Just try to understand

What is the one thing that all people in the world need and want? It seems to me that being understood ranks at the top of most people's lists.

This was brought to my attention once by a very wise friend of mine. She was speaking of her childhood. She remembered vividly of when she was a child and how people would always speak down to her condescendingly. This, she recalled, was very annoying. All she wanted was that people speak to her as an human rather than as a child.

I found this to be very profound. From that day on I have made the effort to never talk down to a child. It's hard; we've trained ourselves to talk to children in "baby talk" or by only use monosyllabic words. In following the advice of this wise friend, I have learned many things. Children respond very positively to being conversed with respectfully. One reason why they respond in this way is because they feel that someone is truly trying to understand them, rather than just entertain themselves with someone to whom they feel intellectually superior.

I mentioned this fact to this same friend in a letter once. She responded that it was true, but need not be limited only to children. She said, "Isn't that what all people want, to be understood?" It's true. We long for it. We crave it.

I should explain myself in that I don't refer simply to understanding on a communication level. When I speak of understanding, I speak universally. Though we go to great lengths to hide our emotions and true thoughts. What we want more than anything is for people to find us out and understand us for who we really are, then love us nevertheless.

One of my favorite books is "The Speaker for the Dead" by Orson Scott Card. The book is the sequel to "Ender's Game." It tells the tale of a speaker for the dead. What speakers do is give eulogies long after someone's death. Though they do not give the typical eulogy full of false admiration and invented virtue. They attempt to tell the true story, the good and the bad, of the person's life. They are seekers of truth and understanding.

For understanding does not only bless the lives those who are understood, but it also blesses the life of the person doing the understanding. In "Ender's Game" the main character, Ender, is fighting an alien race set for the Earth's destruction. In the course of Ender's training, he comes to realize that the only way to truly beat an enemy, one must understand them implicitly. By so doing, one can anticipate how they will act in every situation. But when one comes to a complete understanding of another, that person cannot help but love the other.

Complete understanding brings love. We come to an understanding of people's motives. People are rational beings; we only act if we believe the action we are about to take to be the best possible action for us to undertake at that moment. If we understand the motives behind someone's actions, how can we not love them. They cannot escape the consequences of their actions. But these consequences, if we have the unfortunate task of applying them, are not applied in hatred but with a heavy heart full of love.

This brings me to our Savior. Who understands us better than he? No one. And who loves us more than he? No one. He experienced all of our sorrows. He paid the price for all of our sins. He knows who we were, who we are, and who we will one day become. And with all our mistakes and errors, he still loves us. That is true understanding.

Are Mormons Christians?

I know of a sure-fire method to offending a Mormon. Tell him he's not a Christian. Few of us are able to resist the bait by not of flying into a furry of denial and doctrinal retribution. We might begin by pointing out the true name of the church, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” Clearly any idiot can see that we must be Christian because it's built right into the name of our church. Inevitably the assailant isn't magically convinced of our Christianity as we had expected them to be at the mere mention of our church's name. We then try other approaches: explaining our belief in the Bible, sharing Book of Mormon scriptures dealing with Christ, etc. Still they generally remain unmoved in their allegations.

I have vivid memories much like this from my High School years. Most of my friends were good Protestant youth. Many of them were very active in their respective faiths, be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. Yet, few of them could be convinced that we are Christian. By this I do not mean that they dealt me any disrespect, they simply refused to believe my word over that of their partitioner's.

Many times I have considered why others consider us not to be Christian. Of late I have mused on it especially and finally came to the personal conclusion, “Who cares?” Let me explain a few reasons for my attitude.

There is a problem in any discussion involving words and their definitions. Although the dictionary may “officially” be the authoritative source for word meanings. That does not mean that we adhere to them. We all have a personal definition for every word in our vocabulary. This is a definition that cannot always be described in exact words. It is an emotional meaning resulting from our personal experiences. There also exists the issue of there being more than one definition for many words, some of them contradictory.

For example, take the word “gentile.” This is a word with many meanings which to some extent can be contradictory. To the Jewish world it means someone who is not Jewish. Earlier it was used to describe anyone outside of the twelve tribes of Israel. So Jew might refer to Levite as a gentile. The Levite could take offense at such a reference, for in his mind he isn't a gentile in the least bit. Though the Jew was not saying this in an effort to cause offense, it was simply a statement of fact for him.

No one with any knowledge of Mormons would deny that we believe in Christ. So using the original definition of the word Christian, we are clearly Christian. This term has changed in many ways though. It has taken on the meaning of a good person whether they believe in Christ or not, for example. For an interesting discussion on the perils of redefining “Christian” in this manner, refer to the introduction of “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis.

Another definition of Christian which has taken strong hold is anyone believing in Christ in a particular fashion, generally the Protestant belief. This definition most likely began as Protestants tried to distance themselves farther and farther from the Catholic church. (if there's one thing you learn as a Protestant it's that you're not Catholic)

Take note that Mormons aren't the only ones who are accused of not being Christian on a regular basis. Jehovah's Witnesses generally share the same non-Christian categorization. Catholics as well. Clearly any idiot knows that the Catholics believe in Christ.

So what they're really saying is that we don't believe in the same Christ as they do, or rather, that we have a different perception of Christ than the classic Protestant perception. Frankly, this is true. I never realized how different our views are from contemporary Christian beliefs until I served as a missionary. I won't go into this area because such is not the subject of this essay, and as such, is left for elsewhere. With a few small exceptions, we believe in the same moral code. But then again, so do Muslims, Taoists, Buddhists, and just about any other non-fringe religion.

I'm fine with that distinction. Being a Mormon, I obviously believe our view to be the correct one. So to me it seems no offense to be contrasted to a viewpoint with which I disagree. If they were to call me immoral, I might take offense at that. If they were to tell me we're atheist, I might dislike that. But having someone refer to me as not Christian as a way of saying that I don't believe in the contemporary viewpoint of Christ is fine with me.

Now I wish to change to a completely different way of looking at this issue. There are many people who use the act of calling us non-Christian as a way to try to offend us. These people know full well what our beliefs are and are simply attacking us in a way they know will cause damage.

Well, with regards to these people. Who cares? There is nothing we can do that will ever cause them to drop their crusade and leave us alone. The better solution is to just ignore them. The best way to not be hurt by someone's inflammatory comments is to choose not to allow them to hurt you.

Originally the term Mormon was meant as a derogatory term to say that we worship Mormon instead of Christ and that we don't use the Bible. Rather than let this name get to us, thus giving victory to our enemies, we chose to assimilate the word into our own speech. For good or ill, the term is now common and completely innocuous.

The phrase, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” clearly refers to some fantasy world apart from our own. Rather, the phrase should read, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always hurt me.” It's unfortunate that we allow this to be true but it is. We need to change this by reducing our sensitivity. While words can be very offensive, we ultimately make the decision as to their potency.

Let people call us what they will. Inside, I know who I am. I know what I believe. And nothing anyone else says has the power to change my convictions unless I allow it. Ultimately that is what is of most importance.

Why I wish I could be socialist

One fateful afternoon during my last year of high school, I made the dinner time announcement to my republican parents that I had discovered that I was not a republican. This was a bit of a surprise, but not too odd really. I had long held very strong views about a number of subjects. It just wasn't until I had taken a government class that I began to realize that a lot of my views did not fall in line with those most commonly held by the republican party. I do not recall if I declared myself a democrat at that point or not. Though, at some point I decided that I was a socialist.

Now when you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), it's one thing to be democrat. Being such makes you a good punch line in many jokes, and susceptible to accusations that I believe in killing babies (which I am not in favor of). All in all though, being a democrat, while socially inappropriate in Mormondom, it's excusable. Declaring yourself socialist? Well, you might as well invite Fidel over for dinner then top it off by resurrecting Stalin.

So, I wish to explain why I have called myself a socialist in the past and ofttimes wish that I still could.

First, let me give an explanation of what I mean by socialism. There are conflicting viewpoints as to what socialism really is. There are also a lot of people who have not idea what socialism is, they just know that someone at some point told them to hate it. One problem comes from the fact that Nazism is called "Nationalist Socialism." I am always surprised at how many people believe that Nazism and Communism are the same thing when they couldn't possibly be more different. Hitler hated communists, murdering them along with any other minority he could locate.

By socialism (even if this disagrees with the real definition, I don't care), I mean a government process where people work for the common good. Health care, food, and all other necessities of life are provided for all people (remember, a TV is not a necessity, neither are CDs and DVDs). There are no poor, only rich. Basically, my view of socialism is the exact opposite of capitalism.

Why do I believe in socialism, because in a country as wealthy as the United States of America, why should there be people dieing of starvation? Why should there be people who can't find work? Why should there be people who live on the streets while there are others, including myself, who live in beautiful homes about which we complain because they're not as big as our neighbors. It makes no sense.

We have come so far technologically. Every household has the working equivalent of hundreds of slaves working for them everyday in the form of machines. We have microwave ovens, computers, fast cars, refrigerators, etc. All of these things should save us huge amounts of time. To me, this means we should be able to produce that much more in that much less time. The problem is that so many resources are given to capitalism, to fuel the machine. How many billions of dollars are spent each year on advertising for the purpose not of giving the consumer the best product, but to make sure that your crappy product does better than another possibly better product. Without capitalism, this is money that could go to researching a cure for cancer, providing better health care, or solving one of millions of other problems that were too busy trying to get a leg up on the Jones to solve.

What confuses me is why people believe socialism to be so evil. Too me, that sounds pretty great. There aren't any poor, everyone is equal, we work together. What is evil about that? Now compare it to capitalism where everything is driven by greed, or the desire to have more than everyone else. How can anyone possibly, in good conscience, vilify socialism while glorifying capitalism. That's ridiculous.

Here's the problem though, and this is the reason I can't call myself a socialist anymore. I've realized that it can't work. Moses stepped down from mount Sinai with the full law of God, the law that permitted the city of Enoch to become so righteous that it was lifted from the earth. How sad he must have been with the realization that instead of the fullness, they had to be spoon fed with a lesser law. We are in the same boat, we as a country are not righteous enough for socialism.

For socialism to work, we need to abandon our self interests in many cases, and look to the greater good. This is something our current greedy natures are unwilling to do. We are fine with any program that puts money into our pockets, but the minute it takes money out, that's when things get messy. That's why you see communism being so popular with the poor working class people. The stand to gain a lot, whereas the rich don't want it to happen (unless they are in power) because they stand to lose a lot.

Socialism requires an abandonment of our tendency to keep score. In the same way that keeping track of favors and good deeds can ruin a relationship as one person feels that the other "owes" them something for past kindnesses, socialism is undermined by people keeping track of what they give and complaining if they don't get back at least as much (it's funny that no one complains when they get too much). For socialism to work, people must give without the expectation of receiving in return. Good luck getting that to work with our current nature.

I could go on for a long time as to the reasons the current human predicament prevents socialism from being a viable system of economics. But not a single one of these reasons shows any way in which socialism is evil. If anything, each reason shows how evil we are.

Many group have tried their hand at communal living (including my faith, the Mormons). While some met with more success than others, all have failed in the end. The reason for the failure of each, ultimately, was greed.

So what we need instead is a system that uses our greed to catalyze the system. Signal capitalism to enter. Greed, as long as it doesn't surpass a certain point is what drives capitalism. Without it, capitalism and our economy would fail. To me that seems to mean that capitalism is the economic system deserving of vilification, not socialism.

Here is the odd seemingly paradoxical issue, the righteous system doesn't work. The system built on greed does. That shouldn't be possible, but it's what has happened.

Therefore, I can't comfortably call myself a socialist. I would vote against many socialist principles if I were a politician, because I know that we can't make them work right now. Though I believe that some day we can. And I believe that there are ways that we can implement some level of socialist reform and still make it work.

For example, we need to come up with a better method of welfare. Also, there must be a way that we can provide free health care for everyone in the country. I don't know how to do that, but I choose to believe it is possible. Although it gets the short end of the stick usually, public education is good. I am a result of public education. It had its failings, but overall, it was good. I have seen what other countries have. We are doing great. We need to improve, especially in the inner cities, but we're on the right track I believe (except for this "No Child Left Behind" garbage. I won't talk about that though). I'm glad that most people can go to college now if they want. It's wonderful.

I think there are also a lot of things we can do personally to pave the way for a successful socialist society. We need to quit doing things solely for our own benefit. We must try to look more outward and see what we can do for others, even if there's no tax write off, no returned favor, no anything for us in return. Those of us who have been blessed with good situations, need to quit thinking that we "deserve" the money and privileges we enjoy. We need to stop thinking that we worked harder than everyone else. I know a lot of people that have always worked harder than me, but will never do as well as me financially.

I believe that one day we will live in a society not driven by greed, but by love for one's fellowman. I believe it's possible mainly because I would rather have hope and be wrong than be hopeless and be right.

How did we get here?

It’s easy to look at many places in the world and shaking our heads in shame. There are so many countries that have and continue to show a complete disregard for the human rights. We can find many cases of government endorsed persecution and even genocide in some countries. It’s not hard to conclude that we need to go in and force these people to play nice. Whether or not we agree with the war, we all agree that it’s good to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But lately I’ve been thinking that maybe the best thing we can do is keep our hands off.

In the 19th century and before, the American government endorsed and carried out the wholesale slaughter and relocation of thousands of Indians. Native Americans continue to be discriminated. The ACLU (it might have been a different organization) recently named them as the most discriminated group of people in America.

In 1838 an executive order was issued in Missouri which permitted the killing of Mormons. This law was on the books until just recently (though not observed since the 1800s).

In the Mexican War, we unrightfully attacked Mexico and took the entire southwestern part of the United States as our spoils of victory.

Women did not have the right to vote in the United States until 1920.

Before 1954 it was completely legal to treat an entire race as inferior. Not long before that it was fine for them to be our slaves.

Let’s take a look at some of these countries we accuse of human rights violations. Let’s look at the state of their technology and progress. Many of these countries are easily two hundred years behind us. Should it be any surprise that they have human rights violations when our own great pious nation has such a questionable past? Civility and progress are connected. As we become more enlightened we tend to treat others better.

It makes we wonder if we shouldn’t let some countries be and allow them to bring themselves into the modern era. This sounds barbaric, that we should allow a country to violate the human rights of their people without doing anything, but maybe it’s the right solution. Imagine if England had come into the United States when we were mistreating the Native Americans. Imagine if they had come in and told us that we couldn’t do that. How would we have responded? Imagine if England had forced civil rights upon on us in the 1800s. Would we have appreciated their gesture? Of course we wouldn’t have.

Think maybe the way we live today will be considered barbaric in another hundred years. It’s quite possible. We do a lot of things that are pretty barbaric that we just don’t consider as such. Take for example the way we allow companies to overcharge people for critical pharmaceuticals. Maybe we’ll all have better social programs in a hundred years and consider countries that don’t to be in violation of human rights. It’s quite possible.

So what should we do with these countries? Well it’s important that we not support their actions. We have to show them that there is a better world, a world into which they are invited under certain qualifications. There is something to be said for lifting oneself up out of the mud rather than someone coming and pushing you up. Even if we give a hand down, they are still the ones who have to reach up.

"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" by C. S. Lewis

Every book in the Chronicles of Narnia is very allegorical in nature. They all have numerous references to Christ or Christian theology. For the most part, I have enjoyed that element. "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was a little extreme though. I felt that the allegories interfered with the story. Characters tended to act very stereotypically. Every conflict seemed to either not resolve itself or to resolve itself in such a way as to make the conflict trivial in the simplicity of its resolution. By the end of the book I accepted the fact that every conflict would either be ignored in the end or Aslan would come along, wave his paw, and everything would be fixed. It made it difficult to invest myself in the characters and the story if everything would devolve to trivality.