Utah LDS Church Members Encouraged to Attend Political Caucus Meetings, but I Won't Be There

I found myself experiencing a bit of a dilemma last Sunday when a member of our bishopric read a letter from the First Presidency encouraging LDS Church members in Utah to exercise "their civic responsibility and privileges" by participating in political precinct caucus meetings that will be held this month (see LDS Newsroom article). This official counsel comes from men that I consider to be properly authorized to speak for God. Thus, I should carefully consider their admonition.

While some might read the First Presidency's statement to say, "Go to a political caucus meeting or be damned," I believe that reason and personal inspiration are required to determine how to honor any generalized prophetic counsel.

Some prophetic pronouncements are clear, unambiguous, and specifically as well as generally applicable for all people in all situations. For example, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Matthew 19:18). But the vast majority of prophetic directives do not fall into this category.

Consider, for example, the 1833 revelation on health known as the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89). Recent church leaders have made it clear that church members must abstain from the use of tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs, as well as the abuse of any addictive substance to be in good standing with respect to the Word of Wisdom.

But what should we make of verse 17 where it implies that corn, oats, and rye are for various animals but not for humans? Are you breaking the Word of Wisdom if you eat corn on the cob, oatmeal, or rye bread? And what about the counsel in verses 14 and 17 suggesting that wheat is to be the "staff of life" for humans, in light of the fact that the wheat commonly used today is a dramatically different substance than the wheat used in 1833? If gluten causes you problems, are you breaking the Word of Wisdom if you eat no wheat?

What about President Monson's June 2013 statement that "Now is the time for members and missionaries to come together, to work together, to labor in the Lord’s vineyard to bring souls unto Him."? Or his October 2012 statement that "we encourage all young men who are worthy and who are physically able and mentally capable to respond to the call to serve [as a full-time missionary]."? How are these statements to be applied?

It seems obvious that most prophetic counsel requires both rational judgment and spiritual insight to be specifically and individually applied, so that "all these things are done in wisdom and order" (Mosiah 4:17). I believe this is also the case when the First Presidency "encourages" church members to attend political caucus meetings.

Utah's system of nominating political party officials and candidates at precinct caucus meetings and escalating conventions has been under fire lately by well funded politically powerful interests. But at present it appears that the system will likely endure in some form. At any rate, it remains unchanged this year.

The First Presidency's letter describes precinct caucus meetings as "a grassroots level of political involvement in Utah [that] are best served by a broad representation of Utah citizens." The Presidency also notes that those "who attend play a critical role in selecting candidates for public office."

For those that are interested, the Utah Democratic Party will hold its caucus meetings on Tuesday, March 18 at 6:30 PM and the Utah Republican Party will hold its meetings on Thursday, March 20 at 7:00 PM. You can see a full list of links to Utah's registered political parties here. Check your party's website to see whether/where your local caucus meeting will be held.

My problem is that I have entered a post partisan phase. At one time I was a staunch Republican. But when I found myself trying to defend some of my party's horrible politicians and policies I started to take a more critical view of the party and of the political process in general. When I looked across the aisle and saw Democratic apologists defending their party's awful politicians and policies I realized that there was a lot of the same kind of thing going on throughout the system.

The more I studied politics and separated what political actors really do from their stylistic and rhetorical approaches, the more it looked to me like all political actors (whether they believe it or not) were more of one kind — folks that get fulfillment by trading power over the lives of others — while the general citizenry were another kind — pawns in the political game. It looked to me like most of what partisans argued about boiled down to style and hyperbole rather than substantial differences in actions and results. The more I learned about how politics really works the less I wanted much to do with it.

I think that I really got on the road out of the GOP last time I attended a caucus meeting. Turnout that night was impressive. It soon became evident, however, that those that held individual liberty dear represented only a tiny minority of those present. Any that didn't enthusiastically support establishment candidates were quickly eliminated from vying to become delegates for the county or state conventions.

After watching the GOP for several more months I couldn't see how my views could ever be adequately represented by the party. I'm not like those sour grapes folks that whine that the party left them behind while their views remained unchanged. I think, rather, that as I became more clear on both my own views and the nature of the party I found too many irreconcilable differences to remain a member. Nor did I see a ready home for my views in any of the other parties. So I registered as an unaffiliated voter.

I have the utmost respect for those that know that their political party is deeply flawed and yet view it as the best avenue for them to see their political views represented in some measure. I have less respect for those that are well tuned to the defects of opposing parties while being largely blind to their own party's faults. (Maybe that's because I am abhorred that I was once among this latter group.)

My post partisan condition means that I have no neighborhood caucus meeting to attend this month. While some parties that do hold caucus meetings welcome unaffiliated voters, I cannot presently bring myself to work directly with those parties any more than I can bring myself to work with the GOP.

Others may legitimately come to different conclusions for themselves, but in my case I believe that the best way for me to have my political views represented is to vote with my feet and remain aloof from all political parties for now. Even after reviewing the First Presidency's counsel, I inwardly feel that this is the right approach for me. Thus, for the first time in many election cycles, I will not be attending a neighborhood caucus meeting this time around.

I pray for those that will be attending their caucus meetings this month, but I do so with limited faith. I'm afraid that I find myself agreeing with P.J. O'Rourke when he says that he has difficulty seeing God in politics, which appears rather to be the domain of "the Other Fellow."

Baking Cookies for Mental Health

I like baking cookies. Or at least I used to like baking cookies.

I whipped up my first batch of cookies on a Sunday afternoon when I was nine years old. The task took three times longer than was necessary, dirtied three times more gear than was needed, and required repeated bouts of assistance from my mom. I also may have overcooked the morsels a bit. But in the end I was proud of the plate of cookies that I had (sort of) made all by myself.

It's easier — and probably cheaper — to buy ready made cookie dough than to mix up your own. For that matter, it's even easier to buy ready made cookies. In many cases it's likely cheaper too, when you consider the value of your time and the cost of running the equipment. But your house never fills with the magnificent scent of freshly baked cookies when you buy them already baked.

I have always relished the process of making cookies from scratch. And although experts warn against the possibility of food poisoning from eating cookie dough suffused with raw eggs, I can't seem to help sampling some of the concoction before it reaches the oven. And no, I have never (yet) been poisoned via this indulgence. (Knock on wood.)

We have plenty of cookbooks full of cookie recipes at our house. Of course, nowadays you can find copious volumes of cookie recipes online. We have the general ingredients needed for most basic cookie types at the house. Fancier recipes might require a trip to the supermarket for additional supplies.

But I hardly ever bake cookies nowadays because, along with all truly tasty treats cookies are bad, Bad, BAD, BAD!!! for you — as we are constantly reminded by an annoying army of health and nutrition scolds that are absolutely certain they know what's best for us.

I have always loved wheat, rice, and other grains. Ditto when it comes to refined sugars. The combination of grains and refined sugars aspires to a culinary ecstasy for me that is achieved in no other way.

Of course, ice cream — a frozen combination of refined sugar and dairy products — excels any grain based confection in exquisiteness for me. The difference being that I never make ice cream at home because I can never get the results to approach the delectability of the commercially made stuff. Nor does ice cream making produce the delightful scents conveyed when treats are baked.

But eschewing bondage to my sweet tooth I have largely avoided grains and sugars for the past several years. Yes, I feel better when I do so; although, I do not claim that such abstinence would be the right approach for others.

My body is now so unused to grains and sugars that my occasional forays into their consumption tend to produce mild to moderate unpleasant consequences, not all of which are physical. The bony blue fingered nutrition nags have succeeded in making me feel guilty whenever I take a dietary diversion. I can't seem to bring myself to enjoy as I once did the art of making cookies. So I don't do it very often.

For some reason I am reminded of the scene in The Princess Bride where Prince Humperdinck and Count Rugen (the bad guys) are discussing their plans to torture Westley (the hero) and murder Buttercup (the maiden in distress):

Count Rugen: Ah. Are you coming down into the pit? Wesley's got his strength back. I'm starting him on the machine tonight.

Prince Humperdinck: [sincerely] Tyrone, you know how much I love watching you work, but I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped.

Count Rugen: Get some rest. If you haven't got your health, then you haven't got anything.

We are constantly regaled with similar assurances that we will be much happier if we do our best to maintain optimum physical health. For years I have seriously followed a strict health regimen involving exercise and diet. I am in pretty good shape for a formerly obese guy my age that has MS and hypothyroidism. I am grateful for the relative level of health I enjoy.

But if I am totally honest with myself, there is a certain grimness to my approach. What is the value of a longer and healthier existence in this nasty little world if such a life is bereft of simple pleasures such as baking and eating an occasional cookie without shame? Mental health is important too, you know.

I see a batch of cookies in the near future — for the sake of mental health, of course.

When A Church Lesson Goes Off Topic

I generally enjoy teaching at church. It wasn't always that way. At age 16 I was assigned to teach a church lesson the first Sunday of the summer I spent planting pineapple in Hawaii. The lesson went well for about seven minutes. The trouble was that I had about 38 more minutes to fill. I had planned on more input from class members (who were all teenage boys). Bad planning on my part. We survived, but it was pretty painful for all involved.

Yesterday I was assigned to teach a priesthood lesson. The only instruction I had was to focus on the Savior. I like to think that I have become a fairly adept teacher in the years since my debacle in Hawaii. I've been down the road of preparing and executing lessons a time or two. I have even stepped up to unexpectedly teach classes. Many of these experiences have been wonderful.

As I worked over several days to prepare yesterday's lesson I kept getting impressions. But there seemed to be something missing. None of these disparate ideas seemed to gel into a cohesive message. Nor did I get any particular impression about timing or order of presentation.

Finally I fell back on the talk given by David S. McConkie in the October 2013 general conference, where he said, "After you have prepared yourself and your lesson to the very best of your ability, you must be willing to let go. When the quiet promptings of the Holy Ghost come, you must have the courage to set aside your outlines and your notes and go where those promptings take you."

I had prepared. I had plenty of material to choose from. I could just jump in and let the lesson go where it needed to go, based on the needs of class members as dictated by the Spirit. Due to an unusual number of business items during priesthood opening exercises, about half the class period was gone by the time it was my turn. That would have bothered me if I had had more of an idea of how the lesson should go. But feeling rather rudderless, the short time remaining comforted me.

We had already sung a hymn in opening exercises, but I felt like I should start my lesson with a hymn. I chose My Redeemer Lives, a poem by Gordon B. Hinckley set to music by his lifelong friend G. Homer Durham. Then I quoted a favorite scripture, Omni 1:26. My intent to was to choose selections that testified of Christ.

Some of the best teaching that I have ever experienced in priesthood lessons has been during discussions where members have taught each other. I hoped to start a discussion based on the Savior by inviting class members to offer any favorite scriptures or sacred songs about the Savior.

Brother B. offered Hebrews 4:14-16. Brother H. talked about how he feels when he hears the children's song, I Feel My Savior's Love. So far so good. These were good things to mention, but not much discussion ensued.

Then another brother cited the Psalm of Nephi from 2 Nephi 4:15-35. These are powerful verses that are among my favorite scriptures. But they don't specifically mention the Savior, so they were somewhat off topic. Another brother then talked about how inspired he feels when he hears America the Beautiful and My Country, 'Tis of Thee; songs I love but that don't directly reference Christ.

It kind of went on in that vein with brethren talking about fine songs and scriptures that uplifted them but that were off the lesson topic. I would express appreciation for the insights offered but would then try to pull the discussion back to the Savior without much success.

With time running out I closed off discussion. Hoping to return to my assigned topic, I referenced some inspiring events recorded in 3 Nephi 17 and the story of the disciples walking with the resurrected Christ on the road to Emmaus from Luke 24:13-35.

After concluding I felt unsatisfied about how the lesson had gone. It felt like a jumble in my mind. Why had I felt like I was wrestling with the class members? Moreover, why had I felt like I was wrestling with the Spirit? I had done my best to follow the assignment given by my priesthood leader. Should I have jettisoned the topic and allowed the discussion to flow with less restraint? What was the Spirit trying to tell me that I had been too hard hearted to receive?

Yesterday's lesson was enough to make me question my teaching abilities. But maybe that's where the problem lies. In church instruction, human teaching skills are only valuable to the extent that they are used to assist the Holy Ghost in teaching. Sticking too tightly to a topic can sometimes get in the way of that instruction, even when the topic is as centrally important as the Savior. Or perhaps the Lord had prepared a different path to such a witness than I was willing to permit.

I'm still not sure what went wrong yesterday. But I will be taking a different approach the next time I prepare a lesson for church.

Don't Like Our New Constitution? Don't Worry, It's Bound to Change Tomorrow

We have a new constitution, says Angelo Codevilla in this Independent Institute article. He asserts that the effort that has been ongoing since at least the 1930s to eliminate any substantive limit on governmental power has finally succeeded. The "Constitution of 2014," says Codevilla, "is best understood by asking, ... what may the president of the United States NOT do, so long as at least one third of the Senate protects him from being removed from office."

The chilling answer, says Dr. Codevilla, is "not much." He writes, "Quite simply, our ruling class behaves as if the Constitution of 1787 no longer exists, and as if the words of laws merely authorize the powerful to “do anything I want.”" Those final quoted words are a direct boast from the current US president (see Washington Post 2/10/14 article).

After regaling readers with several proofs supporting his thesis, Codevilla writes, "Increasingly since the 1930s, our lives have been run by administrative agencies that make, administer, and apply regulations as they see fit rather than by laws that Congress passes, that the President administers, and that only courts and juries may force onto individuals."

(I might quibble with Dr. Codevilla about his 1930s starting point. I think he could easily look back at least to the administration of Theodore Roosevelt, and quite possibly, even further back to the Civil War and post Civil War eras.)

This expansion of administrative power has been bolstered by the fact that the "Supreme Court has shaved away to nothing the distinction between law and administrative decree" so that today's "so-called laws are in fact grants of power to bureaucracies."

Partisans will insist that this state of affairs is due to the nefarious dealings of the "other" party. But Codevilla asserts that it has in fact been a completely bipartisan effort. While opponents eagerly hurl accusations of presidential incompetency at the current occupant of the White House, there is little doubt that he has been immensely successful in expanding executive power, taking the expansion game played by all of his predecessors over the last century to a new level. The opposition party "facilitates this process and looks forward to filling the shoes that they have helped ... expand," since the White House will inevitably someday change hands.

(On a side note, Gene Healy explains in this Reason.com article why presidents always pursue and accept new expansions of executive power. It comes down to the general expectations of Americans who place "virtually boundless" demands on the president for nearly all of their public and private aspirations; an example of overly successful government marketing and the all too human desire for a divinely empowered earthly monarch.)

I think that Dr. Codevilla is a little late coming to the party, since Murray Rothbard very clearly outlined this thesis 40 years ago in his 1974 treatise Anatomy of the State. Rothbard explores in some detail the expansion of the state and the ineffectiveness of constitutional law in providing any real limit to the power of the state.

The government, asserted Rothbard favorably quoting H.L. Mencken, is not "a committee of citizens chosen to carry on the communal business of the whole population, but ... a separate and autonomous corporation, mainly devoted to exploiting the population for the benefit of its own members."

Of course, this corporation could not continue to exist without co-opting significant portions of the populace, combining with the politically powerful, rendering vast swaths of the populace politically impotent, regularly demonstrating its power over the commoners, perpetuating myths about individual liberties that no longer actually exist, and maintaining a certain chimera of legitimacy among the public. In his "What the State Fears" section Rothbard outlines how the state goes about maintaining legitimacy while oppressing its subjects citizens.

Any Boy Scout that has earned the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge ought to be able to explain how our government was structured to maintain individual liberty by having three competing branches (executive, legislative, judicial) and multiple competing levels (federal, state, local). The fact that all of these entities are merely vying for power over the lives of individuals — and are thus part of the same corporate entity whose interests are often at odds with those of the populace — is never mentioned in merit badge classes.

In his "How the State Transcends Its Limits" section Rothbard carefully demonstrates how the state has set itself up as its own judge, leaving the fox guarding the hen house, as it were, when it comes to limiting the power of the state and preserving liberty. The judiciary, which wields the ultimate authority on what is constitutional, has instead steadily legitimized the expansion of state power in defiance of the original intent of our nation's founding documents.

Rothbard laments, "The last few centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the State, only to find that such limits, as with all other attempts, have failed. Of all the numerous forms that governments have taken over the centuries, of all the concepts and institutions that have been tried, none has succeeded in keeping the State in check. The problem of the State is evidently as far from solution as ever."

I highly recommend the book Ratification by Pauline Maier, which explores the process of ratification of the US Constitution. No one could tell how it was going to turn out at the time. Anti-federalists that raised many valid concerns about the document ended up losing. State legislatures ultimately sided with the federalists, who admitted to certain flaws in the document but insisted that it was the best that was politically achievable. Still, the anti-federalists demonstrated prescience, since nearly every warning they issued about the inability of the new constitution to curb expansion of state power has come to pass.

A number of voices have lately called for a new constitutional convention, as authorized by Article V of the US Constitution. I believe that such a convention would serve as a wake up call to the federal government that it is doing an inadequate job of marketing itself. But I also believe that a new constitutional convention would end up disappointing most of its supporters.

Even with all of its amendments, the US Constitution is a very concise document, containing fewer than 5,000 words. Would a new constitutional convention succeed in creating anything so succinct at such a rapid pace? Think of all of those vying for political power that would line up to lobby to affect the new constitution.

A few years ago when the European Union attempted to develop a constitution, the multi-year effort resulted in a sprawling document that delved into nitpicking details of daily life. Efforts to produce clarity instead produced confusion. Is it any surprise that ratification could not be achieved? Is there much of a chance that a new US constitution wouldn't suffer from the same kind of bloat and ambiguity?

Rothbard might have been ahead of his time. But his 40-year-old conclusion that constitutional government has failed to realize its stated goal of limiting the power of the state seems quite accurate. Without explaining further, Rothbard called for "new paths of inquiry" to find "a solution to the State question."

Some might regard such rhetoric as treasonous. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

But it is important to realize that James Madison and his cohorts were breaking new ground when they developed a new system of government that did better at preserving liberty for longer than just about any other documented system in history. Maybe it is time to explore new ideas, given that the system bequeathed to us by our Founders has ultimately proven inadequate to the task for which it was created.

Mashed Peas and Other Missionary Food Hazards

I underwent a fair amount of culture shock after arriving in Norway to serve as a full-time missionary for my church. I had spent two immersive months at the MTC in Provo Utah learning the Norwegian language and learning about Norwegian culture. (Yeah, Norwegian is its own language; a fact that seems to surprise many Americans — who may or may not even realize that Norway is it's own country.) But no amount of training can fully prepare you to live in a different culture.

A couple of days after arriving in Norway, my missionary companion and I were invited to eat lunch with a family. They served us sausage (more like bratwurst) and sauerkraut. The sausage was spiced differently than anything I had ever tasted, but I had no problem eating it. The sauerkraut, on the other hand....

My father was German and my mother had served a mission in Germany, so I grew up regularly dining on German food. But I never learned to enjoy German sauerkraut. Or other cabbage based dishes, for that matter. Norwegian sauerkraut was somewhat different than the German version. I may not have liked the German stuff, but at least I was used to it.

Despite my utter dislike of Norwegian sauerkraut, I did as any good missionary would do and cheerfully choked it down while thinking that I was going to die from it. Having slogged my way through the nightmare, the lady of the house happily insisted on serving me a second portion. I managed to choke most of that down too. But this time I was wise enough to leave some on my plate, signifying that I had had enough.

A few days later the local branch president invited us to eat dinner with his family. Their home had what I eventually came to understand had a classic Norwegian upper middle class style and atmosphere. The wife served us a gracious meal that included far less meat than I would have liked, small whole potatoes with a delicious sauce, and mashed peas with a distinctive blend of spices that I came to realize was very common in Norwegian dishes.

When I expressed surprise at the mashed peas and whole potatoes, explaining that I was used to whole peas and mashed potatoes, the family members looked at me like I had a third arm growing out of my forehead.

A few days later it was my companion's turn to prepare breakfast. I saw him open both ends of a long can and systematically push out something that had an odd scent and looked like some kind of mashed meat. Maybe liverwurst? He kept slicing off half-inch thick pieces onto the skillet until the pan was covered with wafers that seemed to fry quite readily.

I could see the label on the can, but I didn't know what "Torskerogn" meant. My companion served the fried wafers and we ate them. The flavor was unfamiliar but not unpleasant. It was only after breakfast that he revealed that we had eaten cod roe, which is compacted codfish eggs. Go figure.

One of my companions introduced me to hvalbiff (whale beef). It had lots of protein. But it frankly tasted like beef liver; something I have never learned to like.

Not all Norwegian food was strange. There was the bread. Oh, the bread! So many varieties to choose from. And freshly baked each day. Oh, my goodness! And the cheeses! Along with the various delicious white cheeses (including nøkkelost spiced with cumin and cloves), I learned to love brunost (aka geitost), sweet brown caramelized goat cheese. I think I had only ever eaten cheddar and faux Swiss cheese prior to my time in Norway.

Norwegians served a rice porridge dish (riskrem, risgrøt) made of short fat rice grains in a creamy sauce that was very delicious. They had marvelous pastries that enticed us to visit bakery shops way too frequently.

One Thanksgiving Day, a lady invited us to dine, knowing that we would probably be missing our traditional American celebration. She couldn't serve us a traditional American meal, so she served us a traditional Norwegian meal that included these huge delectable potato dumplings that she called kumle (aka raspeboller). I subsequently had many opportunities to enjoy this dish. My mouth still waters when I think about it.

But back in my day standard American fare was pretty hard to come by in Norway. Things like peanut butter, root beer, McDonald's food, and the sugar sweetened breakfast cereals I craved were pretty much nonexistent. We made our own breakfast cereal by mixing corn flakes, puffed wheat, puffed rice, and dry oatmeal in a big bowl, sweetening the mass with a mixture of butter and light syrup. A hefty batch would last two weeks. Yeah, not too healthy. But it gave us our breakfast cereal fix.

The longer I was in Norway the more I liked Norwegian foods, including many different types of fish and other seafood. I never thought that the dreaded pickled herring was bad at all.

When I had been in Norway for about a year and a half, my companion pointed out to me that we were mutually relishing the idea of our weekly dinner of sausage and sauerkraut the following Saturday. His point was that both of us had gone from disliking Norwegian sauerkraut to craving it. How was this possible?

I still have fond memories of many of the dishes I ate while in Norway, including some that I initially considered to be barely tolerable. I even make or buy some of these foods from time to time. My children regularly pester me to make Norwegian pancakes, thin crepe-like concoctions filled and/or topped with whatever interesting delicacy you can think of.

So if you serve as a missionary in a different culture or otherwise have opportunity to live immersed in another culture for a fair period of time, you might find yourself later on craving foods that you initially found unpalatable. That's a good thing, no?

How Oft Will He Gather Us?

"I haven't lost my faith," the man told my friend. "But I'm not coming back to church until there is a change in leadership."

Maybe the man was just trying to get my friend off his back. He might have been trying to fool himself into thinking that what he was saying was true. Or maybe he really believed what he was saying. But if past results are any indication of future performance, the man will still refuse to return even after local church leadership changes.

Of course the man has a good reason for his position. Years earlier the man had made a public case against his bishop following a sharp disagreement. When his attempts to rally others to his cause against the bishop yielded minimal results, the man largely withdrew from church activity, vowing not to return until the bishop was released.

But after the bishop was released the man still did not return. Some years later the former bishop was called to serve in a stake position. The man again cited this as his reason for staying away from church meetings and activities.

Someday the former bishop will be released from his stake calling. What will the man say then? I suppose it would be easy for him to say that all stake and ward leaders have been so tainted by their association with the former bishop that it would be better to spend 40 years in the wilderness until all of these unworthies finally leave the ranks of church leadership.

But to what avail? I do not doubt the depth of the pain the man feels. But how are his current actions helping his situation? The years that have passed hardly seem to have been therapeutic. How is this affecting his family? If the man does indeed believe in the gospel, how does his spitefulness serve the gospel cause? How does it improve his relationship with God?

As an outsider looking in I can easily see the mote that is in my brother's eye (see Luke 6:41-42). I'm sure that from the inside looking out, the man's chosen course of action appears positive and rational. Which of us never uses faulty reasoning to justify our favorite sins and indulgences?

I pray for this man. Sincerely. Because the gospel is essentially optimistic, seeing opportunities for spiritual improvement even for those that currently seem unwilling to be gathered with the Savior (see 3 Nephi 10:4-6, Isaiah 54:7). It is this kind of optimism that also gives me hope for my own soul.

Frozen: A Fun Slice of Scandinavia

Right after the new Disney animated movie Frozen was released we took the family to see it because my wife had obtained discount tickets. I honestly wasn't very happy about it.

I knew nothing about the movie except that it was another Disney animated film. The first serious cold virus I have had in a couple of years was at its peak, complete with stinging watering eyes, ear pain, nasal discharge, congestion, and coughing. I had no desire to be in a crowded movie theater sharing my illness with others.

It was a work and a school night. I work long hours several days each week. The theater was 20 miles away, so I had to cut out of work a bit early to get there on time and it would be after my ideal bedtime by the time we got home. My condition called for extra sleep instead of an abbreviated slumber. I was chagrined that the kids would get no homework done.

But I decided to follow the counsel I received from a wise man before my wife and I were married. He said that I needed to learn and frequently employ two words if I wanted to ensure a happy marriage. Those words are, "Yes, dear."

We walked into the theater after the notoriously noisy and borderline assaulting previews and ads had already started. It was crowded enough that we had to split the family up to find seats. I was in a dour mood.

As the feature started I felt shivers down my spine as I heard the opening song, which sounded like Sami yoiking. Having lived in northern Norway, I have mixed with and heard the unique singing and chanting of Sami people. I was captivated by next scene, which featured ice cutters singing a song called The Frozen Heart that sounded deliberately Sami.

It soon became clear to me that the movie was designed to appear Scandinavian. The geography, landscape, architecture, settings, decor, etc. screamed Scandinavia. The Scandinavian blood that runs in my veins rendered me hooked from that point on.

Disney loves to kill off one or both parents of its main characters. I can think of exceptions such as Mulan, The Incredibles, Tangled, and Brave. But most of the main characters in Disney's animated movies have lost or else end up losing one or both parents. Frozen is no exception, as the king and queen of Arendelle meet their demise early in the movie. I realize that knocking off parents makes it easier for the story tellers to place young people in situations and adventures that would generally be impossible or implausible if the characters were an integral part of a wholly intact family. But a plot device used too often can seem tedious.

Frozen is (very) loosely based on the Hans Christian Andersen story the Snow Queen. Characters, purposes, and plot lines are shifted dramatically from the original; although, Disney used the Scandinavian motif to honor Andersen, who hailed from Denmark.

***SPOILER ALERT***
Sisters Elsa (who becomes queen) and Anna are the main characters, although, younger sister Anna clearly plays the lead role. Both are very strong figures. Anna's memory of Elsa's magical ice capacities are lost in childhood after Elsa accidentally hurts Anna with her magic. Elsa spends years hiding from Anna for fear of harming her again. This fear eventually leads Elsa to take a number of actions that seem harmful and villainous; although, the audience understands why Elsa is doing what she does and she remains a sympathetic character.

In the meantime, Anna, who has been behind the castle walls for years, gets an opportunity to mix and mingle with more people. She immediately falls in love with Hans, a handsome prince. This event comes complete with a fun and quirky love song.

When Elsa delves into destructive behavior, Anna sets out to redeem her. Along the way Anna meets up with Kristoff, a handsome ice cutter. This develops into an awkward love triangle, even as Olaf, a snowman accidentally brought to life provides comedy relief. (Frosty the Snowman, anyone?)

The situation with Elsa left me feeling bereft of a traditional Disney villain — until later in the film when Prince Hans is suddenly revealed to be the actual villain. While this resolves Anna's love triangle, Anna and Kristoff do not marry in the Disney fairy tale tradition. Rather, by the end of the movie they seem to be starting to work on a dating relationship.

During Anna's attempts to rescue Elsa from herself, Elsa ends up wounding Anna in a potentially fatal manner. The wound can only be healed by an act of true love. The story tellers deliberately lead the audience to think this must be the traditional fairly tale kiss from a handsome prince, a la Sleeping Beauty. But instead it turns out to be the moment Anna gives her own life to save Elsa. Of course, this breaks the spell. The seemingly dead Anna comes back to life and Elsa gains control over her magic so that she can use it for good.

This is clearly a Christian theme. Hans Christian Andersen was a devoutly religious man. Christian religious themes are woven throughout his works and Christian redemption is the main message in his original Snow Queen work. In Frozen, Elsa plays the role of the fallen sinner who keeps doing wrong despite her desires to refrain from doing so. Anna plays the role of the Savior who continually works to redeem the fallen soul. She ultimately gives her life to save that soul before finally being 'resurrected.' (Harry Potter did something similar.)

While Frozen has been wildly popular with audiences, there is no shortage of critics that find fault with the movie. And really, there is plenty of fault to find, if that's what you're looking for. Success always begets much criticism.

Many claim to find all kinds of hidden messages throughout the movie. Both religious and homosexual activists claim that a briefly appearing character that operates a shop in the mountains is gay. Some angrily state that the movie smacks of "faux feminism," whatever that means, whining that there are no strong supporting female characters. Others are chapped that the story doesn't culminate in a marriage or that there isn't enough multiculturalism. (Hello, racial and cultural diversity were pretty narrow in Scandinavia at the time setting of the story.)

Whatever. Disney movie makers are famous for adding private jokes and cleverly disguised social messages to animated features. A professor of literature that I know says that the focus on these minor elements misses the whole point of the story. It's not the background messages that are important, he says; it's the big messages that audiences get. In the case of Frozen, I'd have to say that the big messages most viewers get are redemption and self sacrifice for the sake of others.

Despite its deficiencies, it is important to remember that Frozen is primarily a bit of entertainment aimed at children. It's not sacred writ or anything like that. So what if it has a few flaws? It is also useful to remember that the defects perceived by some do not seem like defects to others. Disney has apparently done a pretty good job of putting together a story that speaks well to modern audiences.

The main thing Disney is trying to do with Frozen is to make money. You don't make money like Frozen is making without pleasing your customers. Given that the show's music is already becoming very popular and that the story is well suited for a Broadway stage play, it seems that Disney will be able to parlay its movie achievement into success in other markets as well.

I suspect that Frozen will end up being a cultural icon for today's toddler and elementary school girls. At least, my daughter walks around the house singing tunes from Frozen. Once the movie is released for home purchase many more will do the same.

In the end I walked out of the movie theater quite happy to have seen the movie, despite the inconveniences involved. While that might by my Scandinavian blood talking, I think it's more than that.

Why Jews, Mormons, and Immigrants Prosper: Three Essential Traits

Yale Law School professors (and spouses) Amy Chua (of Tiger Mother fame) and Jed Rubenfeld say in this NY Times article that Jews, Mormons, and immigrants are among those with the greatest upward mobility in the US. All successful members of these groups share three traits, some of which can even seem "un-American."

"It turns out that for all their diversity, the strikingly successful groups in America today share three traits that, together, propel success. The first is a superiority complex — a deep-seated belief in their exceptionality. The second appears to be the opposite — insecurity, a feeling that you or what you’ve done is not good enough. The third is impulse control."

Chua and Rubenfeld emphatically state that one or two of these traits is simply not enough to drive success. It requires all three. A lack of one or two of these factors or an improper balance of the three can lead to pathological behavior that would be antithetical to real prosperity.

Let's consider each of these three traits.

• Superiority. The authors note that Jews have a deep history of seeing themselves as God's chosen people. Mormons do as well, considering themselves to be heirs with God. And although Mormon history is less than two centuries old as opposed to four millennia for the Jews, Mormon theology finds the religion's roots in a premortal life long before the earth existed. Many immigrants see themselves as exceptional compared to their cohorts in the old country. While superiority can be narcissistic and dangerous, "The United States itself was born ... with an outsize belief in its own exceptionality," so it should be a familiar American trait.

• Insecurity. While insecurity is "anathema in American culture," it "runs deep in every one of America’s rising groups; and consciously or unconsciously, they tend to instill it in their children." The children of many immigrants are taught that failure to excel would dishonor the sacrifices of their elders. Despite their successes, Mormons are regularly the subject of popular derision. They also have a history of severe persecution in the 19th Century. Jews have been persecuted for millennia and were tortured and murdered by the millions in mid-20th Century Europe. While "In combination with a superiority complex, the feeling of being underestimated or scorned can be a powerful motivator," pressure to succeed can also make children feel like they can never please their parents.

• Impulse Control. Self discipline — putting off immediate desires for long-term rewards — "runs against the grain of contemporary [YOLO] culture.... The dominant culture is fearful of spoiling children’s happiness with excessive restraints or demands. By contrast, every one of America’s most successful groups takes a very different view of childhood, inculcating habits of discipline from a very early age — or at least they did so when they were on the rise." Both Jews and Mormons, for example, have restrictive dietary doctrines and Mormons take chastity and service very seriously. Immigrants often feel pressured to work hard and save.

The culture in which one is raised is important (but not essential) to success. Culture can foster a general rise among the group or it can stifle such mobility. The authors state:

"Any individual, from any background, can have what we call this Triple Package of traits. But research shows that some groups are instilling them more frequently than others, and that they are enjoying greater success."

But "groups rise and fall over time." Some groups that were once prosperous have stagnated while others that once struggled have risen. "The fact that groups rise and fall this way punctures the whole idea of “model minorities” or that groups succeed because of innate, biological differences" the authors claim.

Moreover, today's prosperity can sew the seeds of decline for future generations. To "the extent that a group passes on its wealth" by inheritance "without hard work, insecurity or discipline," the group is "likely to be headed for decline." An old proverb states that a rich man's son is seldom a rich man's father.

Not to worry, the authors say. In America "prosperity and power had their predictable effect, eroding the insecurity and self-restraint that led to them. By 2000, all that remained was our superiority complex, which by itself is mere swagger, fueling a culture of entitlement and instant gratification. Thus the trials of recent years — the unwon wars, the financial collapse, the rise of China — have, perversely, had a beneficial effect: the return of insecurity."

This is actually a good thing, the authors argue. "America has always been at its best when it has had to overcome adversity and prove its mettle on the world stage. For better and worse, it has that opportunity again today."

Still the authors warn that the success they are discussing revolves chiefly around material measures. Focusing too heavily on "external measures" of worth such as "prestige and money" may not lead to the kind of success that breeds happiness, which is what each of us really wants in life. On the other hand, despite our human longing for comfort, complacency and mediocrity might not lead to real happiness either.

Doing Family History Work by Uploading Media to FamilySearch

I am officially at a frustration point with respect to my family history work. But I'm not that worried about it. I've been there before and breakthroughs have eventually occurred that have allowed me to progress.

Family history research (and if you're LDS, preparatory documentation for the work of salvation for the dead) has come a long way since I first started trying to do research as a teen. Back in the day most research work required travel to a location where actual records or copies of records were stored, hours of painstaking analysis, written correspondence, and lots of writing on paper. I still have the notepad I first used when I started doing research.

While this kind of approach is still sometimes needed, most people can now complete a great deal of family history work from their home computers. Clearing names for temple work has gone from using paper records to using floppy discs to using writable CDs (all of these formats required visiting or corresponding with a family history center) to selecting a few links in a web browser window on any internet capable device.

I am a big fan of the modern FamilySearch website. Content that was once stored on local computers (where it was often out of sync) is now managed centrally, where it is available to broad audiences and where contributions from users worldwide can be coordinated. The site's heavily graphical interface can sometimes be a little slow by modern standards. But it's not bad and the tradeoffs are worth the wait.

The recently enhanced ability to upload and tag photos, stories and documents particularly interests me. This has become my go-to place when I find myself temporarily unable to progress with research and submitting names, the condition in which I currently find myself.

I do have a nit to pick with the site designers. One of the ways to access this part of the website is through the Photos link on the top menu of the website (see image below). This would more appropriately be labeled something like Media, since it includes stories and documents (and perhaps videos in the future). Why would anyone think that they first had to click on Photos to get to stories?

image of FamilySearch top line menu

A second way to access select media elements is by clicking on a person's name in Family Tree. This causes a panel to appear that shows information about the individual and along with links to the various media items have been tagged for the individual (see image below). Clicking on the various links takes you to pages showing those items.

image of FamilySearch individual information panel

Uploading and tagging photos can digitally preserve images that would often otherwise languish in storage until they were eventually tossed out following the demise of whoever had the photos. Or else photos are sometimes passed down with little information, since everyone that knew who was in the photos has passed on, diminishing the family value of the photos. Putting these photos online while information is still available preserves these pictures for the long term. Original documents, such as life event certificates or even old report cards can be uploaded.

Another valuable service is recording and uploading stories about family members. Tagging all those mentioned in the story automatically links the story to those people. Most family stories disappear with the passing of those who witnessed the events or who heard the stories told by those that did.

Recently I came into possession of a handful of pages handwritten by my grandmother many years ago, where she related various names and events. I have evidence that some of the information presented is somewhat suspect, probably due to the condition of Grandma's faculties at the time. But there are some great stories.

For example, I had no idea that my father's cousin was killed in World War II and lived to tell about it. The story goes that he was a casualty in a violent battle. His body lay in a morgue while his young bride was notified and was brought to the location where she could identify the body. Given the challenges of communicating and traveling in war torn Europe, nine days had passed by the time she arrived.

When they pulled back the cover on the body, the young wife said that she saw the body move. She insisted that a doctor be brought. The doctor was displeased to be pulled away from important work. He refused to believe the woman until he suddenly saw the body twitch. My father's cousin was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he underwent surgery and remained for many weeks of recovery. But he lived a relatively normal life after that.

Since the subjects of this story are deceased and the couple no children, I'm not sure that anyone would have been aware of this story had I not encountered it, written it up, and uploaded it to FamilySearch. Now it is available to anyone with interest in the matter.

When putting stories on FamilySearch, I have found it useful to first write, review, and correct the stories in a text editor. I have used Google Drive and Microsoft Word. The content of the text editor window can then be copied and pasted into a FamilySearch story frame. Bear in mind that reading content online is different than reading it on paper. Judicious use of white space, such as adding a line between paragraphs, can help a lot. Don't bother trying to indent paragraphs. When I tried this the results were not good.

You can associate up to one photo with each story. If you have multiple photos that could accompany a story, you might try breaking the story up into smaller parts. I have found it useful when I do this to number the parts of the story by adding numbering to each story title. This allows others to more easily read the pieces in sequence.

Others can comment on the stories you create on FamilySearch and you can respond to their comments. This allows for useful collaboration, such as when others have additional information that you lack. You can also edit the stories you add to the site if you discover new or different information.

Uploading photos, documents, and stories to FamilySearch may not help clear anyone for temple work, but it is still a valuable part of the important work of turning the hearts of the children to their fathers (Malachi 4:6).

What family stories do you know that could be preserved on FamilySearch?

Update 2/4/2014: The label of the Photos link that I thought ought to have been titled differently has now been changed to Memories. I see this as a most welcome change.

A Diet of Blended Punishment

I don't watch much TV. We were recently told by a sales rep that we could get the premium cable package for $6 more per month than what we pay for internet access. (Well, that and the cable box rental, fees, etc. Probably more like $40/month.) We talked it over with the family and everyone voted against it. We've seen cable at other people's houses. They've got lots and lots of channels ... of stuff that we just aren't interested in spending our time watching.

Recently as I was reclining in a dental chair I became even more convinced that our decision to remain free of cable TV was the right choice. I couldn't help staring at the ceiling where a TV had been placed directly in my view field. It was either look at the TV or concentrate on the pattern of tiny holes in the adjacent ceiling tiles. I'm not much into staring into the hygenist's eyes at close range—an activity that I reserve for my wife.

Since I had declined the complimentary headphones, I was spared the audio portion of the TV program. Even without sound, trying to ignore the blender infomercial was like trying to look away from a gruesome traffic accident. While they were selling a mere blender (which clearly wasn't a Blendtec industrial strength model), they were hawking it as some kind of fountain of youth cure-all answer to all of your weight and health woes.

I watched as blenders full of a variety of carefully arranged, extremely choice and tasty looking produce items were presented. Then someone would press a button and wham-o! The gorgeous cornucopia was immediately reduced to a horrid looking slurry that closely resembled the consequences of consuming such a diet on an uninitiated intestinal tract.

The worst part was when they showed families of people drinking the stuff with smiles on their faces. The irony of people wearing store bought grins showing the teeth that they should have used to grind up the whole food instead of letting a machine do the work was apparently lost on the marketing folks. Some of the younger family members were obviously having difficulty maintaining their goofy smiles. I couldn't help but wonder how much they had to pay those people. And how much the mom and dad had to threaten their kids to get them to go along.

What's up with this whole blender fad anyway? Beyond simply providing nutrition, food is supposed to "please the eye and gladden the heart" (D&C 59:18). Reducing a meal to sub-baby-food gruel destroys the presentation, which is an important element of the human dining experience.

Like other food fads, people will rush to try the blender fad. Then after they realize how difficult it is to do, how unpleasant it is to consume (and to digest), and how little it apparently affects the health conditions they hope to resolve, they will revert to their standard diets. Their magic blenders will gather dust on the counter or else be relegated to some remote shelf for storage. Sure, there will be die-hards that stick with the blender diet (maybe because they're into self punishment). But they will be a small minority.

After my dental appointment I had little appetite. Not that the dental work caused problems. I was just a little queasy from the blender infomercial. Maybe my dentist should more carefully screen what is shown on the office's TVs.

The Frustration Wonder of Children

Our son that is in high school is and always has been a remarkable individual. While he certainly regularly demonstrates many of the faults that are common to young men, he has always had a certain goodness of soul.

Still, this son has always been, well, a bit different than the mainstream. From the time he was tiny he has approached life differently than our other kids and from most kids we know. After spending part of a summer working at a Boy Scout camp, the camp director told me, "That one marches to the beat of a different drummer. But it's a good drummer."

This child has always been curious about things, forever asking questions to which I don't know the answer or that are not easily addressed. When he was still in elementary school my father gave him a book about quantum physics because Dad was convinced that our son could grasp such principles. Nowadays when our son asks deep questions about scientific matters, I tell him to research it for himself.

We have called this son our wandering child. It is common for him to become so interested in something—often something that might not catch the attention of most people—that other matters (that we sometimes think ought to be more pressing) seemingly disappear from his active cognition.

From the time he was mobile, this son has regularly wandered off to explore something that has caught his interest. This means that he has gotten lost more than the rest of our children put together. It's difficult to explain the sheer terror of losing your four-year-old in a sea of 10,000 people at a parade. Now that this child the tallest member of our family it's easier to keep track of him. Sometimes he will even answer his phone if we can't locate him.

Given my lifelong involvement in scouting, my sons have been involved as well. This son is my Mr. Reliable when it comes to scouting needs. He is also my go-to family member for hiking. Nobody else in the family cares much for hiking. We have pictures of this son and me on each of the major mountain peaks in our area. It is difficult to explain the emotions I felt when this boy instigated our last major hike in October.

This strapping boy is musically gifted. He regularly demonstrates finesse and nuance far beyond the average pianist his age when playing classical piano compositions. He can play the euphonium and is quite good on his ocarinas. He composes and records electronic dance music. But his favorite instrument at present is his voice. He has a good range for a bass. But it bothers him that he doesn't have perfect enough pitch to always precisely hit the note at the very outset. He can adjust within a fraction of a second, but he wishes for perfect pitch. He fantasizes about going into voice acting with his marvelous speaking voice.

Mr. Music was asked to prepare a musical number for church a few weeks ago. But he didn't do anything about it. Finally a week before the performance I pulled him to the piano and offered some options. Among other things I offered to dust off a piano duet we had played a while back. He seemed indifferent to all of my suggestions.

I finally pulled out an arrangement of Come Thou Fount (purposefully selected for its easy accompaniment) and insisted that Mr. Voice sing while I played. Here is where a well practiced voice that has often sung before audiences comes in handy. After reviewing the piece a few times he was ready to perform with beautiful tonal quality and well placed and wide ranging emotional emphasis.

We all get sidetracked on diversions once in awhile, but this seems to be more the rule than the exception for our smart and talented son. My wife and I are nearly apoplectic about how we're going to get him to graduate high school. It is not uncommon for students to have difficulty managing their assignment load. But our son has always had organizational challenges. He does fine with assignments and activities done together as a class, but he just can't seem to get organized when it comes to individual (or even small group) tasks, regardless of whether they are to be done at school or at home.

It is already clear that our son is going to be doing summer school again this year, despite our best efforts to prevent this outcome. We are working with him to implement some additional measures that we hope (beyond hope) will limit the amount of work he will have to do this summer. We have considered clinical interventions, but I'm not sure that I want to medicate the uniqueness out of my child.

Kids can be so wonderful. Kids can be so frustrating. Sometimes simultaneously. Sometimes simultaneously in the same kid.

The Saturday Chores

House cleaning chores happen on Saturday morning at our place. Or at least, that's when they're supposed to happen. A motivated child can get through his/her assigned chores in 45 minutes. An hour tops. But our kids regularly tend to drag the chores out for 2½-3 hours or even longer.

I guess it's like when my mom used to make my brother eat vegetables that he really detested. We all had to eat them, but this brother had a particular dislike of certain vegetables. There was a time consuming ritual to arrive at the point where my brother would put the vegetables in his mouth. He would then reluctantly chew on them. And chew, and chew, and chew, while trying to achieve the fortitude to swallow them.

We used to chide my brother for his antics. We asked him why, if he disliked the taste of the vegetables so much, he didn't just wolf them down as rapidly as possible and get it over with. Why did he have to keep the distasteful food in his mouth for-stinking-ever? Our kids often (not always) follow a similar pattern with their chores.

I don't think that our family's chores are particularly onerous. While we clean the house every Saturday, our home isn't the cleanest place on earth. Far from it. When I lived in Norway I frequently saw little plaques on the walls of homes that said something like, "Clean enough to be healthy, dirty enough to be home." That describes our house. Most of the time. When we err, it's on the side where being clean enough to be healthy might be questionable.

Our kids clean the bathrooms (including the toilets). They dust the furniture, wall hangings, curtains, blinds, fan blades, etc. Or these things at least get to see the duster. They vacuum. To a certain extent. They empty the wastebaskets. And that's about it. Each of these children started doing these chores when they were still wee tots, so they all have plenty of practice.

You might commend us for having such (janitorially) well trained children. But you must understand that we have developed an odd tradition that has become sacrosanct to our children. In the dim ages when the older children were starting out with chores, we discovered that we couldn't get them to be productive until they finished watching their beloved Saturday morning cartoons. We ultimately settled on 10:00 am as the time for starting chores.

Only the youngest still bothers with TV on Saturday mornings. The others tend to sleep, do stuff on the computer, play video games, etc. until the stroke of ten. Or for a few minutes thereafter until my wife or I get on their case.

Given the 10:00 am chore start time, you'd think that the chores would be done by 11:00 am. But no. Because the children are expert at finding things that absolutely must happen at the moment chore time arrives. "I haven't had breakfast yet," says one. "I'm going to take a shower first," says another. "I have to use the toilet," says another. Each of these tasks seems to take the better part of an hour. Plus another 30-45 minutes to get dressed. By the time a child finally gets ready to start on a chore, the child says, "It's lunchtime. I need to eat," despite having eaten breakfast only a short time earlier.

When the chore activities finally get underway, our children seem to have developed great expertise in taking as long as possible to complete their chores. Not that all of that time translates into thoroughness. It translates into much lolly-gagging and complaining about not being able to get to other more desirable activities.

A favorite tactic is spending copious time finding, setting up, and using their personal audio devices. Earbuds are forever disappearing. Waiting for the vacuum is another favored stalling activity, despite the fact that we have three vacuums in the house. (That's a long story.) But the vacuum the child wants to use is already occupied. Or the child feigns being unable to locate some other favored cleaning implement.

It's my brother chewing on his hated vegetables all over again. I ask my children why, if they want to get on to leisure, they don't get their chores done as quickly as possible. Heaven knows they couldn't possibly be much less thorough if they hurried.

In reality, I very much appreciate the housework my children do, despite the nagging it sometimes requires to get them to do it. They (mostly) do a fair job. Unlike some of their peers, they actually know how to clean a toilet, chemicals and all. I'm not sure how well this translates into regularly cleaning the toilet after they are living on their own. But at least they'll know how to do it. You can do much to prepare your child for life outside of the family abode, but what they do with that preparation once they get there is largely up to them.

Agency: The Prime Divine Directive

In trying to develop his own theodicy, my son (who dabbles in philosophy) wrote:

"If God knows all, how did satan come to be? A perfect God would not create an offspring knowing full well that that child would never have a chance at eternal salvation. The only thing I can think of is if somehow God hadn’t achieved omniscience at the time he procreated Lucifer. This way He knew that one of His children would end up becoming the devil but not which specific one. I have no idea if this postulate violates doctrine.

"Adding to the previous entry, this gives rise to the idea that God knows before He creates each spirit what the eternal fate of that spirit will be. This being stated, would a perfect God create myriad souls, much less a single soul, that wouldn’t achieve eternal life, or, more basely, that would become perdition? One idea is that He doesn’t know (whether by choice or by eternal law I couldn’t say) the person until after He creates them. Another is that since God can see eternity, the concept of Him knowing what’s going to happen and what’s not isn’t the same in the eternal sphere as that which we can comprehend."

In order to understand my son's proposition, it is necessary to understand the LDS doctrines of the nature of God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of the devil. As explained in this Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on God, God is a term that includes the Divine Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. However, LDS scripture states that "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit" (D&C 130:22).

As explained in this EoM article on God the Father, God the Father is omnipotent and omniscient. He "existed prior to the Son and the Holy Ghost and is the source of their divinity. ... He is ultimately the source of all things and the Father of all things, for in the beginning he begot the Son, and through the instrumentality of his agent, the Son, the Father accomplished the creation of all things."

LDS doctrine further states (see EoM: Plan of Salvation) that God's plan for the eternal happiness of his children involves several stages, including life with God in a premortal existence, life on earth for those that chose to move forward with God's plan, and a postmortal eternal existence, the quality of which is dependent on one's acceptance of the Atonement of Christ and willing adherence to divine principles. Unlike some religious teachings, LDS doctrine provides for ample opportunity both in this life and afterward for all of God's children to ultimately achieve the greatest glory God has to give.

The above referenced article on God the Father states, "All individual human spirits were begotten (not created from nothing or made) by the Father in a premortal state, where they lived and were nurtured by Heavenly Parents." In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, LDS prophets and apostles state, "Each [human being] is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny."

Prior to our birth as spirits in the premortal life we existed as eternal intelligence, which "was not created or made, neither indeed can be" (D&C 93:29). But as explained in this EoM article on Intelligences, God has not yet revealed more about the nature of our prespirit state, so more specific pronouncements about it are merely speculation.

One of God's significant characteristics is his commitment to the agency of his children. The Father "will never violate individual agency by forcing his children to exaltation and happiness. Coercion in any degree, even in the form of predestination to the Celestial Kingdom, is abhorrent to the nature of the Father."

Having rudimentarily outlined the doctrines of God and his plan of happiness, we still need to understand the nature of Satan. "In the premortal life, Lucifer was an angel having authority in the presence of God. He played a prominent role in the Council in Heaven. After the Father in Heaven offered the plan of righteousness to help his children become as he is, Lucifer countered with an alternative plan" designed to spare individuals the pain inherent in the Father's plan, but that would eliminate agency and transfer God's glory and authority to Lucifer (EoM: Devils). For this rebellion Lucifer and his followers (consisting of one-third of the spirits in that realm) were cast out to the earth, having forsaken their opportunities to receive physical bodies and to progress eternally.

This set of doctrines requires that God (being all knowing) knowingly (and being all powerful) deliberately allowed Lucifer to receive a spirit body in the premortal existence; although, God was completely aware that Lucifer would ultimately rebel, would be the means of eternally turning one-third of God's spirit children into devils, and would perpetrate much evil on the earth. In my son's mind, a perfectly loving God would not do such a thing.

I told my son that I begged to differ with his interpretation. "Because of [his perfect] love, it is the nature of the Father to improve everything and everyone to the extent that they will allow" (EoM: God the Father). God would love for each of his children to own the eternal joy and glory that he owns, but the only way for that to happen is through the completely voluntary choice of individuals to follow God and do his will. This voluntary system necessarily requires the open availability of all kinds of alternatives as well.

Agency plays a preeminent role in God's plan. God can institute and maintain consequences for misuse of agency that violates divine laws, but he cannot preempt an individual's opportunity to make those kinds of choices in a way that violates individual agency. At least, in doing so he would cease to be God.

One friend likened this to a chemist that fully knows beforehand what result will be produced by completing a given experiment. If achieving the result is his goal, it does not matter that he knows what the experiment will produce; he must still complete the experiment to get the result.

So it is with God. He knows beforehand what each of his children will choose to become, but it is essential to his goal of providing for divine happiness that he allow each of his children to actually become what they choose. He lovingly provides the route they must follow to arrive at their optimal destination and he invites them to follow that path. But he cannot usurp their agency to stop them from choosing a different path without renouncing his godhood, as doing so would be antithetical to godhood.

This is the whole reason earth life is structured as it is. The game is played out on a level playing field where neither good nor evil has any clear advantage over the other. Opposition is essential to the great plan of happiness (see 2 Nephi 2). Bad stuff can happen to individuals due to natural factors and the choices of others. But the Savior's Atonement ultimately compensates for any such problems. The important matter is how we choose to use our agency. God will try to entice us to choose his path, but he will never coerce us into doing so, even when he is fully aware that some of his children will perpetrate great evil.

There is no reason to believe that the nature of God was any different in the premortal life than it is now. His omniscience, omnipotence, love, and commitment to agency were not diminished in that state. It did not matter that God knew that Lucifer would follow a path that would lead to perdition. Being God, he had to be committed to Lucifer's agency.

God did not design Lucifer. Rather, he gave birth to a spirit from an eternal intelligence. Refusing to grant a spirit body to this individual—a type of premortal abortion—would have been antithetical to the nature of godhood, as it would have violated Lucifer's agency by short-circuiting his progression along his chosen route. God did not "make" Satan. But he could not refuse Lucifer the opportunity of becoming Satan without ceasing to be God.

Godhood is not for the feint of heart. While it is the nature of God to own a perfect fullness of divine joy, it is also his nature to experience a perfect fullness of divine sorrow. Being God does not mean creating anything in anyway that happens to suit one's fancies. It means adhering to the eternal laws of godhood, which require creating in a way that allows others to choose the divine path.

Curtailing agency, even to circumvent evil, would necessarily also destroy the divine path. Providing a pathway to godhood also means allowing the road to perdition to exist. God can put up warning signs, but he cannot close the road without also closing the divine road. Allowing all willing souls to choose ultimate light also means allowing all willing souls to choose ultimate darkness. There is no other way.

God was not omnisciently or omnipotently deficient when Lucifer was born as a spirit. God was doing what a perfectly loving God does: providing an open opportunity for a soul to become fully divine or to choose a different path. I suspect that in a future day when all hidden things are revealed (see Mormon 5:8) we will more fully comprehend Lucifer's choice and will not charge God foolishly (see Job 1:22) for the result.

Your New Exercise Equipment Will Likely See Little Use

As we swapped stories about past jobs one colleague told of working at an exercise equipment manufacturing company. "I had a hard time feeling good about working there," he said. "All of the equipment we made was junk. They engineered it to last only 90 days."

Another colleague opined that the complaint and return rate must have been pretty high, which must have eaten into profits. "Nah," said our friend. "They know that almost nobody that buys exercise equipment uses it for 90 days. It ends up sitting idle or being used for hanging clothes. It never get used long enough to break down."

I have gone through several pieces of exercise equipment over the years. My first machine was a rowing machine. You can get a decent full-body workout with a good rowing machine. The problem was that this was not a good rowing machine; it was a cheap one. I used it a lot until it broke. Even then I used it until I couldn't make it work anymore. That's way more than most people use a piece of exercise equipment.

My parents once bought a HealthRider that I tried several times. It consistently gave me saddle sores so I quit using it. Mom used it as a clothes hanger for years.

My most enduring piece of equipment has been a NordicTrack cross country ski machine. Unlike most consumer exercise machines, these devices are built to endure years of use. I got my first NodicTrack about a quarter century ago. I used it so much that I replaced some parts twice. Eventually I got a better model and gave the other one away. I now have a second machine that we bought cheaply simply so that we could cannibalize parts for the machine I use regularly.

My next most enduring piece of equipment is a bunch of free weights. Weights are fairly cheap and are very durable. I have a cheap foldable lifting bench that I also use.

But it takes time to fool around with free weights. Switching weights around can seriously interrupt the flow of your workout and increase workout time. So I acquired a Bowflex machine. Bowflex equipment isn't cheap, but it's quite durable.

I'll be the first to admit that resistance machine workouts lack some of the physical benefits of using free weights. But machines are much more convenient. Besides, I work out for fitness, not so that I can look like a gym buff boy. After several years of Bowflex ownership, I upgraded to a higher model. I am quite pleased with my Bowflex, which I use in combination with free weights.

We have an exercise bike in the basement that rarely gets used by the family member for which it was purchased. I have a couple of chap ab wheels that I use. Come to think of it, every durable piece of equipment that I have used with consistency has been acquired AFTER I already developed the habit of working out in that manner. The equipment was acquired for the sake of convenience, not to try to spur me on to exercise.

What this means is that I am abnormal—or at least not average. A normal (i.e. average) American buys exercise equipment thinking that it will get them to commit to doing exercise that they feel they ought to do but that they currently do not do. The same is true of gym memberships.

As explained in this Active.com article, people that buy exercise equipment quickly discover that exercising requires a time commitment. It is often boring and difficult. It's uncomfortable to the point of being painful and only produces results after much time and effort. Most people are not ready for that set of tradeoffs. Consequently, the purchase of equipment rarely engenders the required level of commitment. So after a few uses the equipment sits.

Exercise really comes down to the level of commitment, not to the equipment. Frankly, you can engage in very healthy exercise routines that require no or very little equipment at all. Some fitness experts say that these routines are much healthier for you than are equipment based routines.

In fact, some experts say that exercises that most closely approximate normal physical work are the healthiest. But if you're going to do that, why not just do the actual physical work and bag the silly fitness routine?

It comes down to what is going to keep you exercising. The linked Active.com article suggests that hiring a personal trainer does it for many people. I guess it's not that much different than hiring a piano teacher to give you piano lessons. But most people just aren't into hiring a personal trainer. Where do you find them? At the gym? And what if you don't like going to the gym?

That's me. I don't like going to the gym. Many people need the social aspect of working out to exercise. Not me. I'm an antisocial exerciser. I don't want to exercise with anybody else. It's my personal thing. That's why I have my own gym at home.

Nor am I like my friends that run. I don't like running, an activity that one critic calls a one-person parade. I force myself to run sometimes, but I don't like it much. I don't like the shin splints I inevitably get or the results of joint jarring. I don't like dealing with the gravel, the cars, weather, etc.

And don't bother writing with great tips on how to avoid shin splints. I've heard them all and I've found the only one that really works for me: just don't run.

One morning I was walking our dog (a necessity if you're going to be a responsible dog owner) as passels of runners in a local 5K race (not a necessity) went by. None of those people looked very happy, especially the gal running with the front of the pack that stopped long enough to vomit in my neighbor's bushes before carrying on. And marathons? That's pain for the sake of it. I can't even begin to fathom barefoot running, which seems like taking an already insane activity to a new level of lunacy.

In fact, recent research suggests that extreme fitness really isn't very good for your body. It should be noted that extreme fitness enthusiasts have found fault with these studies. But who am I to quibble with research that gives me a great excuse for avoiding ultra fitness craziness?

I have said before that a fitness program has to work for the individual both physically and psychologically. So your fitness program may not look like somebody else's. And what works for you today may not work down the road. Fitness programs need to change with the individual's changing needs. So I really can't tell you what kind of program will work for you. I have arrived at my current routine through trial and error.

So, as we embark on a new year and its attendant resolutions, what will it take to get YOU to exercise and to keep exercising? If you're like the average American, the answer is nothing. Because nothing seems to be effective.

Professional, amateur, and government scolding and nagging doesn't do it. Buying expensive exercise equipment doesn't do it either for most people. So maybe you ought to save your money until you can dredge up the requisite level of commitment. It's far cheaper and no less healthy than the alternative of buying equipment that you won't really use.

The Logistics of Sacrament Meeting Programs

I furtively glanced at the clock on the wall of the chapel. The remaining meeting time was slipping away. Yet the first speaker gave no sign of concluding his talk. I quietly expressed gratitude that I was merely a congregant and not among the bishopric members that were seated on the stand and who were responsible for the meeting.

The speaker, a newly returned missionary, spoke with purity, reverence, love, and conviction. Despite the large congregation, most were reverently attentive to the speaker and seemed to be engaged in his message. There was a minimum of distracting noises or even white noise. I could tell that many present were feeling the Holy Spirit.

Still, I felt anxious for the two other speakers that were sitting on the stand awaiting their turn to speak. Moreover, I knew that a number of 11- and 12-year-old girls had worked hard to prepare a special musical number for the program. Would there be time for any of these items?

I frequently try to remind myself that the main purpose of sacrament meeting is for "members of the Church [to] renew their covenants by partaking of the sacrament" (Handbook 2, Section 18.2.2). Other purposes such as to "worship, provide gospel instruction, perform ordinances, conduct ward business, and strengthen faith and testimony" are icing on the cake, as it were. Each of these has value and is important, but each is also ancillary to the main feature of the ordinance of the sacrament where we covenant to make the Atonement of Christ the central component of our lives.

Our bishop is a wonderful man that seems to exude love. As a convert to the church he was not raised amid church protocol. He seems relatively willing to conduct meetings "after the manner of the working of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 6:9).

Still, church protocol exists for a reason. Bishoprics that plan sacrament meeting programs know that each meeting should last 70 minutes (Handbook 2, Section 18.1). Adhering closely to this schedule becomes more important when sacrament meeting occupies the first segment of the three meeting block or when another ward is waiting to enter the chapel for their own meeting.

When I served in a bishopric I quickly discovered that the meeting opening and the sacrament ordinance consumed roughly 25-30 minutes. It sometimes took longer if the number of visitors made for an unusually large congregation. The closing hymn and benediction usually took about five minutes. This left about 35-40 minutes (sometimes less) for the program.

Bishoprics are sometimes guilty of over scheduling—trying to cram too many program items into the allotted time. That's unfair to those that are asked to participate on the program. Musical numbers are generally limited in scope. But once a speaker steps to the microphone bishopric members have remarkably little control over how long that person will speak.

When I was responsible for issuing callings to speak I gave each a slip of paper that described the topic, where they were scheduled on the program, the time frame for their talk, and a list of people that would be willing to help them prepare. Most speakers stayed close to the time frame and topic. Some didn't.

I recall one brother (whom I dearly love) speaking with random aimlessness for about 25 minutes when he had been slated to max out at 12 minutes. The bishop twice very nearly got up to ask the man to sit down, but he restrained himself. The man's wife restrained herself too. Very rarely have I seen a speaker add anything of much value after exceeding his or her time limit.

Being the final speaker in a sacrament meeting can be challenging. You might end up with far more, or more likely, far less time than anticipated, requiring you to adjust your talk accordingly. I have also noted that with rare exception the congregation largely stops listening with about five minutes remaining in the meeting. At that point whatever you have to say just isn't important enough for people to listen.

Ending up with excess time at the end of sacrament meeting is an infrequent problem. But when I served in a bishopric our stake presidency asked us to stop referring to such events as "high five Sundays." (We had sacrament meeting last, so most congregants went home early under such conditions.) I note that nowadays any excess time is usually filled by a member of the bishopric or stake presidency. Another option is for the bishop to ask people to bear testimony.

In the meeting mentioned at the start of this post I could tell that the young man felt good about his talk as he concluded. But he did a double take when he glanced at the clock and realized that only five minutes of meeting time remained. He appeared a little nervous as he seated himself beside the other planned speakers. Our bishop got up and made a few kind remarks, noting that the Spirit had been present and that the other speakers would be asked to address the congregation on another occasion.

As congregants filed out of the chapel following the closing hymn and prayer, I noticed that the mother of one of the girls that was to have sung had one of the bishop's counselors cornered. She was explaining that a number of grandparents had braved snowy roads and had rearranged their schedules to see their granddaughters sing at the meeting. The uncomfortable counselor nervously said that he would discuss the matter with the bishop. I remember days like that. Bishopric members always seem to be in trouble with some members of the congregation.

Bishopric members have a lot to do and think about as they prepare for and execute sacrament meetings. After stumbling over a few seemingly simple announcements at the beginning of a sacrament meeting, one bishop remarked that conducting the meeting looks easy until you have to stand up and do it.

In my experience I have discovered that bishopric members can do much to help sacrament meetings go more smoothly. It's their job to help speakers understand their assignment, including how to stay on topic and within their allotted time frame. Too often bishopric members are so relieved to get someone to agree to speak that they drop the ball on the specifics of the assignment.

Church members that are asked to speak can also help. For starters, there is no need to get so uptight about speaking. It isn't really about you. Unless you do something incredibly memorable (which doesn't happen a lot), the memory that you even spoke will fade for most people after a few weeks. Just ask your family members who spoke in sacrament meeting two weeks ago.

Members of the congregation want you to succeed. Most are just trying to survive your talk. If you think about it, you will likely discover some things you can do to help them out. For starters, don't criticize the authority that asked you to speak and don't make it sound like a huge ordeal. That's prideful and selfish. Just dive in and do your assignment without making a big deal about it. I promise that you will feel a lot better about your talk.

If you are an active member of the LDS Church, you have likely attended many sacrament meetings and you will likely attend many more. At some point during your life you will likely have the opportunity (or many opportunities) of taking part in or affecting a sacrament meeting program. It goes with the territory.

Mistakes can be expected to happen in an all volunteer church. And that's OK. God will still love you even if you make some stupendous social faux pas. Nothing can really go very wrong in an eternal sense. Just follow the Spirit and try to enhance the worship experience. It will all work out. You will survive and so will the members of the congregation.

Echo of The Angels' Songs

Last year I wrote about my love of Christmas music. I related how as a child I once stood in our carport and looked at the neighborhood Christmas lights shining through the big fluffy snowflakes that were falling. Feeling overwhelmed by the Christmas spirit I spontaneously sang O Holy Night at the top of my lungs. I didn't care who heard me. I wasn't singing for my neighbors. I was singing for my God. And it felt so right.

When we listen to or participate in sacred Christmas music it is as if our heart strings faintly vibrate with the echo of the songs the angels sang for the shepherds outside of Bethlehem on that first Christmas night—songs of praise declaring that Jesus Christ, the son of God had come to earth as a mortal baby and that he would grow to accomplish the Atonement so that each of us might have the opportunity of living the kind of life that God lives and owning the joy that God owns.

In fact, I believe that every sacred Christmas song, ancient or modern is an attempt to recapture the glory of the songs of praise the angels sang that first Christmas night. Our poor mortal talents can never accomplish that goal. But when we sing or perform in the same spirit of praise as did the angels or listen in the same spirit as did the shepherds, we can sense the echoes of those angelic songs. We can get a glimpse of the angels' glory, feel their testimony of Christ, and sense God's love for us.

May you have a joyous Christmas season. At some point as you experience the sacred songs of this season, may you feel your heart strings vibrate with the echo of the songs the angels sang those long years ago.