A word on weight

I’ve usually been pretty comfortable with my weight. For most of my life, it wasn’t something I thought about much, which is a reflection of viewing myself as medium-size. I’ve always known people who were smaller and people who were larger. Of course, whether I actually was medium-size is up for debate. I also thought I was tall for a while, because I was tall in 8th grade. My college roommate (who had been shorter than me in 8th grade) disabused me of that notion. This lesson has stuck with me: my perception about myself can be pretty flawed.

Right now I weigh less than I have for the last 5 years (and probably longer. This is just as long as I’ve had a scale in my house). I have mixed feelings about sharing this with the world. For one thing, I’ve never been big on dieting. I was raised in a home that didn’t focus much on outward appearance. The impact of our eating on our weight was never discussed (that I remember).

My parents taught us the typical lessons learned from their depression-era parents: be grateful for what you have, eat what’s available, and finish your plate. Both working and raising 7 kids, the meals they made needed to fill two criteria: most of us needed to eat them and they needed to be relatively quick to make. We had lots of processed foods, but there were always fresh fruits and vegetables (not always served with the meal, but they were in the house).

I think my parents did pretty good threading the needle of a society obsessed with thinness and saving time (a combination leading to our obsession with both fast food and fad dieting). That said, there are some things I’ve learned since getting married and being introduced to a different family’s food culture.

First, how to recognize when I’m full. Until recently, my main gauge was whether I’d eaten more than everyone else. After all, men are supposed to eat the most, right? But as I’ve tried to imitate my wife – who is very good at listening to her body – I’ve begun to recognize that I won’t waste away if I stop eating before I feel uncomfortable. Second, breakfast doesn’t come with fruits or veggies. I’m still struggling with this one. My time in Australia actually revealed to me the fact that American breakfast is just an excuse to start the day with dessert. At one of the first activities I attended after I arrived, the Elders’ Quorum (the congregation’s men’s group) played basketball and had pancakes. At 10 in the morning, that seemed sensible to me. Then they served the pancakes with ice cream on top. I was surprised and when I said so, they said, “Pancakes are a dessert, so why not put ice cream on top?” And, well, I’ve couldn’t gainsay them. Third, carbs are not the base of the food pyramid. Why they were placed there in government messaging is a topic for another post, but most of a meal should be fruits and veggies. My favorite guide for how much of various categories to put on your plate is here. Once again, my wife’s example has helped a lot here. Though there is a little part of me that’s sad I’m not baking more often.

Thanks for reading a likely somewhat boring, oddly personal post. This was me priming my brain for writing my novel (which will be less boring, I promise…I hope).

Every word here is a word not in my novel…

So I’ll keep this short. I have written every day of November so far, but yesterday was the only day I hit the word count necessary to hit 50k by the end of the month. It takes focus and determination and some sacrifice. And I’m also trying to build a paver patio in my backyard…. My brain and my body will be very sore for the next few weeks, I think.

Well, back to it. Need to hit 2000 words today to start getting back on track and I’m 174 words in.

NaNoWriMo 2021

One month. 50,000 words. 3rd time.

I have an outline, some characters, and some world details fleshed out; which is far more prep than for either of the previous two novels I wrote.

Today I need 1667 words. Wish me luck!

Thomas Jefferson

The New York City Council voted to remove a statue of Thomas Jefferson from the city council chambers. I feel ambivalent about it, but thought I might work out some thoughts in a post.

Art is a symbol. Symbols have power because they enable us to capture ideas and communicate them to others. Art in particular has power because it conveys information and emotion – a great deal of it. It compels us to feel and think. Good art compels us to feel and think different feelings and thoughts, leading to introspection and conversation, allowing us to learn about each other and ourselves. This is one reason I find “preachy art” so annoying. If the only conversation it promotes is, “I agree” or “I disagree,” then it has failed its purpose as art; it’s become propoganda (which has its place, but that’s a topic for another post).

By this criteria, it seems that the statue of Thomas Jefferson at issue is probably good art. It inspires feelings of patriotism and pride in some. It reminds some of Jefferson’s words that “all men are created equal.” Its creator crafted it to celebrate Jefferson’s efforts to establish religious freedom. For others, it reminds them of the blatant hypocrisy of so many of the founding fathers; that despite their rhetoric about freedom and equality, most of them owned slaves. It reminds some that for the majority of the time our constitutional government has existed, the rhetoric of freedom has coincided with unequal treatment – lawful and unlawful – of immigrants, Jews, Catholics, Irish, Black people, Native people, Hispanics, and more.

It is valuable for each of us to share what we see in art such as this. I think public art should reflect the ideals of the community as a whole. There will always be some people who are offended by a work of art. It seems every installation of public art draws protest. There will always be people who love art that offends the majority. These are public debates in which everyone deserves a voice. But eventually a decision has to be made and in our system of government, the majority should be making that decision.

Fortunately, because art is open to interpretation, the story we tell about art is just as important as the art itself. The statue of Thomas Jefferson is either a tribute to religious freedom or a symbol of white supremacy, depending on who tells the story. Its removal can be a story of iconoclasm and fear taking over our society or it can be a story of our continuing effort to better ourselves as a people and as a nation. We control the story we tell ourselves and each other. The stories that are told the most powerfully, the stories that inspire hope, the stories that advocate for good can win, but only if we tell them. If we spend our time repeating – out of fear – the stories the degrade and detract, then fear wins. This doesn’t require we never change what art we place in public spaces! But I think it is valuable to see if you can try to craft an inspiring story about whatever art is placed there, even if you preferred a different choice.

Perhaps we could avoid all this debate by getting rid of all the statues. My ancestors – both Mormon and, further back, Protestant – rejected the use of most art in public spaces. While I think they went too far – visiting Italy showed me how statues can be an expression of beauty and assist in worship – I have sympathy for their reasoning.

One of the early purveyors of the anti-art attitudes was Savonarola, a monk who preached in Renaissance Florence. Savonarola sought to rid the city of sin by burning all the vanities – priceless works of art and academia that Savonarola considered evidence of and encouragement to sin. Savonarola saw this art, particularly those pieces inspired by ancient Greeks and Romans, as corrupting and distracting from the work of God. He inspired gangs of young men to go around the city gathering these vanities to be burned in a public bonfire. His preaching was apparently persuasive and infectious. Few people were willing to publicly speak out or defy these efforts, including vaunted intellectuals and artists who were contemporaries of and mentors to Michelangelo.

The burning of the vanities was a tragedy, but we can recognize that Savonarola’s criticisms have a source. The Catholic Church of his time had lost its way, focused on maintaining the power of Rome and the clergy, rather than bringing Christ to the people and the people to Christ. His efforts, along with many other reformers, did push the Church to reevaluate it’s mission and how it was achieving it. Unfortunately, it acted too slowly and too late to prevent schism.

Regardless, Savonarola’s mission failed. Destroying statues didn’t fix the hearts of people. Art can inspire and educate, but it is an expression of our ideas, not the wellspring. Stamping out offensive art may hide our sins, but it does not erase them.

We can see today’s Savonarolas as extremists and seek to “excommunicate” them, denying not just the expression of their claims, but also the substance. I fear that this will lead to further division. Instead, I think this is an opportunity to refocus our country and our ideals. We are not a nation of men, but of laws. We are not Thomas Jefferson’s country, but the country of the Declaration of Independence. He may have penned the words, but he was no god nor saint.

If we believe in our ideals, we need to recognize the ways we fall short of them. Too many people are left out of the prosperity of the nation. It is harder to be a mother, an immigrant, a Black person, a gay person. We may have passed the Civil Rights Act decades ago, but rooting racism and other bigotry out of our culture and institutions is an ongoing work. You can’t expect to overcome the culture and attitudes of centuries in only one generation.

Let’s not pull down all the statues and let’s certainly not destroy them. It would do far more to place tributes to the enslaved and colonized around (and perhaps above) the enslavers and colonizers. We would not be here without any of them, flawed as every single one of them were. We can pay tribute to all our ancestors, both by birth and by ideals. The greatest tribute to them, though, will go far beyond statues.

The greatest tribute will be continuing to put their ideas about equality into practice and perfecting the techniques and government they gave us. The founding fathers were not reactionaries seeking to preserve the old. They were revolutionaries looking to create something new and better than what came before. We should do the same, seeking to recognize the flaws in the institutions created by these flawed men and improve on them. That will honor them and benefit us far more than any statue.

A couple articles I found while writing this:

Thomas Jefferson Was More Than a Man of His Times – The Atlantic

Opinion | The Debate Over a Jefferson Statue Is Missing Some Surprising History – The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Choose Parenthood: No other success can compensate for failure in the home

The other day Alisha and I were watching The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio. We read the book (I recommend) and thought we’d enjoy the film. I did, up until the mom was interrupted in some task to clean up the poop her toddler had smeared all over the living room. Too real.

I was (and still am) in the midst of potty-training my 3 year-old and have a toddler in diapers. I’ve got housework that kids are always interrupting. It simply was not enjoyable for me to watch a film about someone dealing with the same things.

Of course, no one’s going to write a book or make a film about my life. Alisha isn’t a deadbeat alcoholic spending all her earnings before she gets home. I have an advanced degree, meaning I don’t have to resort to the whims of contest judges to support my kids, should the need arise.

What about that advanced degree, though?

Let me bring you back to ten years ago this month. Alisha and I arrived in Austin, ready for the next big step in our lives. I had dreams of clerking for a judge and maybe becoming a judge myself someday. Whatever the end, law school was about to start and I was excited for this step that I had worked toward for years. Alisha had a good job and would work through law school to cut down on our debt load.

A few times during law school and since, some decision points have come in which I made a decision many men do not make. I prioritized caregiving. Now, I never planned to be the primary caregiver for my children. If I’d had different job opportunities, there’s a good chance my daily schedule would look very different than it does now. But life worked out the way it did and I’ve learned some powerful lessons because of that.

At the core is this: for the sake of women, children, families, and men, we need men to step up in the home.

Men belong in the home

I grew up in a conservative community, yet my parents modeled a non-conservative partnership. My parents each worked full-time. Even though this was my day-to-day reality, I perceived our family as a sort of aberration. The ideal was 1950s America – the father should be the sole breadwinner and the mother should be the caregiver and homemaker. But because my mother worked as a nurse, my dad would cook, clean, and take care of kids when he was able. Of course, since he commuted for hours everyday, in reality my siblings and I did a lot of that work.

This equal partnership in my parents marriage – sharing the burden of housework, meals, and childcare – modeled behavior that is healthier for everyone. My mother has lived a fulfilling life because she has pursued the dream she had since she was 9 – to be a nurse. My siblings and I have a healthy relationship with my father because he was present and involved in our lives. My father never was under the illusion that it was ok to come home from work and sit down in front of the tv while there were dishes to be done or floors that needed cleaning. I attribute a lot of the success my siblings and I have had to my father present in our home.

I’m not saying that I think women should all have careers outside the home. What I am saying is that being present at home should be automatic for men the way it is for many women.

A father is a father first

We often think of women as mothers first and if they have a career, that’s a nice bonus. Men, on the other hand, have a career first and are fathers second. If the man doesn’t have a career, he’s falling short. This is wrong! I often grew up hearing the phrase, “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” If only we truly believed that! If it were so, we would be less judgmental of men who truly prioritize their children.

Now, I will point out that I personally have received nothing but support. No one has, that I am aware of, ever accused me of being lazy or somehow neglecting my duties as a man. But years of cultural indoctrination have made it difficult for me to fully accept my current role in life, free of guilt. Maybe this is a me problem. But if you happen to share this problem, welcome to the club! You and I, we’re still doing our part! Our work at home is just as important to society as any work we could do in an office.

If we do believe this, it should reflect in our legal and corporate policies. Paternal leave should be just as common as maternal. Fathers should be expected to scale back their work when they have young children. Peter Panning from Hook should be the exception, not the rule. No corporation should demand that workers put the company first. There are certainly some moves toward this, but we have a lot of work left to do.

Men need to share the mental burden

While I was still in law school I learned first hand some of the cultural norms I’d internalized, despite the household I grew up in. We had our first child in the middle of my second year. When it was time for Alisha to return to work, she spent a great deal of time thinking about childcare for our daughter. I gave some input, but largely left it up to her. She eventually brought up that we had never discussed who should be in charge of childcare. I’d simply assumed she would take care of it. There is a little personality at play here – Alisha is more of a planner than I am. But enough women have written about this topic in the years since that I know there’s more to it than just our individual quirks.

To have a truly equal partnership, men and women need to share the mental burden. That doesn’t mean that men should always be picking the daycare. It does mean that parents need to discuss it and figure out who will take the lead. I’ve tried to be better about this since those early childcare days. I still have room for improvement, but I think I’ve gotten better over the years, more often considering questions about childcare, child-rearing, and other traditionally women-led topics.

My parents never set out to defy tradition or to be revolutionary. Neither did I. We simply did what we needed to so that we had enough to eat and a place to sleep. The result actually looks a lot like most of history – men and women doing what is necessary to provide for the family, care for the children, and maintain their house. While the sole breadwinner nuclear family can be an incredible privilege, it is exactly that – a privilege. For most people, it is out-of-reach. A healthier, more universally obtainable approach is for the adults in the home to discuss how they will earn an income and divide the housework and childcare.

The ideal American family should be one in which the couple communicate openly and often about how they will share their roles as providers, parents, and homemakers. For many people, that may look a lot more like Leave it to Beaver than my childhood and current home. The exact division of labor isn’t what’s important. What matters is that men are involved in the lives of their spouses and their children and are truly living the reality that success in the home is the greatest contribution to society they can make.

Now I better stop neglecting my children…

Meet Your Enemies

Ezra Booth, an early convert to Joseph Smith and the Restored Church, became disillusioned after only a few months. He wrote letters to a newspaper that resulted in a public backlash against Joseph Smith and the missionaries he was sending to the surrounding area. In December 1831, Joseph Smith received direction from God to stop working on a translation of the Bible and try to undo some of the harm of the letters. Here are some of my thoughts about the instructions God gave them in what is now Doctrine and Covenants 61.

“Meet your enemies”

Joseph was commanded to meet his enemies in public and in private. We can meet our enemies – or those who disagree with a cause we support – by being open to discussion with them. No matter how important our cause or how dedicated we are, this is valuable. If we understand the position of those who disagree with us, we are better equipped to strengthen or adjust our own position to achieve better outcomes and convince more people to join us.

Of course, we should be wise in who we choose to engage with. We shouldn’t feed the trolls. The trick is learning to distinguish between the trolls and those open to discussion. Fortunately, in my experience the trolls reveal themselves early on. Holding back to my own troll-like tendencies and disengaging from those time-wasting conversations is the next challenge.

“Confound your enemies…their shame shall be made manifest”

Our cause cannot convince if we don’t speak up. To remain silent is to let our enemies define us. But I think the phrasing of the second part is vital. “Their shame shall be made manifest” is not a call to shame others. It is a statement that as we speak truth, error will be revealed. We do not need to help it along by calling people out, tricking them, embarrassing them, or seeking to ruin their life in some way. Clever memes aren’t going to win the day. Doxxing and bullying are bad regardless of who the target is. Truth will win the day as long as we speak it – and it will take time.

“Let them bring their strong reasons”

A conversation is not a lecture. Recognizing that our enemies are fully developed human beings – thinking, feeling people who have reasons for believing what they do – God tells us here to listen to those reasons. And not just in a condescending, “let them have their say” way. He says, “Let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.” We need to listen to and recognize the best reasons against our cause. Our own faith is only as strong as the strongest arguments against it we have acknowledged. If we refuse to hear and ponder “their strong reasons,” then we are simply closing our eyes to potential truth. One of my favorite thoughts on this comes from a forum – one I did not save a link to, so this is my attempted paraphrase – “If we come across evidence that conflicts with our interpretation of scripture, then it is our interpretation of scripture that must change.” The truth isn’t changing – our attempt to understand it is.

Words are an imprecise means of conveying ideas. We shouldn’t be surprised that we have, at times, failed to understand the ideas passed down to us from previous generations. I believe that there is an ultimate, universal truth out there. But I also believe it can be really, really hard to identify and communicate. I’m struggling to arrive at that truth and convey my understanding of it in a way that brings along as many people as possible.

Rehearsing your doubts

This last weekend the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asked us to “stop increasing [our] doubts by rehearsing them with other doubters.” I felt uncomfortable when I heard this. This post is my effort to work through that discomfort. I hope the doubters and the non-doubters will find something valuable in this post.

For the non-doubters, I hope you recognize the wonderful gift you have been given. It is not, as Paul told the Corinthians, a gift that everyone receives: some receive knowledge, some receive faith. This implies not all do. Joseph Smith said something similar: some receive knowledge and others simply believe in their words. It may seem strange that someone would remain in the Church without that gift. I hope we can simply celebrate that they choose to remain, rather than criticize them for gifts they have not received.

For most my life, I had the gift of solid faith in Christ and that this is His church. But sometime over the last decade, that gift was taken from me. I have had to rebuild my faith without it. I went from confidently pronouncing it’s truth to wrestling with God to figure out what was true. I’ve never considered leaving the church; the alternatives don’t resolve my questions satisfactorily. I have rebuilt my faith, but it looks different than it did 10 years ago. The process has led to lots more questions.

In asking some of these questions, I’ve received some pushback. I’ve been told certain forums aren’t the correct place to ask certain questions. I think that’s right. It’s never wrong to ask a question, but who you ask and when matters. I think the error we make is saying, “This isn’t the right place,” without having an answer for what is the right place.

Doubts will arise. Questions will be asked. Who do we want to answer?

If only the doubters will listen, then we shouldn’t be surprised when those with doubts go to them. The prophet didn’t say don’t doubt. He didn’t say don’t express doubt. He said to take our doubts to the Lord and faithful sources. He said to choose faith.

My plea to fellow believers is to be a faithful source. Be welcoming and loving. Be an example of choosing faith. As Peter counseled, “be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” This requires something of us. We must be willing to listen to hard questions. We must be willing to ask those questions if we haven’t before. Otherwise, how can we be a faithful source? The process is uncomfortable but when we ask hard questions and “remove the debris,” our foundation will only be strengthened. Then we will be a supporting pillar, rather than a stumbling block.

My plea to the doubters echoes the prophet’s: seek out faithful sources in addition to the doubters. We can’t learn how to do something without speaking to those who successfully do it. If you need someone who will listen, I always have an open ear.

No church? Then I’ve got a corporation (or political party) for you!

You may have seen this graph:

“Church Membership Among U.S. Adults Now Below 50%” Graphic courtesy Gallup

Gallup: Fewer than half of Americans belong to a church or other house of worship (religionnews.com)

I doubt I’m the first to ask whether a decrease in organized religion is related to other trends, such as greater commitment to political party, greater demands on corporations to adhere to social and moral goals, and the rise in populism. I think it’s a common desire to be connected to something larger. We want to better the world, to help the next generation live better lives, to improve the conditions around us. For generations, organized religion was a major means to accomplish these goals.

With over half of Americans no longer attached to a church, perhaps they are searching for other organizations to work through. The easiest way to accomplish big things is to use big organizations. Two alternatives are big government and big corporations.

This leads to several questions: Do we need big organizations to accomplish big things? If we do, does transferring our moral and spiritual commitments into business and governmental organizations work? Or did the separation of those things into separate spheres benefit our society?

Julie and Julia

We just finished watching Julie and Julia. An inspiring movie for an aspiring writer.

I had no idea when we started that it was a movie about a writer. I certainly didn’t expect a movie about food to make me guiltily realize I haven’t posted on my blog for over a month.

My biggest realization was that I would benefit from a more focused purpose for my writing. Focus is something I always struggle with. I don’t think I’m alone.

So, if you spent a year writing a blog, what would you write about?

Learning to love the Doctrine and Covenants

Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose eyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together. For verily the voice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to escape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ear that shall not hear, neither heart that shall not be penetrated.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:1-2

As a missionary in Australia, I was very hesitant to share the Doctrine and Covenants with people. My preference was to start with the Book of Mormon. I mean, why would I share with them a book full of divine revelations for today when I could share the translation of an ancient record written on golden plates Joseph Smith found buried in the woods? Sometimes I want to slap my 20 year-old-self on the head.

Setting aside origins, there is at least one good reason the Book of Mormon is easier to latch onto than the Doctrine and Covenants – narrative. The Book of Mormon has it. It can be fun to read about Nephi building a boat. Alma struggling with a son who has left the faith is relatable. Meanwhile, the Doctrine and Covenants is piecemeal, without context (except for brief paragraphs introducing each section). Why do I care about Oliver Cowdery or David Patten? Who are they and what were they doing? The book provides little to no context. Let’s compare another book of scripture: the Old Testament. Which book do you know more about? Micah or Exodus? My bet is on the latter. Micah is way shorter, but Exodus is a story, and a pretty interesting one at that. Narrative works.

So why does the Doctrine and Covenants lack narrative? My guess is that when it was first published as the Book of Commandments, there wasn’t much need. The missionaries carrying the book with them (the main source of demand for the book), knew the context. They knew, personally, the people named in the book. They had met and spoken to Joseph Smith. They had participated in the events giving rise to the individual sections.

In the generations that have passed since the Book of Commandments was published in 1831, that personal connection has dissipated. We are multiple generations removed from the people who recorded the majority of the revelations. With the growth in the Church outside the United States, the descendants of those involved in the revealing, recording, and publishing of the book make up a smaller and smaller portion of church membership.

As a result, context is more important. Fortunately, the Church has delivered. Four and a half years ago, the church published Revelations in Context, a book telling the stories behind each section. The Church has also been publishing an official history called Saints. The first two volumes have covered the time period during which most of the revelations were published. There are Church history essays published on the Church website. And in this year’s Come Follow Me manual, there are links to even more resources.

I wonder if, at some point, more context is added to the Doctrine and Covenants itself. Perhaps portions of Revelations in Context or Saints get placed between sections. This would make the book more enjoyable to read and easier to understand. Of course, there should be some caution in editorial additions to scripture. Some of the problematic passages in the Bible are possibly the result of these editorial additions that later scribes thought were part of the original text. But since we believe in an open canon – that we are saints receiving revelation alongside the saints of previous generations – it’s certainly a possibility.