Giving the Chance to be Forgiven

A couple of my friends are in a bit of a contention. One guy had a bad breakup a couple months ago with a gal he really liked. After the breakup he found out she had dated him for practice. Well, this last week, said guy found out his best friend has started dating this heart-breaker. Hard toke brah.

Unfortunately I disagree with the way both of them are dealing with the situation. Guy 1 feels deeply betrayed. Understandable. Guy 2 feels like he needs to take what life is giving him. Understandable. I've been in both positions. I can dig it. But 1 feels that 2 needs to decide between a bromance and a romance, so he gave 2 an ultimatum: 2 had 24 hours to decide to break up with the gal or find a new place to live for the upcoming months.
My trouble with their actions are the consequences. I can understand going with the flow, but you have to draw some lines for yourself. Most people are not going to do a kilo of cocaine if they happen upon it. And hopefully a person's line is far before that. I've heard all sorts of "rules" about when it is appropriate to date a friend's ex, but making a rule about emotions is like using a sieve to hold water; they're too fluid. So when you care about a person you should draw lines so that even the lemons and sugars of life cannot force you to hurt them. We might not mean to hurt others, but we should be careful to ensure we mean not to hurt them too.

But my biggest trouble is with giving an ultimatum. It only makes things worse. If 2 picks the friendship then he may always feel regret and spite towards 1 for denying him a chance at happiness. If 2 picks the girl now and then later finds out she is not someone he can love then he lost a friend (it should also be mentioned that the girl is planning on leaving in a few months for a year and a half. So she isn't looking for a long-term relationship and one isn't really possible). Worst of all, 1 is preventing 2 almost any chance of someday being forgiven. If things turn sour with 2's relationship and he wants to renew his friendship with 1, 1 is telling 2 that there is no chance. So why would he try? And if no one tries to seek forgiveness then there is no chance for the relationship to continue.

I almost went there a few years ago. A girl really hurt my heart. She lied to me and broke countless promises. I wanted so badly to tell her that she had to choose between me and another and that I would never be there for her again if she didn't choose me. I have always been grateful that I decided not to tell her that (mostly because I realized it isn't true). It would have been unfair. It would have forever prevented us from reconciling. She and I are still not close and I would have trouble calling her even a friend after how she still treats me, but I feel like there is a chance for either of us to someday try to renew what was a very deep and satisfying friendship. I am glad I gave us a chance by denying myself the selfish pleasures of telling her off.

Things don't always work out the way we want them to, but life is good; things always turn out alright. Sometimes (most times) one needs to just leave them alone until they come home.

Overheard

"You know when a guy is...like...well...he is still like a Man, but just effeminate too?"

"How could he do that? I won't want to look anyone in my family in the eyes the day after my wedding night."

I happened to overhear both of these conversations while walking around campus today. The first one made me laugh. The second kinda bothered me.

BYU is the only place I have lived or visited where a lot of straight guys wear scarves. I do not know why. I sometimes think that homosexuality as a topic is so avoided and as a situation repressed that people do not think of it as a possibility. In a culture that is not very accepting of people who are homosexual this might be helpful, because it allows people with traditionally taboo traits or preferences to fly under the radar of just being different. Because being transgender or homosexual is not discussed it is not assumed and does not become part of people's causal logic when trying to explain something they see. So a guy who is still, like, a man can be effeminate and no one questions his sexuality. Though, if that effeminate man is gay and he wants to let people around him know then he has no gentle way to do it, because his neighbors might refuse to think of homosexuality as a reality so close to them. So, I laugh, because the situation is ridiculous.

The second quote came from a conversation I heard quite a bit of. The girl was discussing how someone she knew well had been married the previous Saturday and then had to go to the baby blessing for his niece the next day. They she expressed how she thought that would be uncomfortable. Why? Is sex really that scary? Is it embarrassing? I will sweat for lots of reasons on my wedding night I am sure, nerves definitely being one of them. But I would not (I hope) feel embarrassed to be around people. Especially my family.

This connects to another conversation I have had. Apparently some people feel that holding hands is more of a commitment than kissing. They will kiss a person long before holding hands. What!? Kissing is much more sexual (if you feel differently I would love to hear more about that) than holding hands. More sexual situations hopefully express more commitment. But their rationality was that holding hands is a public thing and lets other people know you are in a relationship, but kissing can be done quietly and privately. To them, it is the public announcement of a relationship that means more commitment.

People often have sex on their wedding night. That is nothing tot be ashamed of. You just married someone you love and adore. But are we so scared of being public about love and intimacy. Why?

Political Dichotomy

Why do Republicans preach that the government should have no involvement in business? Why do Democrats declare that the government should have no say in individual's moral decisions? What is the purpose of government, what should it be involved in?

Why do Democrats say that the United States should not impose its ideals and culture on other countries (by opposing the Monroe Doctrine and dismissing the value of Westernization {that might a bit extreme, but I have heard it rather often of late}) but supports every state having the same morals, laws, and regulations? Why do Republicans try to push the American Dream and culture on the world but reject unification of state laws, projects, and programs under the national government (Romneycare vs. Obamacare for example)? If everyone is supposed to be the same why is it only at a certain level of humanity?

Seriously, I am really confused by these issues. On two big issues, freedom and unity, our major parties use the same rational to suggest opposite suggestions. Silly if you ask me.

Politicians

What is the job of politicians?

Did you know that the expected inflation rate can affect the economy and unemployment rate as much as the actual inflation rate? It makes sense. Reality is warped into our perception of it. Unless we have a clear view of truth then we cannot base decisions off of it. In terms of unemployment, according to the Philips Curve, the best situation is when inflation is high and expected inflation is low, unemployment will be lowest. Sounds great. But that means people have to be completely ignorant of reality.

That is when politicians come into play. They are the great deceivers of society. Why? I suggest that it is the fault of society. We want unrealistic things accomplished, such as having a high inflation without anyone realizing it. And in the short run that would work. No one would see through the lie and the economy would produce a lot more, because more people are working. But eventually the lie cracks. That is where we are now. The lies are coming to light. And we no longer trust the politicians or their appointments. Now, even if they are being honest with us, we assume they are lying.

An example is the 1970's. Paul Volcker was the chairman of the Federal Reserve. America had trouble with inflation and unemployment. It was called stagflation. Trouble was all up in the back pocket of America. So he told everyone that he was going to decrease inflation (the job of the Federal Reserve is to influence the inflation rate by increasing or decreasing money supply by buying and selling bonds by setting the interest rate. Make sense?). And he did it. But everyone had been saying that before so no one believed him. So expected inflation was much higher than actual inflation and unemployment increased a lot in the late 70's. He got a lot of blame. But he knew it was needed for two reasons: people needed to trust politicians and people to lower their expectations of inflation. Eventually people reduced their expectations and unemployment rates went back down.

So here is the problem. If politicians are honest/transparent then society benefits in the long run, but the general populace does not like them, because sometimes they will have to be like Volcker and do something unattractive, even damaging to some people. Then they are eliminated during the next election cycle. A short term in office means they cannot do a lot of good. A political appointment, like Paul Volcker, is able to do a lot more good because his job was tied to the election of other people (Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan to be specific) and only has to account to a few people.
If politicians are dishonest and give society what it wants then they are able have power for much longer. Society is satisfied and benefited in the short run, but suffers more long term. But, by retaining political power, they have the potential to do more good in some ways. Maybe a politician realizes his/her election can be assured if he/she buckles on a social issue, but that means that he/she can influence the economy in a better way. So the politician caves to peer (constituent?) pressure in order to benefit more people in a more pressing matter. Is that moral?

So is the job of politicians to have society in their best interest or is it to appease the masses that elected them? I think I understand better why Plato was opposed to democracies.

"The Name of Thy Son"

The sacramental prayers, and other sources, mention "that they may... witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son." Jesus Christ. But what does that mean? And which name?

Jesus was a man. He healed the sick, taught people a good way to live together, and lived a good life. Four different accounts of His life paint different pictures. I am sure the same would be true of us. Imagine if you had your parents, your siblings, your best friend, and your exes write about your life. Crazy. Awesome too. He is depicted like John Wayne in Mark, a good man who is a little rough around the edges, who can still get angry but always has others in his best interest. Luke's Jesus never even approaches an emotion short of an angelic entity. They are different men. And yet, when we combine the four identities we can find a person we might actually be able to be like. Jesus is a name that we can take upon ourselves. It is the name of someone who has needs but puts others first, who takes time to play with children, who cooks fresh fish on the beach with friends, and who tries to share the gospel with anyone who will listen even if they will not hear.

Christ is a title. Christ is the Messiah, the anointed one. Hebrews had three anointed offices: prophet, priest, and king (or prophetess, priestess, and queen. Please apply all nouns and pronouns to your gender). A prophet teaches by example. They live the life they teach. Their most basic actions can be applied into great lessons. Gandhi, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Moses lived lives worthy of emulation. They were prophets.
A priest sacrifices the self to be dedicated to a cause (often a religious one, but not always). Because they are completely devoted to their cause, they are able to teach others when and how and what is appropriate to sacrifice (because it is not always your life or livelihood. Maybe it is an opinion or comfort). Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Teresa understood the blessings of sacrifice for a cause. They were priests.
A king leads with common good in mind (a king that is self-serving is really only a tyrant). A king might be appointed by common consent or inheritance or circumstance. A king can be a president, a senator, a CEO, a shift manager, a mother or father, or anyone in a leadership position. A king must understand why they are in their position, what they can do, and how they are going to do it. A king works with their subjects for their good, because working against the subject's desires (even in their best interests) will appear tyrannous. Queen Elizabeth, George Washington, and Abu Bakr lead their subjects kindly, honestly, and transparently. They were kings.

And these are only two of His names, the most literal. What about the dozens of others: Good Shepherd, Living Waters, Bread of Life, Counselor, Wonderful, etc?

I hope you think more about which name you are expressing a willingness to take. As I am beginning to learn, one of the most productive and beautiful parts of religion is ambiguity. It allows practitioners to apply lessons to the self, even with various needs, dilemmas, and insights. Ambiguity allows a message based on truth to reach everyone, regardless of how far they are along their path. So, which name means more to you? Why? 

A Whim of Wheels

A club at my university does an annual event to raise awareness of physical disabilities. I wanted to participate last year but was unable to because of my schedule. This year I opted to experience a couple hours in a wheelchair for their study and to promote campus awareness. One disappointment was that it seemed like such a small effort for me, but I was proven wrong by the challenge and BYU students.

I knew BYU campus was fairly wheelchair accessible because I try to ride my bike around a lot. I knew how I could get to every building, but I quickly realized that I did not know the fastest ways. And some ways seemed dangerous. Long, steep hills are on almost every side of campus. Some elevators are accessible but not convenient. Using the bathroom is terrifying. It is so hard to get in and out. And I do not know if I could put on my pants without control of my legs (I am greatly impressed by others). The hardest feature of any building or landscape was slanted walkways. Even a slight slope to the left or right made traveling very slow and cumbersome. If you push a wheelchair along a sidewalk that is not flat then you drift to one side if you try to go straight. So, to go straight, you have to either only push one wheel or constantly slow down to turn opposite the way you are drifting. It was annoying when sidewalks were not flat. It was frustrating when the floors inside buildings were not flat. They were constructed! Why would they slope?

I do not know how many students knew that demonstrations were going on today. They do happen annually. But there are a fair number of students who have permanent disabilities. And why would anyone assume that I was just rolling around for fun. I received a lot more smiles from people through the day. I was surprised by how often people would try to dart in front of me, forcing me to stop. People that were texting rarely saw me. I had to constantly be on the vigil for those bumbling booby traps. And cars were scary. I do not know if they could not see me as I crossed the road or just did not care. I ran into several friends who were very concerned about me, which was nice. They also became interested in the event so I suppose I fulfilled my role. The highlights of people's reactions were definitely the girl who held two doors open for me. She was the only one how tried to help me at all. And then I had to fill out some paperwork for a job. One of the supervisors came in and started talking to me. Right before I left, she asked if I had come in before and met the boss. She then said that she did not know how to be tactful about it, but she had to know the limits of my disability. I thought it was rather tactful and obviously did not bother me, but I was glad that she was comfortable enough with the situation to ask then instead of passing off a potential trial to someone else.

It was a good experience. I assumed it would be difficult for a wheelchair-bound student to attend BYU, but it was not as bad as I thought it would be, as long as he or she stayed on campus. Traveling off campus would be a nightmare. I would probably require assistance traveling to and from campus. Which would also mean constantly caring everything I would need for the day with me. It would be a constant trial. I assume friends would seek to help me more, but only a stranger offered any help. What it really means is I should look out for what I could do.

Final Bellwether

This was a magnificent experience. Tamarra is amazing. She is a very talented and encouraging editor; it comes from her incredible writing. This is the final edit of my article written last month. I really like being able to see the development of the subject, audience, and style. And it is neat to see my own ideas better expressed with the help of others. Once again, I find myself more converted to the quality and consistency of good writing.

This I Believe
Spencer Campbell

“Persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent.”

I was first enticed to memorize the “Standard of Truth” by a Snickers bar when I was 14. At 22, I am still uncovering how deeply these words, and others like them, affect Mormon culture.

Powerful statements like this one, though once shouted in the face of violent persecution, seem – at least in the Provo student wards I’ve attended – to act as insurance that in the end we,  conservative Mormons, the embodiment of truth, will win.

To argue against that conservatism is not just some philosophical or religious debate to many Mormons; it is a personal attack on our identity and potential. It would be like telling an Israeli Jew they should give East Jerusalem back to  its Palestinian inhabitants, or telling a Muslim that Muhammad was not the last prophet. We, as people, simply take offense when our concepts of eternal laws, rights, or prophecies are disagreed with.

I lived in California for a couple years and was often reminded of the financial and physical efforts the church put forth to defeat Proposition 8. Our strength and unity is infamous within some circles. It is as the Standard of Truth states: “no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing.” The unhallowed, the unholy, the hateful, the spiteful will never have power to stop the herd. But there is a difference, I believe, between what is truly unholy and what many of us perceive to be unholy.

I love the joke that says, “Catholics say that the Pope cannot make mistakes, but they do not believe it. Mormons say their prophets can make mistakes, but they do not believe it.” We readily acknowledge that we have faults, so why are we so reluctant to identify specific problems? We have needed help to change our direction before: stricter adherence to the Word of Wisdom and diligence in tithing paying, for example. I realize neither of these examples were terribly “hard sayings,” but we, individually and collectively, have needed to be corrected. Yet this does not seem to cause us to ponder our future. We do not seem to sit back and give consistent, honest evaluation to the type of Mormonism we are living individually and collectively and what changes may move us closer to the core of our faith.

In Church we often talk about sheep and the Shepherd. However shepherds know sheep have a tendency to look for a leader among themselves—a practice I do not believe God discourages. A bellwether is a sheep chosen by the flock to initiate movement and direction. It is still within the herd, but the others trust it to lead, to think. We often simplify our lives by choosing areas where we can act more and think less. We assign ourselves bellwethers at work (bosses), in fashion (celebrities), and in entertainment (Oscars). This is not a bad thing: it feels good to trust and follow sometimes. So imagine the impact you could have by being a bellwether within the Church.

The bellwether still has to look, sound and smell like a sheep to fit in, but it does not have to think like the other sheep. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, its possible to gently lead those in your own circle to the green pastures and living waters we read about in the scriptures, and do so by avoiding the pitfalls infesting elitist Mormonism and self-centered Mormon policies and politics.

If you disagree with Mormon policy or tradition, then imagine what you could do if you became a trusted bellwether within the flock, instead of aggressively, directly and openly opposing the Church and its members. You must remain humble about it. You must be doing it for the Lord Himself. And you must not think yourself above covenants. To be successful you must hold those closer than all other things.

In a way, I suppose I am encouraging you to be part of the Church, to make yourself accepted, so that you can have an influence -- a voice that matters.  As college students, we are the next generation of leaders and thinkers in the Church. We are not going to change doctrines -- those belong to God -- but we can change tradition. We can change perception.

So feel free to empower the women you meet (not just open doors for them), to exclaim your joy that you are saved by grace (not works), or love a gay (or lesbian or bisexual or straight or questioning) friend because they are just as good as people as the rest of us. We can make a difference in how the Church of Jesus Christ is accepted worldwide.

Just stay a while until you can help us because we need more colorful Mormons. And who knows, we might even herald in Zion.