me to have "left the church" (I'll write about why that bugs me later), and maybe I'm overcompensating by providing all this fluffy background noise to soften peoples perceptions of me. Hey, is that MY navel down there?

That list of things to write about later is really piling up: - What I said in Elders Quorum that day - Have I "left the church?" - Is belief a choice? -and lastly, in my opinion why revelation through thoughts and feelings doesn't accurately describe the world. You know me, tackling the easy ones first...

Adventures in Elders Quorum

One thing I'm going to miss about living in Seattle is our wacky little progressive ward and Stake. The Ravenna Park Ward in the Seattle North Stake is a little more than half UW married graduate students. We have Law students and professors. We have people getting PhD's in physics, genomics, atmospheric science. There are probably a dozen Medical/Dental students. In our sister ward - the Washington Park Ward -the Bishop received national media attention for reaching out to gay and lesbian members who are disaffected. There are private book clubs that discuss fringy topics like - Were the lectures on faith removed from scriptural cannon due to Joseph's Smith's evolving theology? What do laboratory replications of "spiritual experiences" mean for the faithful? and discussions on the recent essays by Adam S. Millers Letters to a Young Mormon. It's been an interesting place to be. My views on spirituality and theology have been greatly influenced by my time here.

Also, I'm the second counselor in the Elders Quorum Presidency. Granted, I only informed the Bishop about my disbelief after I was called and set apart, but he still felt it fine to leave me in. Our President has been through a faith crisis of sorts - he's half black and doesn't hold Brigham Young in the highest esteem. The First Counselor is a stay at home dad whose wife is a full time student. Our secretary went through several bouts with the God of the Old Testament for his infanticide, genocide, incest, slavery, concubinage, and racism, eventually using non-correlated materials to deconstruct and reconstruct an interpretation of that God that he can worship. We were a motley bunch. I'm proud to have been a part of this group of leaders.

Given our interesting makeup, we decided to use our first Sunday lessons to present a series of discussion topics titled "Tools For a Robust View of Mormonism". I'll give you a hint as to what that doesn't mean.

The foundational lesson was taught by our secretary, a man literate in biblical Hebrew and current PhD. student at UW. The content was designed to present a framework for approaching multiple paradigms for interacting with Mormonism. The idea was not to slam the quorum with controversial topics, but to merely lay the groundwork that even within our quorum there are myriad ways of interpreting what it means to be "Mormon".

The basic outline borrowed James Fowlers Stages of Faith framework, focusing on stages 3,4, and 5. I'll sum it up very quickly so you don't have to read the whole article yourself, though it's not a bad idea. Let me preface this with saying that while Fowler noted that people often progress linearly through the stages, you shouldn't interpret stage 4 as being superior to stage 3, or 5 to 4, or anything like that. You also shouldn't assume that any one stage is intrinsically "better" than any other. Okay, read on!

Stage 3 could be stereotyped as a "True Believing Member" or TBM as many online forums tend to abbreviate - often derisively, but not always. Scriptures are interpreted more or less literally, there is a clear and absolute moral right and wrong. Leaders and prophets are more or less infallible: Joseph Smith may have kicked his dog or lost his temper, but polygamy and other touchy subjects were definitely divinely mandated. Stage 3 individuals might say things like "The Gospel is so simple" or "It's just obvious the church is true."

Stage 4 is marked by a recoil from a stage 3 mentality. These people begin to put trust in other sources like the scientific method, logic, or reasoning. They reject the stories in scripture as literal. Often stage 4 individuals feel deeply conflicted with respect to their previous faith. Raise you're hand if you're a stage 4!

Stage 5 individuals recognize the limitations of both logic/reason and spirituality. They use the religious traditions and stories as doorways to meaning and not meaningful solely on their own. To editorialize with my own thoughts: Stage 5 individuals essentially create their own religion. They may borrow scaffolding from their previous faith tradition, but more or less attach whatever new meaning they personally feel to their old ways, or create new ones altogether.

Again, the idea was to just lay out that there could be "Mormons" in any of these stages. Though, I'm sure most would agree that the vast majority of active members would be characterized as stage 3. To support the teaching our secretary used *GASP* uncorrelated materials like the New York Times, alternative translations of the Old Testament, a few essays from Letters To a Young Mormon and a few others.

After the lesson we did a sampling of the members of the quorum to gather feedback. Responses ranged from "This was the best elders quorum of my entire life in the church" to "...the plain and simple Gospel Truths aren't good enough for you and your intellectualism?" It was a mixed bag. But I sure had fun. In the end, we decided to discontinue the series after one lesson. Not because we thought we'd failed, but because we listened to our members and wanted to meet their needs. We did learn something useful though - our elders came to quorum to be uplifted, to be around guys they liked, and to recharge for the week. We went back to the drawing board and came up with a new idea for our next lesson:

A "testimony" meeting!

We decided to hand pick members of the quorum from the whole spectrum of faith. We tapped them ahead of time and encouraged them to be really honest in answering the following questions: What role does Christ play in your life? What are the benefits of being a Mormon? and lastly, why are you a Mormon? There were 5 of us who shared - 2 with traditional, rock solid testimonies, 1 more or less in-betweener, and 2 (including myself) who were complete non-believers.

For the two "traditional" fellows - everything went smooth as custard. I was next. I skirted the Christ question completely, and opted for a little back story on how I got to where I'm at. I answered the next questions as honestly as I could. Maybe I'll write more about that later. The next guy told how his testimony has changed a lot since he grew up, how learning to think like a scientist made him confront things he saw as incongruities in gospel doctrine. In the end, while admitting that he wasn't as "strong" as he used to be, he felt it was important to make a conscious decision to believe. I respect that so much. I was sitting next to him during the meeting and I just wanted to grab the guy and give him a big hug (I hugged him afterward). The last one was a guy who admitted that when people outside of church ask him if he's mormon he says "no", and that his primary reasons for attending church are: Free 2 hours of babysitting, he likes the guys in the quorum, and he's seen how women treat other women whose husbands are inactive - and he doesn't want that happening to his wife. Jaws were on. the. floor.

Now, I don't want to give you all the idea that I'm a hardcore advocate of "big tent mormonism" - especially with what's in the next few paragraphs (spoiler alert, the meeting was a huge success). I still think a perfectly reasonable solution to a faith crisis is to straight up leave, and that perhaps instead of making the tent bigger we should make exit less painful. With that being said......

IT WENT SOOOOOOOO AWESOME! After the meeting everyone was staying late to chat about things they'd heard, to thank people for being so brave and sharing their true feelings, asking questions about specific things, sharing appreciation. It was the best. Everyone was standing around talking to people they'd never talked to. Wives were coming up with screaming kids saying it was time to leave. It was like the universe had flipped over.

One thing that came out from those who didn't have "traditional" testimonies in the after-quorum-hubbub was a deep appreciation for those who are able to have faith. I had nothing but respect for all the men who dedicate their entire lives to this - they're ballers. From the faithful, it was a deep appreciation for the sincerity that the unbelievers had. I had people express to myself and free-babysitting-guy that it must have been terrible to lose faith, and that it's admirable to do what you think is right in order to keep personal integrity. I had others quietly pull me aside and say "Thanks so much. I feel the same way and never knew there was anyone else like me." We all came away from the meeting understanding each other more fully, and it brought the quorum closer together. We were curious about each other, and we didn't seem to judge. We sang Kumbaya and burned incense and everything. I think I saw one guy with a sitar.

What did we all learn from this little adventure? That there exists a vibrant diversity of faith everywhere we go, even within our own congregations. Stifling and silencing this diversity means we're missing out on a big opportunity to developed bonds with one another. Think about it, how can you not respect a guy who gives up 3 hours of his only day off and miss the Seahawks game to be with his wife and support her, at a place that he really would rather not be? What's more "mormon" than putting your family first like that? How can you not respect a guy who has devoted his life to a religion and let that guide his desire for self improvement and compassion? Being a "Mormon" means waaaaay more than most of us think, and until we let that diversity blossom we're forfeiting a chance to truly know - and admire - one another in meaningful ways.

So, for those who call this little tent their home, recognize that it may already be a lot bigger than you think.


One more quick note. Feel free to share this blog with anyone you want. Most people that are close to me know about my little situation, and I'm not worried about people finding out anymore. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and there ain't no putting it back in! Love you all!

Let's get down to business! Does God Exist?

Alright, here goes! Get ready for something dense and confusing! You'll notice that throughout these entries I'm going to raise many more questions than I provide answers for. I think that's one of my new favorite things to do actually; I like to collect interesting questions more than collect answers. Alright... on to it!

I'm starting to wonder if it's important to decide if God exists.

Ever since I lost faith that the church is the one true church, it hadn't seemed to me to even be an important thing to ponder. It seemed/seems obvious, once I shuffled off the traditional LDS worldview, that if God exists, he's entirely absent. There may be more evidence for a God that's malevolent than there is for a benevolent one. A huge hangup of mine is the existence of gratuitous suffering. Gratuitous suffering, to me, is suffering that serves no purpose. We often hear that people are refined by suffering, that there are lessons to learn, or that it helps us build compassion. It's also often explained that in order to honor agency, people have to be able to make bad decisions which can cause suffering. I have no arguments against any of those explanations. Indeed, the ability to transmute suffering into something positive is one of the most redeeming qualities of the LDS concept of God. Yet, there exists ample suffering in the world that doesn't accomplish any of these things. Take child starvation in Africa for example: How is this refining these children? What lessons are being learned? Whose agency is needing to be preserved in order for this suffering to happen? Whose bad decisions brought this suffering upon these children? How are these people who have never heard of Christ, learning to rely on him and allow his atonement to comfort them? To me, this suffering serves no noble purpose, and is therefore gratuitous and unnecessary. There are countless other examples of forms of gratuitous suffering, and it's not going to brighten anyone's day to go through them.

If God is All Loving and All Knowing, and All Powerful, then it becomes very difficult to explain all the gratuitous suffering in the world. If he loves us, and has all power, surely it's possible for him to set up a world where this type of suffering does not exist without disrupting personal agency, personal growth and development, and the ability to cultivate compassion for mankind. If he could have set it up this way and chose not to, then, well, I don't think he's worthy of my admiration or worship.

Then the following question flew into my funnel:

Why have I set up a scenario where God must be All Loving, All Powerful, and All Knowing in order to exist? Why haven't I questioned this assumption? Could a God exist who is not completely powerful or knowing?

The next questions that follow for me are: Is a God who is not all powerful or all knowing worthy of worship? What is the point of cultivating a relationship with this God? Say I send a prayer off, but my own conception of God deems him powerless to answer it, why offer the prayer? If God is incapable of stepping in to relieve gratuitous suffering, then does that necessarily mean he's incapable of blessing as well? How can I reasonably expect God to take an interest in me or intervene in my life, when he set up a world with gratuitous suffering? Why does it matter if I take a stance on his existence if his existence doesn't influence my life?

Still, though, these issues might not be enough to make it unimportant to decide if God exists. It might still be pragmatically worthwhile to make an active choice to believe in a God, albeit a puny one by LDS standards. If I were to offer up a belief in this limited God, it would be a huge relief for my wife and family.

What boundaries would I have to set for myself if I were to make this conscious decision to believe? What would it mean for me to open myself up to belief again? How would I interface with the church if I choose to believe in God? How would LDS teachings influence how I conceive of God?

I would have to unequivocally reject dogma of any nature. My new favorite thing about myself is the freedom to think critically, openly, and without restrictions imposed upon me. I love to question basic assumptions myself and others make and imagine what altering those assumptions changes. Perhaps some would characterize it as pride, but I'm not willing to give it up. Any sermon, scripture, or ritual would have to merely be a point of consideration. Nothing would be allowed to be forced upon me as True. Recognizing that if a God exists and has the capacity to communicate with man, any message from him is mediated through an imperfect vehicle. To turn a popular LDS phrase on its head, all preaching, including from the brethren, would be "the philosophy of men, mingled with scripture". Every point of consideration is ultimately settled by me - whether by conscience, the spirit, logic, however you feel most comfortable defining it - I am the controller of what I allow to be a governing Truth. To quote Joseph Smith, "I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not be trammeled." (WoJS, 183-184)

Throughout the process of writing this, I'm closer to feeling like this is something important to decide on. Even if the only God I could reconcile with how I observe the world would have severely limited capabilities, it still might be pragmatic to make a choice one way or another. Up until now, I've simply defaulted on a position that God doesn't exist. I could very well end up right back there, but it's important to at least give it an honest thought and make a more conscious choice.

See how much fun this is!

It's Back!

WHAT UP loyal readers!?!? You all still there? No? Good. Sorry for the radio silence for the last 3 years.

I'm bringing back the Six Foot Lobster. A lot in my life has changed in the past two years, and it's useful to me to share my thoughts and feelings. Particularly since they're changing so rapidly. So if anyone is out there, you're about to get more than you bargained for.

In order to "get" the rest of my entries, you'll need to understand a few things:

I lost my faith that the LDS church is the one true church around April of 2013. That decision or realization, depending on your perspective, has had far reaching impacts in my life and the lives of my loved ones. For everyone, including myself, it brought despair, sadness, depression, confusion, worry, and grief - then optimism, curiosity, discovery, and acceptance. My entire worldview had been pulled out from under me, and I didn't have the tools to build a new one. For the last year and half I've been putting the pieces back together, and I'm still sorting things out. It's been wonderful and heartbreaking at the same time, and I want to share that with you all (hopefully no one, since no one reads this).

It took a while but eventually I settled in pretty nicely with a set of thoughts or beliefs, up until about a month ago, when I became more contemplative about spiritual things. It's partially for that reason that I want to share the story of how someone can go from full tilt believing member - to disaffected - to devour-er of historical and apologetic information - to comfortably settled atheist - to cautious skeptic - all in about a year and a half.

There are many things I hope to explore through this blog:

The impact on my family has been difficult, but rewarding at the same time. I want to sort out what this journey has been like, and where I hope to see us heading.

I've become much more thoughtful about my place in the universe, and I want an outlet for those thoughts and feelings.

I've cultivated a new appreciation for the diversity of the world - I want to share what that means to me and why it's important.

I've become a sort of lame amateur theologian. Without a pre-supplied framework for considering God and other spiritual things, I've been stuck in my head creating my own concepts and ideas. I'd like to share those.

I now feel comfortable expressing my opinion on a number of social issues that I never felt comfortable talking about before. Not that anyone should care what I have to say, but now I can say it and not feel bad about it!

I want to pat myself on the back from time to time for living authentically. It's a hard thing to do sometimes, and it's been exhilarating to understand myself in new and exciting ways.

Lastly, I still am and will forever be a Mormon. Feels like a contradiction, right? I interface with the LDS Church almost constantly in my life, yet don't currently espouse a belief in the fundamental truth claims. Aren't you all curious how an apostate navigates that?! I mean, my kids are going to turn 8 someday... what happens then??!?! I want to sort out how I approach all of this and share an alternative perspective on what it means to be a Mormon.

Well, I hope there's no one out there actually reading any of this. If you're there, you have my pity. Take care everybody!

Freshly Squeezed

Got a 92 on my tennis final today. Chyea, that's right. 92. Today was the last day of class and I'm sad it's over. There's one kid in our class who was extremely legit, and we nicknamed him Bryce the Shark. He won everything, all year long, he was the champ. There was a girl named Annie who thought it was funny to grunt real loud like a pro when she hit. J.T. was a big guy who was never quite able to get all his game going, and genuinely underperformed. There was another kid, whose name I forget, who was the classic villan. He would always hit these lame short slice forehands, and hit sizzling winners against girls, and use cheap shots to win. He even had a mega grizzly scar on his face to add to the image. We had a couple of lefty's, a couple of doubles enthusiasts, and a couple of others that may have found true love at some point. You kind of start to notice when a guy and a girl pair off frequently to warm up together. Oooh la la.

Bryce the Shark and I

Anyway, at the end of class it was starting to don on me that this was it. Tennis was over. Adios amigos. So, in the middle of our last game of 'around the world', I felt like it was appropriate to sing a classic parting song:

Graduation by Vitamin C

I got all the way to "As our lives change, from whatever, we will still be, friends forever" before anyone realized what was going on. It got a good laugh out of a few people.

It's not exactly God be with you till we meet again, but it's pretty close.

Intermediate Tennis, It's been real

I have it soooooooo good.

Loneliness.

Loneliness is one of the most painful emotions. I'm not sure anything really compares to it. There is nothing quite as awful as feeling completely and utterly alone. People need to share commonalities, express hopes, dreams, fears to one another. People long to be understood. We all want someone to confide in, or at least someone to listen. No one wants to be alone. No one wants to exist singly.

And that's why I have it sooooooooo good. I have Nicole.

I get to come home everyday to someone else. I get to talk, make dinner, eat dinner, clean up dinner, do homework, read, get ready for bed, brush my teeth, read scriptures, pray, sleep, wake up, make breakfast, make lunch, pray, and send off to work all with someone else. If someone cuts Nicole off on her drive home and it really bugged her, she has someone to vent to. If I got a good grade on a test, I have someone to celebrate with. If she has an exciting idea for a new project, she gets to share it with me. I get to pick up her socks, she gets to wake me up in the morning. I get to live two lives in essence. Her successes are mine, my failures are hers. I get everything that my own life has to offer, and I get hers as well.

I have it so good.

This all comes from just getting home from tennis. I just got a new racket and really wanted to test it out and I was gone for almost 2 hours with Bridger at the BYU courts. When I got home Nicole was already asleep. I walked in and she started to wake and sleepily asked, "How was the new racket?" As eager as I was to tell her all about it, I replied "it was great." and let her drift back off to sleep. What impressed me though was that even though she was half asleep, she knew I was excited about it, and so she wanted to share in my excitement. Before I left she sat there and complimented my tape job as I put on the overgrip, telling me it looked "legit". It's just a stupid little racket, but it meant something to me, and so it meant something to her.

This is what marriage is all about. Heck, this is what life is all about. I will never experience loneliness. Ever. In it's place I have companionship, friendship, and love. If tragedy were to strike, I would still have her. Being married by the Priesthood in the Temple means that Nicole will be my wife for eternity, and it is the single greatest source of hope, happiness, and motivation in my life. I have no fear of loneliness, because I have the promises of eternity. I get to move confidently throughout life with the love of my life by my side.

That's why I have it so good.

REACT TO THIS!

Thinking about "Reactions"

What does it mean to react? Something has to happen. I guess something doesn't necessarily have to happen, the important part is something has to be observed. You can't react to something that you don't observe... vacuously true. Reactions in that sense drive our existence. I've heard it said that life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it... and I'm thinking life is 100% how you react. The decision to act is in essence a reaction. Even an action that I would assume to be "out of the blue" has it's roots in an observation of some kind. No one does anything "out of the blue", that doesn't make sense.

A person can choose not to react in only one way, and that is to choose not to observe. I had no reaction to the cracks in the sidewalk today - I chose not to observe them. I did however react to the snow on the mountain, a result of observation. A reaction is not an instantaneous event according to my definition. My "reaction" to the snow came several minutes after observing. At first I thought - that sucks. Then I thought - I do enjoy the rain down here though, it reminds me of home. Then I thought - Oh no, the leaves in the mountains will fall off the trees because they're weighed down by the snow and now Nicole and I won't get to enjoy them as we had planned. Then I thought - well it just means we're moving along in the year, and soon Nicole will be done with her internship. Etc,. My final reaction to the snow was that I'm glad it reminded me of the Pacific Northwest, enjoying the rain, feeling refreshed, and optimistic about the future.

But what about "gut" reactions? They aren't made in the same way, so why should life be in some sense defined by these as well? I argue that a gut reaction is a second, third, nth iteration of a prior reaction. We've made a reaction with respect to something similar before, and thus are able to react more quickly. I think this is why people may "freeze" up in tense or unique situations; they have either not been presented with a similar observation, or have chosen not to observe a similar situation. If they had observed a similar situation, they would have reacted. This is not to say that they haven't been presented with opportunities to observe, like I said, people need to actively observe in order to react appropriately.

That's why being an active observer is such an important part of life. Life is all about forming the right set of reactions to observations, developing a healthy habit of considering what we observe. The best part is that reactions are truly an individual choice, and that reactions directly influence happiness. By my logic we can (after careful consideration and active observation) actually choose happiness. Sure, observations can and should lead us to feel sorrow, loss, depression, anger, and confusion. Understanding these allow us to empathize. But, we can always extend the reaction and choose to right wrongs, lift those who are depressed, seek help for our downtrodden feelings, and ultimately choose progress and happiness.

Thinking this way gives me hope to overcome any set of misfortune I should observe or experience, especially since I have a firm conviction in the observation of Gospel Truth. That added observation gives me access to a set of reactions that aren't inherently obvious. Take death for example. An immediate reaction is grief - and how appropriate a reaction it is! The reaction is extended upon careful consideration of the Truth of resurrection, and ultimately I can choose to react in a positive way and exercise patience and hope. This method of observation, consideration, extension from negative to positive, and ultimately choosing to react in an uplifting way has been a huge blessing in my life. And is utterly impossible in some situations without Gospel Knowledge.

What's an education for?

Back in the olden days, academics consisted of three disciplines: Medicine, Law, and Philosophy. If you were a mathematician, you were focused on the philosophy of Mathematics. Hence the title PhD., Doctor of Philosophy. And Philosophy encompassed the Seven Liberal Arts. Originally, the Liberal Arts were :

1. Grammar

2. Logic

3. Rhetoric

4. Arithmetic

5.Astronomy

6. Music

7. Geometry.

These seven areas of study were necessary in order to make one "free", or liberal. The way an education was viewed was not in terms of vocational or economic worth, but in the intrinsic value of knowledge so as to liberate an individual. Instead of a bachelors degree being pre-requisite to being considered employable, it was an elective decision in search for intellectual freedom. Instead of a stepping stone on the way to professional pursuits, it was a diversion from the material world and a conscious dedication to formation of intellect. Instead of a necessity for temporal success, it was a necessity for individual progress. Today it's "I have to go to college to get a good job." When the original intent would be more like, "I have to go to college, I just can't handle not taking 4 years out of my life to dedicate to learning for the purpose of learning."

That's what universities were intended to be, and that's what universities should be. If learning is only useful inasmuch as it prepares for a profession, then why does BYU have a religion department? There is danger in collapsing the objectives of a four year university down into technical ability and memorization. Technical and vocational institutions exist for just that reason. They prepare a portion of the population directly for employment and production without the university experience of the liberal arts. This is needful, useful, and helpful for both individuals and society.

My qualm is with the necessity of a bachelors for employment. A bachelors degree is an incredibly imperfect indicator of ones employability and professional potential. It was intended to be an indicator of an understanding of the liberal arts with a focus on one or more in particular. Do I need a bachelors degree to be a writer? Do I need a bachelors degree to be a Nurse? Do I need a bachelors degree to be an Accountant? Do I need a bachelors degree to sell or create advertising? To me the answer to all these is a resounding No.

I understand I'm not breaking any new ground here.

There should be technical training for accountants, nurses, and other specialty skill based professions. Those who have a knack for advertising should advertise. Those who sleep with a pen in their hand at night should write. And those who can't go through life without the liberation of intellectual pursuit and education should go to college.

For Daniel

You know what......

shoot.

Today I wore a purple Armani shirt to work today and felt great about it. The fit through the arms and shoulders, the ability to stay tucked in.... mmm. Felt like Pharrell circa 2006.

In other news, Hersey Hawkins and Bo Jackson were caught laundering money from a Joann Fabrics in Flint Michigan over the weekend. Sources say they were using the store as a front for their underground cocaine trafficking network. Rumors have it they supply Macaulay Culkin, Johnny Depp, Gloria Pritchard, and Nicholas Cage on a regular basis.

Love

the 5th post

This is my 5th post. Check it out for all to see.

Here is your quote of the day

"A life lived in fear, is a life half lived"
~Strictly Ballroom

There you have it! I have a final Monday Morning at 7:00am. Someone kill me with a glue gun.

the original j5k

this is the original, making gold records like push pins in a hitler push pin pad.

Spanish Fork... Mumbai... you decide

I'm not going to be the first and most certainly not the last to create a facebook album specifically dedicated to this weekends Festival Of Colors in Spanish Fork. I'm anticipating by Monday afternoon that I'll recieve a notice on my homepage that at least 15 of my friends have been tagged in someones album or have changed their profile picture to something involving the festival of colors. I'm going to be no exception.

The picture below was taken while waiting for the festival to begin. I couldn't help myself while sitting on the lawn in an 'ever-so-in-touch-with-my-inner-hindu-criss-cross-applesauce fashion' from poking my little finger into a plastic baggy of chalk and get my face prepped for the excitement (notice the pink stripe going under the eyes and across the nose, grr baby).



Here is a brief explanation of the festival:

A bunch of BYU students in EFY t-shirts and jeans mingling with one another about how "fetching awesome" the event is. Sprinkled in are a few token actual hindus and a smattering of dreadlocked barefootees keeping themselves far more composed. When time came to begin throwing the color a prominent member of the local Hindu community stepped on stage to explain the historical and religious influence of the ceremony while no one even made a semblance of an attempt to be polite and listen to the background story. The colors soon began to fly with such intensity that within seconds all involved were speckled head to toe with vivid blues, violets, pinks, oranges, greens, yellows, and reds. Random strangers would throw handfulls directly into the face of anyother, to which the reciever would smile widely and exlaim "Hey thanks!" This ensued for nearly 15 minutes while a Rock Band played fast paced music and chanted the Hare Krishna chant over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Soon a mosh pit had developed and sometimes 5 to 6 people at a time would be crowd surfing atop the chalk caked audience. This level of excitement lasted for well over an hour as more and more students poured into the venue, anxious to get in on all the action. Most people had a walk to the temple upwards of 20 minutes. Cars lined country roads in all directions for about two miles.

All in all, it was gernerally exciting and actually quite a blast. Here are some of the photos to prove it.

Skype... all that is skypey

Skype... A combination of the words "Sweet", "Kool", "Yeah Baby", "Pimp", and "Electricity". Soon to replace facebook is the oddly entertaining, semi-neat-o, slightly inching towards 'dirty' video chat. I say bordering on dirty because there is just some slimey connotation to the phrase 'cyber web cam video chat', although there's hardly anything gross about the service. That is of course unless you're using the term gross like those contemporary youngsters do as synonymous with more outdated terms like phat, tight, dope etc,. NEVERTHELESS..... I got to talk for FREE with a really good friend all the way down in CHILE for about 45 minutes with little or no technical problems. I hadn't talked to that guy since my mission and it was a blast to catch up. All my friends had been like Skype this, skype that, skype walks my dog and does my oChem homework. Poppycock you say? Not so fast my friend. I have friends studying abroad and family all over the place that I CANNOT wait to stalk down on skype and have a 'cyber web cam video chat' with. I'll put the water on now...

The etymology of the title

The term "six foot lobster" has been in use since antiquity. Josephus is quoted as describing the Roman Army during their seige of Jerusalem as "A fire army of Six Foot Lobsters". More resently it was used to dub the stellar stage prescence held by a childhood friend named Brett Young.

It was the Cedar Heights Junior High talent show during 9th grade and the hit band F.A.P. was slated to headline the star studded event (Oprah politely declined attending). During F.A.P's set the hit number "Brain Stew" by Greenday was reverberating through the commons as an unassuming Lobster made his way toward the stage. The Lobster climbed on stage, danced around, jumped off the drumstand, and proceeded to make godzilla-esque noises into the microphone amidst luscious powerchords and wailing. He was forever dubbed the Six Foot Lobster.

There you have it. Hopefully whatever ends up in this micro-universe is as interesting as 14 year old 130lb weight class all-star trouncing around on stage in a lobster costume. Enjoy.