Archive for February, 2007

Silence

I don’t often delve into the forum of religion (specifically mine) on this blog (or anywhere for that matter). It shouldn’t come as any surprise that I am LDS (Mormon); that I attend an LDS sponsored Univeristy where, being a member of that church, I get a discount on tuition; nor should it be a surprise that I am active within my local congregation – though not because I need it to attend school (that is true); though being active means I can attend school.

Today in a History of Christianity class taught by a professor of Religion on campus, we were, briefly, introduced to the monastic theory of life. The word monk is derived from the Greek word monos meaning alone or solitary. The second half of monastic is derived from ascetic which also comes from the Greek askesis which means to exercise in a physical sense.

The term monk carries with it the notion of a solitary life. To be a priest of the Church (Catholic – you decide which version) also meant a monos or solitary life – dedicated to the church and God first, through which your actions would seem pure and simple by serving, as Christ served, those around you. In a parish this would mean the parishioners or, back to Christ, the flock. However, as a monk the objective was, separate from everyone else, to grow closer to God through silent meditation removed from the world. As a cursory examination of the monastic life, the monk would spend time growing closer to the Spirit (e.g. God) through silent and persistent meditation, rarely returning to the world because exposure to the world removed one from the pure communion that exists between God and the monastic servants.

This is not exactly conducive to LDS theology. Meaning, as a church we believe the best way to serve (and grow closer to) God is to serve the people around you. This is not limited to a parish or a specific flock, but rather an expansion of the notion of neighbor presented by Christ to a certain man. Asked of Christ: ”…And who is my neighbor?”

30. And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37. And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
(New Testament | Luke 10:30 – 37)

This definition offers a very broad view of who our neighbor is and should be. What this is meant to illustrate is that the monastic life is one that is… abhorrent (?) to the Lord because, in essence, you are removing yourself from the presence of society as a whole thereby removing yourself from the opportunity to serve. This opportunity is essential (in my opinion) to proper worship; and yet, through strong Greek influence, the monastic lifestyle took hold in early Christianity and caused men (and women) to remove themselves from society as pious believers and followers of a flawed order (again, this is my opinion).

And yet, the ideal of silence, of silent, thoughtful worship is not counter to proper religious worship and understanding. In the monastic structure the belief can simply be stated that the individual can most effectively grow closer to God through persistent, constant, silent meditation. In essence, you give away all that you have, all that you are, in order to obtain mercy from God. And yet, where does the notion of neighbor play into the overarching scope of what it means to truly worship God?

As an active member of the LDS church I get the opportunity to serve within whatever congregation I am a member of. At present (because I am single) this is limited to specific areas. My current “calling” is as a ward clerk. When the Bishop (principle ecclesiastic and temporal authority over the congregation) asked me what I thought about having my name put forward for the calling his initial statement was something like, “How would you feel about going after the lost sheep?” Meaning, there were members of our congregation that had not been to church, had not attended meetings, or had moved and not had their records moved that were unknown to the ward leadership (e.g. the Bishop and his two councilors). It would become (I believe this may still be accurate) my responsibility to find and record these “lost sheep,” which in turn means hitting the pavement to find them.

This is not exclusive of human contact. It is not monastic. Instead, it is a very open and outgoing position that requires me to be something other than what I normally enjoy – the loan wolf. I think this represents how the LDS church represents its core theological beliefs. We are to go out into the world and attempt to bring people to Christ through our example, our actions, and, where necessary, through concerted efforts in teaching. We are not to teach or convert through coercion, through force, through trickery, or through other abhorrent means. The calling of a missionary is a public and direct calling out in the world where the missionary is among people but, at the same time, through Christ separate from them.

Therein lies the rub. Religious tradition would dictate that silent meditation is the best, and most direct, way to get to God. The monastic lifestyle, though appealing to me, would mean permanently separating myself from society, leaving behind my worldy possessions and the things I like, hold dear, and dedicating myself, twenty-four/seven, to silent, contemplative worship of deity. The result would be, someday, that I would achieve a measure of exaltation through my forgoing the world in order to worship the Savior.

There are examples, in current canon, where people have separated themselves from society for a time to commune (converse) with God. In the Old Testament, Moses went on the Mount (Sinai) to converse with God for 40 days at a stint. In some instances he was accompanied by his brother or other elders, in most instances he was alone hearing, being taught, and learning to understand the word of God.

Christ went into the wilderness (the desert) to commune with His Father (we call him Heavenly Father or God) and as such, spent a period of (supposed) solitude conversing with God, being taught, and (presumably) learning to understand his role.

In the Book of Mormon we have other examples. Specifically, Enos went into the woods and conversed with God through prayer. The Brother of Jared went into the mountains to converse with God, alone, and as a result saw the finger of God. Nephi went to the top of the mountains to receive direction (alone) and came back with knowledge on how to build a ship. His descendent, Nephi, also spent time alone on his tower praying to God and causing such a stir at his mourning for his people, had attention drawn to his solitary act and was able to preach and prophesy the Word to the Nephites (who had begun to apostatize).

The idea of a silent, monastic life has some foundation; but in following that life we forget that we are also called to serve others. We are called to be out in the world, living our lives, and helping out wherever we can. We are instructed to be like the Samaritan, who was abhorrent to the Jews because of his mixed breeding, and help out anyone who needs our help. A Jew on the side of the road who was ignored by a priest and a Levite who ignored him on their way. Did they have good cause? Possibly. Christ doesn’t tell us more about them other than their status in the Jewish society; but the Samaritan, someone who was considered as dross, chose to stop, help, pay for the injured man’s lodging and care, and promised that if he did not provide enough money would give more on his return visit.

Being a monk (to me) means leaving behind the headaches that come in dealing with other people. Admittedly, it is a struggle, some days, to deal with the people around me. Not that I don’t like them or appreciate them, but because we see life from totally different spectrums. It sometimes feels like I am around a lot of people who allegedly believe the same things I do and constantly miss the point. With that said, it is probably me that misses the point; but leaving society, people, the world behind me is not going to draw me closer to God. Rather, that concerted effort for long periods of time, though good in the short run, becomes counter-productive and I don’t grow closer to God, but rather build distance between me and deity.

There are places, as members of the LDS church, where you can go and be quiet. The most notable of these is the Temple. There are a lot of them and as I am in Utah, I believe we counted 13 operational or under construction (read announced) temples. For most people, a short drive, and you are removed from the hustle and bustle of the world. You get to meditate on life, on self, on things pertaining to God and, in the process, grow closer. The temple, according to LDS theology, is literally the House of God or where God may be among his people. As this is the case, you remove the negative influences of the world by 1) being personally worthy to enter God’s house; and 2) through his authority that made it a sanctified place.

At the same time, if you want to be more like examples from canon, you can go into the woods and spend some solitary time there with your thoughts and with God discussing, through prayer, the ideas that you have while trying to prepare yourself to receive an answer. Answers don’t always come immediately or quickly, but they do come. They are not blasts of light or knowledge, an audible voice, and often represent a feeling or impression, something that urges you in a direction; though the stronger feelings can come. These feelings, though, come through quiet contemplation, sincere meditation, and preparation by the individual to grow closer to deity. They require observance of commandments and expectations. They require that you be a part of the world but not of the world and only through this practice can you achieve the connection (communion) with God that you desire.

Another place is in your room at night before bed: study, pray, ponder, meditate. These are the elements that are necessary for the individual to grow closer to God, to His son, and ultimately, it is probably a collection of these silent moments that build together to form a greater understanding (and communion) with God. You can’t just dedicate your life to a monastic philosophy and hope that God will, one day, decide to commune with you. If you are not, inherently, doing your part in the process (“Feed my sheep, feed my lambs”) than communion may never happen.

You can turn off the radio in your car and spend the time in careful and quiet contemplation. If I am driving alone and I know I am going to be hours on the road I like to have a running dialogue with God where I speak, out loud, my thoughts and feelings, I weigh what I am feeling in response, and ultimately, I feel better for having done it. Granted, this is not always silent – though some trips are made in complete silence (outside of the road noise and hum of the motor), but the solitary nature of the journey helps me to embark on a personal journey that helps me draw closer to God. In short, I grow closer to true communion with God (I feel) when I prepare myself in advance and then spend hours in verbal and silent conversation with Him.

The idea of silence as a concerted and temporary effort may be unique to other Christian faiths. I think as an LDS member of the church it isn’t a bad idea to take oneself out of the world, for a time, and just contemplate things that are beyond mortal understanding and mortal comprehension. We are flawed in that we grow old and die in a relatively short space of time. One of the defining characteristics of God is that he existed before the world was and will continue to exist after the world ceases to exist. In essence, according to science, He’s been around for millions of years (at least) and this time reference gives Him an understanding that far surpasses our.

I think that moments of silence are precious and should be sought after. I think we can grow closer to God by finding moments of silence where we can, temporarily, separate ourselves out of the world. I think that a monastic belief is counter-productive to the overall schema of religious growth. I also think that we should seek after all things that are good and lovely and silence is both good and lovely in its place.

One of the tenets to LDS theology is that most things are good in moderation. We talk about eating meats in their season, and grains in their season; we talk about exercise, about reading the scriptures, about all sorts of things that, taken out of context and used out of moderation become bad things. The problem is that what would be out of moderation for me is not necessarily out of moderation for someone else. What is out of control for someone else may not be for me. We are not asked what is our point of moderation, though, but commanded to be faithful in all things. Within the LDS theology one of those things is The Word of Wisdom.

Can someone find a level of moderation in what is forbidden in The Word of Wisdom? Absolutely. But we are not given that as an option. We are not, literally, given a monastic life as an option. We are not asked to give up the world for a strictly religious life. We are not asked to forgo human contact in lieu of spiritual contact. We are not told to do a lot of things that zealots choose to do with their lives because they see one road, they resonate with that road, and in the end they follow that path to its conclusion. In monastic theology the conclusion is a complete separation from the world with concerted, and consistent, daily worship in silence.

This is not something LDS theology follows, nor do I think it something LDS theology will follow. In short, we are to be members of communities, giving back, helping those we can help and those we come across on our travels, we are required to serve within the church, to worship in our meetings, to lift up others in their worship, to visit those who need visiting – in its essence, we are required to be neighbors to all those we come in contact with. We are required to love all people; but, at the same time, we are expected to find moments of silence, of personal time, of contemplation where we can, for a brief moment, draw closer to God. It is through the principle of loving ones neighbor that we achieve true growth, enlightenment, and communion.

Look for moments of silence; seek for those whose lives you can be a part of.

No Comments

On Television

I have become somewhat of a TV nut. That is not to say that I spend all of my waking hours watching or thinking about TV, but merely that I enjoy certain shows and have taken steps to be able to enjoy them at my leisure. One of the advances in the way broadcast stations are trying to bring new viewers in is to stream their shows over the internet with breaks for specific advertisers to get a word in edgewise. I can handle that, and, honestly, few of the advertisers have a hard sell right now; but in the future there are some things that look to be purchases and spending opportunities for me in the future.

This year my current fav-show is Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Long name, great show. It is witty, Aaron Sorkin, I believe, is doing a great job, and often episodes don’t really end, they are continued for two or three weeks. It is different television that makes me sit up, realize how good the writing is, and sit in wonderment about how lucky I am to be alive during what I think of as a Renaissance in Entertainment. There are good to great shows on TV, they don’t offend the watcher, you can watch or not as you will with little chance of being left behind, and a lot of them are smart; even the comedy. This is a combination that has seriously been missing in television for some time – territory that was relegated to HBO and now being taken up by broadcasters.

Speaking of smart programming and HBO, the other night a new show premiered on NBC. I don’t know whether or not they have been seriously advertising it, or if it’s saturation point has reached any kind of mass, but The Black Donnelly’s is a new drama discovering the lives of the four Donnelly brothers – the descendants of Black Irish immigrants who live in a tough neighborhood in New York City.

The first episode is narrated by Joey Ice Cream, a “friend” of the Donnelly’s who is really more of a tag-along than someone the viewer ends up feeling anything about. The narrative of the first episode, the Pilot, is about how Tommy Donnelly, the leader of the brothers (and not the oldest one) becomes the kingpin he ends up becoming. You are taken, quickly, through the years as the Donnelly’s and their friend Jenny Reilly grow up and make a variety of choices that place them in a position to take over the neighborhood. It is never intentional and as I watched the show the thought kept occurring to me, “One more step, one more step, one more step,” meaning that Tommy makes a choice and then makes another choice and another until he reaches a critical choice where the decision between good and bad, right and wrong, is no longer relevant as he is forced to do what, according to Joey Ice Cream, he never wanted to do.

Really, the show is about family and how four brothers protect and defend each other on the mean streets. Sometimes, that protection has to be brutal; at other times it turns into a conversation between two men discussing what should and shouldn’t be happening; at all times it is Tommy acting as intermediary between his brothers and their (sometimes) stupid antics and the law as well as ruling members of the underworld.

The first episode ends something like this: “Tommy became everything he never wanted. And whether he realized it or not, with Huey dead, Tommy’d just taken over the neighborhood.”

It’s the exploration of how someone can move from something good or, at the very least, something ambiguous to someone who’d taken that one step too far into the dark side of things. And yet, the show works. It works well. It does what entertainment is supposed to do.

As I watched the show, I have to tell you, the elements all worked together. The settings are streets and bars and café’s with additional settings for pick-up shots (e.g. the hospital). The viewer is entertained with some good visual imagery, great storytelling, narration that adds to the story without detracting from the flow, and music that all work together to make a poignant statement about what is taking place. None of the music sounds like it was intentionally written or recorded for television, but it was selected and (possibly) scored to accentuate what is meant to be important without adding too much background noise that the viewer is overwhelmed.

To add to this, it is co-created by Paul Hagis (he co-write Crash and wrote the script for Million Dollar Baby) and Bobby Moresco (co-wrote Crash) both of whom are Oscar winners. This is good storytelling. This is what other shows want to be. I should be upset at NBC for pulling Studio 60 for a few weeks while The Black Donnelly’s begins airing and gets it’s initial run in, but I’m not. I think this is good television, I think Studio 60 is good television and I think, when it is time to announce the shows that make it back on the air next year, both will be on the air together and that NBC is using this time to introduce a good, new show to viewers.

Overall, I think this show (based on the pilot and premise) has a lot of potentional and it looks to go somewhere fun and interesting. I think that NBC has done a proper job about advertising the show. It is made available through their video website, on top of which, the pilot is available as a free download through iTunes. The show accentuates what makes good television. It talks about subtle social issues, it reinforces family, and it has the right degree of violence to be a film about four Black Irish brothers doing two things: one, taking over the neighborhood; and two, being brothers and being there for each other through thick and thin. Granted, the material can be offensive; people who liked The Sopranos will probably like this show as well (different nationality being dealt with, though); with the outcome that you have something entertaining, good, well written, that cast actors who look the part, can act, and who make the viewer want to come back for more.

It’s a good show.

As for Studio 60 I think I shall paraphrase a quote from early in the season, “It’s like barrel-smoked whiskey. The more you try it the more you will like it.” Matt goes on to describe specific viewership trends and how, as a specific aspect of the fictional sketch comedy show is presented to viewers, more people will watch, laugh, and enjoy. I believe that Studio 60 will, in the long run, follow that trend and that NBC will renew it for one more year where, like Seinfeld, ER, and Friends it will gain viewers and become Can’t Miss TV.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson | Denny Crane

links:
http://www.nbc.com/Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip/
http://www.nbc.com/The_Black_Donnellys/
http://www.nbc.com/video/
http://www.nbc.com/
http://www.hbo.com

No Comments

Channeling Borders

Back when I used to work for Borders in New Hampshire we, the employees, would have a bit of fun watching some of the people who came into the store do what they were doing. You get all kinds. Those who show up in the morning and insist upon staying until late at night. Those who show up everyday to check the stacks and leave. Those who come in on Tuesday’s to buy movies and music and always buy whatever is new that week regardless of what it is. And then, my favorites, those who went to Borders for first dates and blind dates. I guess Borders is one of those places you can go where you don’t have to worry about someone being a complete freak.

I recall one night a blind date happened. It was passed all over the store, “John dial 5-1-1,” and I would dial it to be told to check out the odd looking couple (tall guy, short and stocky girl) in the café. I’d grab a stack of magazines and carry them to the magazine racks and check out the couple. Clearly a blind first date. The guy is awkward and the girl is all smiley and giggly. Someone went to a great deal of effort to set these two up because, beyond any realm of imaginings, they fit together.

And yet, the blind first date is so awkward it is like a car wreck during rush hour. All you, as a driver, can think about is, “Move faster, move faster,” yet, when it’s your turn to drive past the accident two thoughts occur, “I can’t take my eyes off of it,” and, “I wonder if there is a fatality?” Blind dates in public places are kind of like that. You can’t take your eyes off of it, and you wonder what kind of a fatality it will turn in to before the night is over. Sad. Very sad.

To add to this, Erin and I went to Borders after we went and saw a movie on our first date. If you want details as to how I asked her out, ask her. I won’t share them; but we did go to Borders after seeing a movie. Those, by the by, are two things I don’t like to do on first dates, and yet, with her, it seemed like the right things to do. Since then we end up at Borders once a week, or at least once every other week, sit, talk, drink hot chocolate (mine is soy with additional flavors added) and when it gets late enough, we go home to our separate homes. And yet, I dare say, we were never like the awkward couples that would show up to Borders in New Hampshire. We weren’t the people the employees made fun of.

One of the reasons I share this is that after several visits to Borders with sitting and reading or talking or wandering about, it seems like one of those places people go when they want to be in a public place but together. Erin and I go there for that purpose. We don’t want to be at my house, and we don’t want to be at her house; campus is… yeah, and the outcome is that we take computers and books and we go to the bookstore where the ambiance is bright and generally clean and where we can study, discuss Kierkegaard, and, in general, just have a pleasant time together. It’s nice.

And with that said, we, apparently, are not the only ones. Sitting around us we had a man and woman who, according to Erin, were on the road to having sex. When I paid attention to them the man wanted it, the woman, however, was a little out of his league and yet, that doesn’t mean that Erin was wrong. Next to them were a couple of guys that might have been there to be together but were trying very hard not to be publicly intimate. They might be BYU students. They might be homosexual. They might be a lot of things. Watching people, you create little biographies in your head (at least I do, and the indicators are that Erin has that tendency as well) with the outcome that you ascribe sexual preference to two guys sitting next to each other.

There are, on any given night, examples of this anywhere you choose to look, inside a bookstore. I find it interesting that this is a gather place for the dating and the romantic. To me, the bookstore represents a goal, a place where I want my work to end up; to others it represents a non-threatening place where you can go to be together, in public, and still accomplish something. To others it represents that place where you meet the blind date and hope for the best from the interaction.

I think that this is more true in Utah than it was in New Hampshire. We were situated close to a Catholic high school, a Law School, a couple of colleges, and it was also where mothers with children would come to spend parts of their days. On the weekends people would flock to Borders to buy magazines and movies and music and sometimes books. It is a gather place. A virtual (and unofficial) center of the community which, in itself, is rather odd as it doesn’t seem, from outward appearances, like Borders, anywhere, could be that. But, the stores encourage groups to hold meetings there. They have requirements, you have to be willing to let anyone attend the meetings, but if you have a club and need a place to meet, Borders is it.

On the weekends they do live music.

On Saturdays they have story time for children. (In New Hampshire we had a heavily tattooed girl that really clicked with the children, she was amazing.)

There is a café for snacks and drinks.

You can browse, read, relax, and not feel as though you are being pestered.

Besides that it is a casual environment where the employees where jeans and t-shirts and, except for the stupid badge around their necks, look like everyone else (well, since I worked for the company they added headsets so the employees can talk to each other more easily).

The point is that I am amazed at the notion that Borders, for a lot of people, is a destination. It is a place for couples to go. For people to study. To buy books and movies and music. To simply sit and relax. To hold discussions and discuss ideas and directions to take. Moreover, as an employee you get to watch these things, make comments to other employees, and have fun in the process. And yes, it is a real job. You do have to work, and hard; but the outcome is that you have fun at your job coupled with doing something that, from an outside perspective, actually adds to the community.

Moreover, Borders is also a place for book signings, to meet celebrities, to encounter people and personalities you might not have encountered before. One night, while I was in Borders and talking on the phone, I said something to the person I was talking to and a little kid, very precociously, turned to his parent and asked, “What does that mean?” I stopped talking to who I was talking to, turned to the kid, gave them a simple definition (which his parents seemed unable to do) and then went back to the conversation. Granted, that could happen anywhere, but it has ever only happened (and yes, more than once) to me at Borders.

I learned that people like to hear me read poetry while working at Borders.

I developed some ideas for stories while working at Borders.

I’ve discovered authors and poetry, music and movies, all while encountering people and things at these stores.

It is not my intent to create an advertisement for the place. I was glad to no longer work there. More of my disposable book money now goes to Amazon.com. But the point is that people go to this store for a reason. You don’t find that same atmosphere at other bookstores. It’s not the same to walk into a Barnes and Noble, which is dark and not as friendly and where you are accosted at every turn. The difference, here, is that Borders just seems cooler; and Barnes and Noble more mature, out of date; and yet, they compliment each other.

The point, I think, is that I was at Borders because I like being there. I was there with Erin. As a result of our being there we got to see people interact. As a result of that it opened up more conversation and more insight into how we each think. The result is that this store has become, and is becoming, a part of our lives because it is a place we both like, we are both comfortable in, and a place we both enjoy being – especially with each other.

John Hattaway | Alicia Grey | Denny Crane | Zach Johnson | smokingpen | Bond. James Bond

No Comments

Andy Barker P.I.

I just watched the first episode of Andy Barker P.I. It makes me wonder how often studios are going to rehash Andy Richter as a private investigator. I mean, this is the guy who got his start opposite Conan O’Brien on The Late Show with Conan O’Brien. With that said, I think there is something there.

That is shared not because I am going to go into any real detail about the television show; but rather as an introduction to something I’ve been reading, slowly, over the past several days. Specifically, a book by Orson Scott Card on writing science fiction and fantasy. In that book he tells the reader that some of the best stories come from the combination of two ideas that, on a cursory glance, don’t mix; but once mixed make up something far greater than the individual components.

Andy Barker P.I. does that. It is about a man who is an accountant who is thrust into the world of private investigation and, through a series of dumb luck events, realizes that he has a knack for it AND that he gets a rush out of it. He is married. Might have a child and has just opened his own office. Bored, during the middle of the day, his lack of a routine is interrupted by a tall blonde woman in a red dress who offers him a load of cash to track down a man (her husband, she says). He looks over the mans tax returns, finds him, and then watches as he is kidnapped. Frustrated, he goes to the real P.I. the woman was meant to have spoken to, and is told that he has about twelve hours before the man he helped the Russian mob kidnap is killed.

The basis of the story, the two conjoining parts, are disparate enough that they don’t, even remotely, work together and yet the combination of accountant and friendly, family guy to reluctant private eye seems to work. I have to admit that if this show gets viewership as a mid-season replacement it might actually go somewhere and Andy Richter might actually find himself launched out of Conan O’Brien’s shadow, which he is still sitting in, and as a real live boy… err, actor, in his own right.

However, the combination of two seemingly different and disparate ideas is a good launching point, me thinks, to something far better. Normally I don’t go for Orson Scott Card, but I have to say that his ability to explain how writing is done in clear and concise ways and to come up with examples of how things work and why they work and his process to get from point A to point Zed only helps me to see how the process can work, in my own life, as future reference. As a fiction writer Card is so-so; as a teacher of writing fiction he is a rock star.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Denny Crane | Bond. James Bond

No Comments

Wont to Progress

Wasn’t sure whether or not I should write this up, but I quit my job the other day. I’ve been working for a professor (he was an associate dean) on campus for the past year and, in facing this semester, I was offered a job doing something different that seemed like it might be new and interesting. The problem that came up was that he wanted to continue doing work on his book and, at the same time, keep up with the workload that I was assigned within the new position. Outcome: he e-mailed me last week to tell me I was not keeping up with either and to berate me for canceling a meeting we had to go over the book project we were doing last year. In the e-mail he told me I was not putting in enough hours, not doing enough work, and in the long-run, not doing my job. I was asked to choose what it was I wanted to be doing.

So, I sat on his e-mail. I thought about it. Admittedly, it made me mad. I was doing everything he asked and had cancelled our meeting because I had to be sitting in a test twenty minutes after a meeting with him was meant to start. I know the professor. I know his habits and what he does. And I know that a twenty minute meeting quickly drags into an hour or more. I’ve watched him ignore the clock for meetings he’s supposed to be at so he can push a lot of information at me. The cancellation, on my part, was in order that we have time to actually meet and so that I was not flustered when I sat down to take the test. He has that tendency.

I used the test as my reason for canceling the meeting.

Anyway, I thought about it, calmed down, decided what was important to me, and then proceeded to do what I do when dealing with frustrations like this. I won’t bore y’all with the details. The point is that I spent a long day deciding what was important to me, in my life, and what I needed to do to survive and accomplish my objectives.

Coincidentally, I’d started a freelance job writing scripts for an ESL program that is being produced in partnership with BYU and I went to speak to that professor. The outcome of that talk seemed rather positive as he described to me the scope of the ESL program as well as what he expected from me in the long run; as well as other students. We even talked a bit about characters and then planned our regular meeting the next day. It was fun.

At ten o’clock at night, same day as the first professor’s e-mail, I sat down and re-read an e-mail I’d written earlier in the day. At one point it seemed important to me to get my thoughts down on paper (virtual) about why I would walk away from the job and my understanding of what was going on. I sent the e-mail indicating that I would turn in my last time card on Friday (three days ago) and would make this my official separation from the professor and the job. In the e-mail I thanked him for the confidence he showed in me and the opportunities he gave to me. I also stated that I felt it was time to move on as I could not guarantee (with wedding plans and other things) that I could give him the time and focus he needed to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish.

It seemed kind of weird to me to do that. To walk away from a job I am, would be, and was good at. It seems weird and strange to me that I would comfortably walk away from a sure paycheck for the rest of the time I’m at BYU for… well… who knows what. Granted, I am working somewhere else, but it is also a contractual position. It could go away any time. But, at the same time, I felt that if I was going to succeed in the areas I want to be successful, I needed to separate myself from the professor and the job in order to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.

I think the point is that I am hitting a rather interesting time in my life where I am dealing with the ins and outs of something I’d tried not to have happen, unemployment. And even though I am not, technically, unemployed, there is still a personal notion of that taking place in my life as I wait for the project to get to a paying point and as I wait to see what is about to happen. This is something I honestly wasn’t aiming for in my life. I didn’t want to get to this point and have everything tossed up in the air again. It feels tossed and in the air and yet, I am very comfortable with what is happening to, and around, me.

Anyway, thought I’d update the reading world on my life in that area.

Oh, still getting married. Still August 3rd (for those keeping track). We get to have some engagement pictures taken soon. Probably not done professionally so that the announcement can go into newspapers in different parts of the world… err, U.S. And it seems that we are also coming to the point in the year where I need to come up with names and addresses for Save the Date cards and Announcements and Invitations to go out. We spent, Erin and I, a portion of last night discussing who and how many people needed to be invited to the Temple… I said, “Six,” and then named them. Which was six total and not Erin and me and then six additional people. Erin didn’t say anything, but in not saying anything you could hear the, “NO!” in her voice so… sounds like it will be more than six people; though I did rattle off a list of people that didn’t need to be invited.

Beyond that life progresses as life is wont to progress, I guess. Off to other things.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Denny Crane | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson

No Comments

Courage to Act

Just once I think I’d like to open a news article, or newspaper, and read something that could be politically sensitive and see a persons name next to it. Instead, these days, we see an article and we read things like, an official close… or, unnamed sources inside… or a thousand other ways of saying that the person giving the information, though known to the reporter, is unwilling to actually act upon their principles and risk being fired. Often this person is close enough to see what is going on (Deep Throat), but far enough removed that they are not culpable when the roof caves in.

This, I think, is becoming a real issue. G.W. and his staff, and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been using this for some time to leak information they want leaked to the press. Most presidents do this. Semi-authorize someone within the administration to leak information and then watch as no names are ever revealed. The outcome is that you have deniability for someone else’s actions because you never know, beyond a VERY LARGE shadow of a doubt, whether or not the person was actually authorized to say or do something.

As I write this I am thinking of some spy novels and movies where the protagonist is told, at the outset, that if he/she is caught the government will deny any knowledge of the individual and will leave them to die or be tortured by a hostile government. I believe this is called Black Ops where the U.S. (or in the Cold War era. Russian) government orders a hit on someone politically tied and then washes their hands of the whole scenario.

That’s what leaking information to the press has come down to. In essence, in government or corporate America, the source is told two things: one, we want you to leak specific information to the press; and two, if you are somehow figured out we will deny that you were told to leak information to the press and you will be fired.

Does that sound like a moral stand? Does it sound like we should be lauding the behaviors of people who do things because their superiors told them to? I mean, sure, there are probably just as many examples of people within government and corporations where the “source” is not under orders from someone higher up; but how much of a moral leg does that person have to stand on over, say, someone who is under orders to make a statement without allowing the reporter to reveal his/her name as having made the comments. This form of reporting actually makes it easier for the former example to do what they do. If the people who were speaking to reporters on principles, alone, always let the reporter use their name because they believed that the information was more important than the paycheck, than an anonymous source becomes unreliable and the government and corporations lose leverage.

And yet, people are interested in the paycheck. They want to see a positive (in the black) bottom line. The outcome is that they are unwilling to do anything that might threaten the bottom line so they say nothing with their names on the record and they do nothing that might threaten their jobs and what we have is a pile of human refuse, starting at the top, that makes many reports coming through the press circumspect because you can’t trust whether or not the source is doing the right thing by telling the world, or doing the wrong thing by allowing them to be used as shills in a high stakes card game.

Reading the news is interesting most days. Reading the news when something important is happening and the sources are those inside of an organization that are unwilling to share who they are and how they know what they know to the world at large make the stories, themselves, unreliable and bad journalism. Granted, lots of stories are broken this way and the Nixon administration fell because of it; it would be nice if G.W.’s would take a couple of real hits rather than the fake hits they seem to have gotten. The outcome, though, is that it is hard for me to trust the reporter, the report, or the source when a high ranking member within the vice presidents office has made a statement and we have to guess who that person might be.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson | Bond. James Bond

No Comments

Your Religion

I was in class the other day and the professor got up and asked a question. I don’t remember what the question was or why we’d gotten off on talking about how one lives their religion, but it seemed to me that the conversation quickly delved into appropriate dress for church, meetings, and (for men) Priesthood responsibilities.

Then the topic of white shirts came up and someone said, “I think that you wear a white shirt to set yourself apart from how you dress the rest of the week.”

The professor asked, “What about seminary teachers? They wear white shirts everyday.”

There are other professions that do the same thing. I said, “I don’t wear a white shirt, in part, because of my mission. I don’t think that makes me any less of an individual because I choose not to wear white shirts.”

NOTE: I do wear white when I go to the temple; I own a white shirt for that express purpose.

Anyway, it was then talked about how traditionally people wear certain things. Men wear white shirts and women wear pantyhose. I pointed out that I knew someone who doesn’t wear pantyhose anymore because of her mission. I’d imagine I probably know many people who fall into that category; that’s really not the point. Rather, sometimes we get caught in the trap of tradition placing it ahead of other elements in our lives that might be more important. Especially the element of choosing to live your religion.

As I sat there the thought occurred to me: We should be living our religion in such a way that it shouldn’t matter what we wear on any day of the week because the people around us should be able to tell that, as an individual, I am somehow different. Meaning, a white shirt shouldn’t have to be my uniform if I am living my religion properly. Often, though, it is the way we choose to show that we are going to church or are doing something different with our lives; by putting on a white shirt and tie.

Tradition isn’t a bad thing. It is through tradition that we have the Standard Works. It is through tradition that much of our religious dogma (Catholic, meaning pure and Protestant) has been handed down for two-thousand years. We gather our practices because of what was kept for us by other authors and religionists and that, in part, is a direct result of tradition. The practice of tradition isn’t bad; but it can be misguided.

Wearing white shirts is not required. I am sure that for a 70 or an Apostle within the LDS church it is probably required. I know that when I applied for a job at the MTC (missionary training center) they required that I show up for work everyday in a white shirt and tie even though I would have no direct contact with the missionaries within the center. I know that various other church related jobs require that the individual wear white shirts and ties to work (like seminary teacher). And I know that when it comes to proper Sunday worship, a white shirt and tie is not necessary or required.

And yet, I sit in church on Sunday and watch twelve members of the Aaronic Priesthood pass the sacrament in white shirts, ties, and coats. It is amazing to see. I was a Deacon’s Quorum President and having six boys show up dressed in white was an amazing feat; especially since I didn’t feel it (always) necessary to dress in white back then either. It was more likely, but that doesn’t mean it was always going to happen.

My father taught, “White shirts and ties are the uniform of the priesthood,” and I don’t disagree with him. But what uniform is it? Is it the uniform of every priesthood brother. Of every bishop? Stake President? Elder’s Quorum President? Priest? Teacher? Deacon? And Elder? I really don’t think so. I do think that it is required for Missionaries, the Elders, and for General Authorities and is probably encouraged for Stake Presidents and Bishops, but in the latter two cases I am also pretty certain that it is not required just encouraged.

Just because my father taught me something doesn’t make it right. I’d share other examples of what might not be right, but that’s not going to happen. It’s not my place to show the faults or follies of that man. I believe that what (and how) he taught me was for my benefit and learning and as an adult as I choose to apply those teachings I only benefit from his experience, teachings, wisdom, and opinions.

But it is tradition to wear white. Some people claim that it represents purity. The professor in class pointed out that with white shirts often come black pants. So, with a pair of black slacks does that mean you are representing impurity and that the dress is a metaphor for the battle between dark and light, good and evil. It’s not.

Ties were, initially, bibs that protected clothing from food. And yet, they’ve become a part of fashion. Traditionally, when dressing up, you wear a tie. It actually distracts the eye from a stark image. It also accentuates the clothing and colors being worn. But, ties are, in essence, a long-term fad.

Being clean shaved is a long term fad. I know that, again, it is current tradition to not have facial hair; and I know that I hate facial hair so my personal preferences and tradition go hand in hand here; but when the church was organized and for a lot of years afterward the leadership all had beards. Times change. People change. And now we don’t have facial hair. But it is still tradition. Again, there are a few callings (and jobs) that require you to shave (see list above), but outside of those it is encouraged not required.

Living your religion, ultimately, is something that you have to do for you. What you wear may be an aspect of that; but, if you are truly living your religion in a way that exemplifies God you will stand out from the crowd. There will be no need for Sunday attire because your everyday attire is probably good enough. This does mean that you might choose to have something slightly nicer, or absolutely nicer, than your work-a-day clothing that you would wear to church and that is appropriate; but the outcome is also that chances are you won’t of necessity or requirement need to wear white because some people think it is the only color you as a priesthood holder should wear. (NOTE: this argument can also work for sisters and pantyhose.) Rather, you will be living your religion every day and the need to put on something special won’t matter because you don’t need that reminder of who and what you are.

White is nice, in its place, and I believe that it is an appropriate color to wear. However, I choose not to and I also believe that, at this point in my life, that is also okay.

John Hattaway | smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson | Bond. James Bond

1 Comment

The Superstitions We Carry – not neccessarily a complete thought

Several years ago I traveled all over the United States. On Monday morning I would wake up, finish packing a bag, drive to the airport, park my car, get on an airplane and fly to some destination. Often, for me, this was either (or included) Atlanta, GA. However, I went to Florida, Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles and other fun and exciting destinations. Life on the road was… fun.

If I was lucky I’d be back on a plane Thursday or Friday and would return home. Once (Atlanta) I left town, was told I’d be gone for three weeks and came back six months later. The cost of parking my car was astronomical. The company paid for it, anyway, but it caused me to take taxis and shuttles to the airport. I was done with long-term parking. On the flipside, I’ve been in taxis and shuttles all over the country and have never felt as scared and … well, terrified as I did in those vehicles in Salt Lake City, UT – and I spent a lot of time in New York City where driving a car for the New York uninitiated isn’t really an option.

When I started out working for this company, and traveling to a variety of locations, my objective was to get a room as high in the hotel as possible. Many of the hotels were either really nice business class or really nice resort class accommodations. In the Atlanta experience, the hotel was completely open on the inside and the higher you got the better the view (down) from the door to your room. It was an adventure.

As time went by (again, Atlanta) and I’d get moved around or have to return to Utah to be chewed out for not doing my job (hotel installed, problems existed with firmware that, since I am not a programmer, was somehow my fault), I started asking the hotel to put me as close to the ground floor as possible. By the time my room was on the lowest level (same hotel – it took a while) the hotel was pretty close to being fixed and they pulled me out to stick someone else in.

From that time forward I was decided on where I would stay in the hotels I was assigned to work in. When I got to a hotel, it could be only two stories tall, my request was always to be on the bottom floor. In my mind, as long as that was true I was getting out of the hotel very quickly. My average for a two week install was sub-five days and since I was paid for two weeks on sight I would have a week off; on top of which, since I was one of very few people who could make or change flight plans, I was generally home much sooner than the company often realized.

In short, I’d developed a superstition about installing what was installed in hotels and, as a result, I allowed that superstition to actively function as a part of my life.

I realized this, the other day, as Erin and I were checking into a hotel for her mom (who was coming into town later that day) and my initial thought was, “Erin should request a room as high in the building as possible,” and then, “Wait. No. As low as possible.” Instead, I stood outside between her car and mine and waited for her to check into the hotel. The hotel has 13 or 15 floors, we were in the section that had eight floors, and her mom was on the sixth floor. In Atlanta the lowest you could go would be the tenth floor. Below that, it was conference rooms, office, restaurants, amenities, and other things.

So, Erin’s mom came into town. As you know we are getting married. Before the whole engagement thing, she was planning to come out just to visit. Part of the purpose, possibly the whole purpose, was to plan some things face to face, to get feedback from Erin and me, about various aspects to the wedding.

They called me yesterday and asked if I wanted to go to dinner with them. I said, “Yes.” They picked me up. We drove to the restaurant (really, really, really bad service). And then they said, “We want to go over some of the plans for the wedding… oh, and you’re trapped.”

Erin’s mom pointed out that I could walk; I pointed out that I had no problem walking and then we walked into the restaurant. Did I say it was really bad service? Really. Bad. Service.

The outcome, and it came down the pipe multiple times yesterday, was that Erin found the dress. They asked, at one point (because I prompted the question) whether I wanted to know what they spent. My answer, “No,” didn’t seem satisfactory. In the end, though, I still don’t know.

Erin said that I wasn’t allowed to know what the dress looked like. This is a superstition. She likes the dress. She is convinced that I will like the dress (I like her, she likes the dress, therefore I should like the dress). She told me that I would, most likely not, dislike the shoes that were chosen to go with the dress. However, it was against her belief about weddings to tell me about the dress or for me to have any mental image of this dress, in particular. All that I can know is that it is an ivory color.

There is a tradition, in life, that the groom cannot see the dress before the wedding. In short, I cannot see the dress before we are married. We will be married before I actually get to see the dress. The superstition is that if I see the dress in advance it will negatively affect the marriage – with the outcome being that we won’t get married.

I found the notion interesting.

My fiancé is excited about her dress. All she wanted to talk about yesterday was the dress. It was fun to see her excitement; and it was fun that finding the right dress caused her to want, and be willing, to actively talk about wedding plans.

We discussed, and this is really interesting to me, the language that will be used on the wedding invitations and announcements. We discussed the ways we wanted to transfer information to different groups of people. We discussed who those groups would be. You have to think about these things. You have to think:

Who is going to be invited to the temple?
Who is going to be invited to the open house here?
Who is going to be invited to the ring ceremony?
Who is going to be invited to the reception in Massachusetts?
Who just gets an announcement stating that we are married; getting married; have been married?

On top of this we discussed, mostly, the ins-and-outs of the ring ceremony in Massachusetts and who would be involved in what capacity while out there. We discussed accommodations and other things. It was an interesting conversation. They tried to discuss, with me, the tux – but I said, “You should pick what tuxedo you want me to wear and then tell me.” Truth told, I really do prefer jeans and a variety of pull-over shirts with the odd button up shirt untucked and the cuffs unbuttoned. When it comes to a tuxedo, I’m a little on the ambivalent side of things; or I can’t be bothered, and yet, if I don’t speak I can’t be heard; and if I’m not heard I can’t complain when something doesn’t turn out the way I think or want.

No Comments

InspectorWordpress has prevented 0 attacks.