Guest Post: The Saving Nature of Personal Relationships

By Dave Loveless

Here is my return post for NoSurfGirl’s excellent post on beards….

I teach in priesthood, and each Sunday I find myself drawing the Plan of Salvation on the white board. It’s become somewhat of a joke, and the quorum has even promised that one Sunday they are just going to draw it for me ahead of time. I’m actually glad they are threatening that; it means I’m getting through. I first drew the Plan for a very specific lesson, but since that time, I’ve had continued application for almost every lesson. I’ve found ways to incorporate the simplicity of the Plan, and there are few things that come through again and again. But first, the plan….

1. Preexistence–We lived with God as spirits before coming to this earth.
2. Veil–We pass through the Veil before coming to earth. This removes our memories of what was before so that we might be tested and proved on this earth.
3. Earth life–We live.
4. Death–We die.
5. Spirit World or Spirit Prison–After death, we go to the Spirit World/Prison where the righteous assist in the great missionary work of helping the millions who have not heard the gospel.
6. Judgment/Resurrection–I don’t know how simultaneous this is, but I like to think they are pretty close.
7. Kingdom of Glory–True, there are three kingdoms of glory, but I’ve always only drawn the Celestial Kingdom. The other two are Plan B and C, and face it… God did not send us to earth to receive a Plan B or C. He has in mind our Eternal Salvation, which can only be had in the Celestial Kingdom. I only draw that kingdom to help others remember that we should be singular in our focus and our goals.

So there you have it. One of the connections that I’ve made to my class is that the Plan is infinitely personal. I think we often forget that this isn’t just the Plan, this is Dave’s Plan. This is NoSurfGirl’s Plan. This is Your Plan. My Plan. It is tailored in such a way as to be personally saving meaning that the experiences that you have are designed for your salvation. God will allow to happen to you that which will bring about your salvation individually and independent of any other person.

I often get some odd looks when I say that. Most remind me that the marriage covenant is essential for true salvation. Others remind me of Malachi 5 and the turning of our hearts to our forbears and posterity. Others remind me also that salvation is had in family groups and that we will be eventually linked in an unbroken chain of sealing covenants from Adam to, well… I don’t know who will be last, though if we were going alphabetically, I’d cast a vote for anyone named after ZZ Top. And that is also all true, but I tend to emphasize the individual nature of the Plan more to remind those I teach of the distinct care and concern the Lord has for each of us and to remind them that salvation is their own responsibility and cannot be had on the leavings on those who have gone before, stand with them now, or will come in the future.

And that being said, the Plan of Salvation requires people. Lots of people. It requires connections and relationships and friendships. The Plan functions best when there are people before to guide the way, people beside to support when weak, and people behind to push when tired.

A Spouse

I think the most critical earthly relationship we can have is with our spouse. More than once have I noted that my greatest weakness often coincides with my wife’s greatest strengths and vice versa. Certainly such was in the mind of God when He, looking upon the Man in Eden, said “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him (Genesis 2:18).” My wife has been such a help meet for my weaknesses, my sorrows, and especially my joys. I’d sooner cry with no one than her, sooner celebrate with no one than her, and sooner be with no one than her.

Looking at the family relationship, we see a special symbolism of Godliness. My father often says that we can find earth-based examples of heavenly structures all around us, particularly the family. Nowhere does this exist more plainly than in the perfect organization of a Christ-centered marriage lived with proper understanding of the nature of the temple covenants and sealing powers. A marriage so organized is based fully on the gospel of Christ with a unified and joint understanding of powers, equality, assistance. The presence of children with the rich blessings and spirits they bring only strengthens and increases such bonds, and such a position surely increases the majesty of the Plan of Salvation and our individual positions in it.

A Friend

Somewhat similar to a Spouse, a Friend is important to the success of the Plan. I’m sure many of us have experienced that wonderful sensation of knowing someone from somewhere before. My father in particular believes that many of the relationships we had prior to this earth are preserved in the relationships we build here. While this may not be true of every relationship, I can identify a goodly number of people who have been uniquely important in my life and, going back to the idea that the Plan is individually saving for each of us, I can only conclude that their presence is important in some way for my growth.

President Hinckley, in trying to improve our ability to watch over the people around us, stated that every member needs three things. One of those three was a friend. Of all the tenderest and sweetest words of scripture, some of my favorites are in Doctrine & Covenants 84:63 where the Christ, speaking to the early leadership of the church stated, “Ye are my friends.” Surely little compares in majestic grace and simplicity to the declaration of friendship with the Savior.

Of all the honors any one could ever bestow on me, I would hope that I could be called a friend. I cannot remember where the thought comes from, but I’ve heard the concept that we can stand as Saviors on Mt. Zion through our faith and testimonies. This, to me, is a friend, and my closest friends have been such to me. People whose examples serve to inspire and strengthen me and people, who like my wife, are instantly and perfectly willing to offer the love and protection of a kind word. While there are numerous examples I could name, my home teachers come to particular memory. These two brothers are active in our lives in rich and full ways. We seek their smiles and their love. In particular, we are both grateful that our children love them, watch for them, and know that they are safe. When President Hinckley spoke of every member having a friend, surely his primary emphasis would have been on every member having home teachers as faithful and aware as our own.

A Savior

Finally, we must actively pursue a relationship with our Savior. Nothing will be of greater worth in the Plan than the personal relationship we build with Him. Today during church, we talked about the Sacrament and what it means to take upon us the name of Christ. One comment that stuck with me is that the attitude of taking on His name is not just simply being known by Him, but rather it is an act of being known as Him. If we truly take upon us His name, we shall find ourselves acting and being in very deed as He is. Taking only the prayer on the bread, we learn that we “witness unto [God] that [we] are willing to take upon [us]the name of [Christ], and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given [us]; that [we] may always have his Spirit to be with [us] (Doctrine & Covenants 20:77).” Remembering, keeping, and taking upon us His name are all actions that change us in to Christ-like beings by bringing us into proximity with the Spirit which teaches us of Christ and testifies of His reality, divinity, and saving nature.

While much more could be said on the saving nature of a relationship with the Savior, it is sufficient to note that we cannot be saved without such a relationship for salvation is found through and by Him.

When we consider the very personal and individual nature of the Plan of Salvation, I would invite us to recognize the infinite worth of the many who defend us, stand by us, and pray for us. Salvation is individual, but the road to salvation is watched over by the helping hands and faithful hearts of many who would help us along the way.

Read Full Post »

Guest Post: Mormon Beard Theology

Here’s the guest post from NoSurfGirl. Be sure to check out her blog. My return post is already up on her blog, but I’ll post it here tomorrow as well. Enjoy….

p.s. For my non-familiar-with-BYU-culture audience, BYU requires that students be clean shaven. Those who cannot shave for whatever reason can apply for an exemption known as a beard card.

***

Mormon Beard Theology

I want a beard card.

By all accounts, the beard card is the most exclusive of church recommends. I have often wondered, jealously, what it would take to get one.

I have heard that you have to have a medical condition. What kind of medical condition would require you to grow a beard? Is it a skin sensitivity thing, or more along the lines of facial deformities, that qualify you for the card? Or is it dpi (like on a printer, dots per inch, only in this case, it would be hairs per inch of chin that a person is capable of growing?)

It is interesting, when contemplating the no-beard phenomenon among LDS church members, to look back on history. In these troubling times, we really ought to reflect on the sacrifices that the early church members made, and see if we can learn a lesson from them. Thus, I have decided to delve into the topic of Beard Theology in the LDS church.

If you study the past precedent (by looking at past presidents) you will see an interesting trend.

First, you have Joseph Smith. On a scale of 1-10, I’d rate his beardosity at a .5, because of the sideburns. You will note that they are longer than the regulation middle-of-the-ear missionary requirement, and quite bushy, too. But then, you see Brigham young, and whoa! We’re at an 4.5. What happened there?

I have two theories. a) Emma liked to kiss her husband and b) the conflicted self-image of prophethood.

a is self-explanatory. Let me elaborate on b. So when you read church history, you you see that Joseph Smith was already an unconventional leader. He didn’t buy into stereotypes. He didn’t like having authority. And so he felt no desire toward the added authority and association that a flowing set of chin-tresses might offer a prophet. He liked to get down with the people, stick pulling and rug-beating and all that, and a beard could only get in the way. Put people off.

Brigham Young was more of a no-nonsense prophet.

He had a lot to do, what with the trek west and the move south and the apostatizing California saints (look how history repeats itself), and so he didn’t want anyone to waste his time. In his younger yearsas leader of the church, lots of people argued with him. Maybe he got tired of people not taking him seriously enough, and one day, he sat thinking to himself, what does Moses have, being slow of speech and all, that I don’t. When he really stopped to think of it, it was obvious what the real trouble was!

And so he just threw up his hands and grew a beard. You have to admit, it’s a lot harder to argue with this (below).

That probably worked well for a while, until people got used to it. It’s easy to ignore a little fringe like that. So he decided, he needed to grow a beard that nobody could ignore (right)….

It must have worked for him, because he kept it for the last twenty years of his life, and every succeeding president for the next eighty years all had impressive facial foliage. It got to the point where people thought the Mormons were weird: bearded, polygamists in top hats, with canes and black suits.

Enter Reed Smoot. An enterprising politician, son of one of the founding Pioneers of salt lake city. He asked president Joseph F. Smith for permission to run for office in the senate. He did run, and won: the first Mormon in full-fellowship to serve at that level of government (after a very hairy set of trials, I might add). Here is a picture of him before he was made senator (left).

Here is a picture of him a while after (right).

And here is a picture of him later in life (bottom),

when his political influence and respect within the senate was a noteworthy thing. How strange. How symbolic. People don’t want Moses serving in their senate.

The church presidents seemed to follow suit. Look back at that first picture of the presidents, at the beardosity of Joseph F. Smith (I’d put him at an even 10), and then Heber J. Grant (we’re at a 5, now), and George Albert smith: a dismal 3 if I’ve ever seen one. And then…whoa! Look at that sparkling clean chin on President McKay.

It feels so strange to me, to know that people that I actually know remember David O McKay as the prophet of their childhood. He was the clean-cut, good looking man that was appreciated so much in the fifties. I don’t object to that at all. We as a church, have always aspired to refinement, to making a good impression. For very good reasons.

The only complaint I have is, what happened since? I miss beards on my prophets, on my bishops, on my spouse (OK, I don’t really miss that, who am I kidding.) But a perverse piece of me wants for him to grow a beard, just because he can’t. Because he works at BYU. He also can’t wear his crunchy Birkenstocks and knee-length shorts (one of the many reasons I was attracted to him. Who can resist a guy in birks?)

Anyway, my point is, maybe it’s time to move on, get over this whole five-o-clock-shadow complex. People made fun of Mitt Romney because he had perfect hair. What does that say about us? Maybe we should mess things up a little? Grow a few beards? Cultivate some arresting, mane-like tresses? I hate to say, but we as a church have lost our peculiar, charming sense of individuality in our style. I mean, there are those out there who are trying. To them, I say, keep up the good work, even though a moustache without a beard is possibly the most disturbing facial appendage known to man (well, woman, really.)

I must also end this post by saying, I think it is wrong to exclude women from the beard card, just because we are women. The fact that our hair follicles are biologically different, doesn’t mean we aren’t capable of handling beard-card-carrying status in the church. It is unjust. I feel suppressed. I feel excluded.

*Whew. Glad I got that off my chest.*

Read Full Post »

Guest Post: Refusing Technology

You might call this a rebuttal to Ty’s guest post, but that’s not quite accurate. I think it’s more of a response, and not necessarily to what he wrote. It’s more a response to his title… “The Future of Information Technology and Me (and You).” I suppose this is my take on the “and You” part of it all….

I’ve noticed the shift, as we all have, in the power and capability of the tech world. It’s definitely true that the technology is advancing and shrinking and becoming more and more amazing. I can’t deny a certain wow-factor whenever Steve Jobs pulls the next stunt, even if it is expected. I can’t deny the hazy attractiveness towards Smart Phones, especially the iPhone and Windows Phone 7. And I’ve even succumbed to the heady desire for certain techs like tablets and netbooks–I won’t deny that I want an iPad.

But even then, I find myself refusing the technological invasion. I see 3D TV as bad, not good. I see most social networking as limiting, not expanding. I see the anywhere/everywhere nature of most technological access as controlling not freeing. And here’s why:

What happened to me?

It’s truly a wonder what the technological world has brought us, but I fear for the rush to digital identity. Anymore, it seems that much of the I of our natures is located out there, instead of inside of us. Our online presence is an extension of who we are, meaning more that it is actually part of us, not just a branch of our internal definitions, and I’m not sure we are designed to exist in such an environment.

One primary concern for me is the collapse of personal relationships. Facebook and other sites have certainly expanded the ability to maintain contacts and friendships, but I’ve always felt that such friendships could take on a superficial, dehumanized nature. Psychologically, personal relationships are key indicators for our overall health (mental, physical, emotional, etc.). Do our online relationships suffice to provide the positive benefits of strong, personal social networks? Frankly, I don’t know, but if I had to guess, I would say not as strongly. (And yes, I realize that the person who only maintains digital relationships is an uncommon and rare beast and therefore the assumption I make is only partially effective at best for almost all of us.)

For me, people matter, and I’m not implying that they don’t for those who choose to maintain online relationships. Rather, I’m stating that I don’t quite feel the same love, concern, and expectation towards a person I only know online. For me, it is the physical contact that maintains, strengthens, and builds a relationship that allows for greatest benefit.

What happened to reality?

On a similar vein, I wonder the invasive nature of replacing what is real and physically in front of us with a constant stream of information. Elder Christofferson stated this last General Conference that…

“… it hardly needs to be said that much of what passes for entertainment today is coarse, degrading, violent, mind-numbing, and time wasting. Ironically, it sometimes takes hard work to find wholesome leisure. When entertainment turns from virtue to vice, it becomes a destroyer of the consecrated life.”

In many ways, I see the invasion of being constantly connected to broad streams of information, content, social networks, and such to be just this. How many times have we (myself included) woken from the stupor of a Wikipedia dive, Web surf, or gaming session to realize that we have wasted the better part of a morning, afternoon, evening, or night in mind-numbing monotony consuming for the sake of consuming with little to no regard to the quality or quantity of the information consumed? Perhaps a more important question is how many times have we found our relationships set aside during those times? From my own experience, I can only answer, “Often enough that I am ashamed to have spent something so precious on something so fleeting.”

It’s surely not evil to be a consumer of information and modern technology, and I certainly believe that the wise consumption of both is important to our stewardship (another concept Elder Christofferson addresses in his talk). However, when consumption is for consumption’s sake, have we gone too far? As Elder Oaks might ask, When the ability to pause, meditate, and ponder is overridden by the consumption, have we passed over the Best to consume the Good or Better?

The benefits of quiet contemplation have long been proven. Psychologists have proven that sleep is an essential requirement for the formulation of long-term memories. In a similar way, the Alpha Waves generated by meditation, contemplation, and even the act of prayer have been shown to facilitate greater emotional and mental health by relaxing the body. Much as sleep “resets” the brain and allows our minds to categorize and process the data of the day, disconnecting from information consumption allows for a similar reset.

Striking the balance

Of course, the obvious answer is neither an utter rejection of these advances nor an outright embracing. I feel that the correct path is in the middle. For me, personally, I am not comfortable with embracing more than I already have. As such, I don’t have a smart phone, I don’t get online but when I have to, and I do my best to restrict my Internet usage to the weekdays while I’m at work. In short, I know my weakness. I know that I could easily spend every moment of every day consuming for the sake of consumption, and so I fall much closer to refusing technology than embracing it.

At the same time, it is important, I feel, to be a consumer. It is important to be informed. How can we care for our world and those around us if we eliminate the best tools to give us the information we need? We’ve come a long way from the ticker tape and radio broadcasts of yesteryear. Doubtless such progress is a good thing, and the increased connectivity can easily be used to bind us closer one to another. But when it goes too far, comes too close, or stays too long, is there wisdom in knowing when to say no more?

And if there is, do we do so?

Your limits, dear reader, are different than mine, and I stand by the idea that our individual uniqueness makes the limits individually unique as well. In this Socrates spoke well: Know thyself! Know for yourself where the line in the sand will be drawn.

Read Full Post »

Guest Post: The Future of Information Technology and Me (and You)

Here’s the first guest post, brought to you by Ty. Be sure to check out his blog, especially if technology is of any interest to you.

***

The Future of Information Technology and Me (and You)

I don’t honestly remember the first computer our family owned. I can barely remember the second. All I do remember of the second computer is being awed by the sheer StarTrek-esque awesomeness of it. It was a shiny, glowing, tech-noisy machine that consumed my imagination. But I was never one of those kids that had to tear it down, dig around its innards and figure out how it worked—mostly because I knew if I went anywhere near it with a screwdriver in hand, I would find myself chained to the kitchen sink doing dishes until I was 30.

While my friends were geeking-out over processors, HDDs, graphics cards (yes, cards), and the evolution of the CD, I sat back and just enjoyed the show. I was a power-consumer. I just enjoyed using the high-tech products—I was less interested in the details. That is still me today—although, I have boned-up on my product technical understanding and have a better handle on the geekier side of information technologies today. I can hold my own in a geek contest, but my first love (so far as tech is concerned) is the consumer user experience of technology.

My first laptop didn’t have specs worthy of discussion when I bought it, but holding that shiny plastic and metal Dell Inspiron 1505 was a revelation. It was my connection to a whole world of information. It had built-in Wi-Fi (an upgrade back then) so my wires were cut, but not my access to anything I wanted. But time and experience revealed that it was a little big for all that I wanted. The laptop gave me access to seemingly endless supplies of digital music and video, but it sure was an inconvenient media player on a jog (I jest—like I ever went jogging.) There was no true media portability with the laptop—so, I needed another option.

The iPod was well into its third iteration by the time I was in the market for an MP3 player. I toyed with the idea of an iPod for a while—I even downloaded iTunes and began managing my media library through that. However, after a few months with iTunes, the PC-unfriendly qualities of the program began to impede the quality of my laptop’s functionality, so I ditched iTunes and went back to Windows Media Center. I ended up settling for an iRiver PMC-120—20 GBs of HDD storage with a 3.5 inch LCD screen. It felt like a portable gaming system more than an MP3 player. It had a kickstand and an external speaker. It was, at its time, the Cadillac of portable media players. It seemed the ultimate in portable media. But, one thing is certain in the world of technology, and that is change.

6-months in to my love-affair with my iRiver device, Microsoft introduced its Zune media player. I would have been in line for the device day-one, but I was too poor at the time, so I remained wedded to my PMC-120—but it was that day that our relationship soured. The Zune30 was half as thick as my iRiver device, had 30 GBs more storage, built-in Wi-Fi, a dedicated music marketplace, and file-sharing capabilities. It was slim and sexy and evoked an iPod-like awe. (Side note: although the device never really took off in the consumer market, it was the most tech-cool device when it was released. By the time the Zune brand matured enough to compete, iPod had already grown to dominate over 80% of the market share for dedicated MP3 players. Too late for Zune.) The reason I remember this moment so well comes from the fact that this marked a moment of revelation for me: I felt something was happening. Another technological revolution was on the horizon. 30 GBs in the palm of your hand?! With Wi-Fi, no less! Cell phones were beginning to become more capable (although even the ‘smartest’ among them is the equivalent of a ‘dumb-phone’ today). I wasn’t the only one feeling the change, either. My dad prophesied a day when computers would fit in our hands and there would no longer be a need for a PC.

Well, we’re not all the way there, yet—but we are really close.

Since that day I have been through two Zunes, four ever increasingly smart smartphones, a laptop and a netbook. Today I own a ZuneHD and a WindowsPhone7. Both devices are so capable I rarely ever use the netbook at home. I can access all the information and media I need or want on my phone. I can even do some basic word processing and I have a dedicated camera/video recorder to boot—and that is just my phone. There are phones that can do much more out in the market. Every day I read a product announcement for faster, slimmer, more powerful, more capable, more fun, more… everything phones. Meanwhile laptops and desktops increase their on-board storage, processing speeds, and graphics accelerators.

My journey from early exposure to our family desktop to my WindowsPhone7 is a drama of change and optimization. For years technological manufacturers just seemed to be in a visionless landscape of R&D—pushing the limits of the current tech just because they could; but without a reigning vision to guide the development, the changes were just a technological pissing-match.

Today, we see the emergence of a guiding vision. This vision is materializing in consumer markets at a blinding pace. But where is this vision taking us? Where is it driving the changes to?

Technology today is quickly converging on the intersection between tactile and ‘cloud.’ Consumers like their futuristic tech—evidenced by the up-surge in consumer spending on smartphones and tablets. People like touch-screens and voice controls because these features allow them to get wrapped up in the technology and experience it as an extension of themselves rather than needing to take a class to figure out how to use a computer. We are becoming increasingly tactile in our technological experience, and that only deepens the more we use it. My smartphone is a multi-touch touch screen and I hate to use keyboards now. I love the intuitive control I have over my phone versus a mouse-and-keyboard. (Oh, and every day I fall deeper and deeper in love with voice control. It makes you feel a little self-conscious at first, but then I asked myself “Why?” Humans communicate with speech—why not extend that communication to our devices?)

And while more and more wires get cut, more and more of what we access on these tactile devices is cloud-based. More of our information is on the internet, stored in servers in unknown locations. Dedicated on-board storage is less important than high-speed internet connections. 3G, 4G, Wireless N, and a variety of up-and-coming wireless connections give us quick-access to want we want—now! Mobile access is the king in tech, now. I want my information to be where I am, not at home, stuck on a desktop. If the information, documents, music, video, (etc.) isn’t available—literally—in the palm of my hand, then it is antiquated and of little use to me.

That is the future of technology, folks. Consumer driven, cloud-based, fast-and-anywhere-access devices that cater to you, rather than make you bend to them. There will still be a place for desktops; they will become something akin to home-servers—personal information storage and distribution hubs. But you will access and manipulate information on smartphones, tablets, or some other device yet to be revealed.

So, the power consumer in me is more excited than ever to see science-fiction style technology becoming more and more accessible. I am excited to control devices with my voice, a flick of my finger, or a wave of my hand. I am excited to have seemingly infinite access to information in the palm of my hand. Technology will only continue to head in this direction. Are you in favor? How will this change the way you do utilize technology every day? Are you an early-adopter, already ahead of the crowd?

Read Full Post »

Guest Posts!

I’ve been plotting this for several months now, and I’ve finally come around to actually doing something about it! I’ve got the first guest post lined up for some time in the coming week, and that both makes me excited and nervous: Excited for the opportunity to see other voices and view points and nervous because I’ve promised return posts and my mind is blank!

If you’re interested in joining in (I’ve already got you down Laura G), please comment to this post. Here are my simple rules:

1. The topic can be anything you want as long as it is not foul, dirty, or otherwise inappropriate. My audience is fairly religious, and I invite you to keep that in mind.
2. If accepted (and it will be provided you obey the first rule), I will post your piece unedited and properly attributed to you (or your blog).
3. In return for your post, I will offer to guest post on your blog (if you want). I would ask that that post be linked here.

Like I said, pretty simple. For ease (and security), I’m thinking that guest posts will be exchanged by e-mail. I’d rather not give anyone else authoring rights to this blog, so that seems the easiest way to do it.

Thanks, and happy posting!

Read Full Post »