Articles September-October

Crazy times this month! I feel like the world I was used to has gone upside-down, at least politically. Utah has become a unexpected battleground where people dear to me get phone calls from people worried that their souls are at stake if they don't vote for Trump. Strange alliances are made and familiar ones have been severed.

Meanwhile in Connecticut, I happened to talk to librarians who bemoan the state of affairs and wish they could just write someone in (cue mention of Evan McMullin). Definitely wasn't expecting that in one of the bluest states in the nation!

 I think I'll just get the political stuff out of the way first.

Political

First off . . . here is my confession.

I read the Scott Adams blog. Have for about a year now. He's the kind of rational atheist man that believes that humans are just moist robots (that is, no free will) who never evolved enough to really come to terms with reality. Thus, we can be easily hypnotized and persuaded, and that's what this election is all about. (He's gone back and forth between endorsing Clinton and Trump but I think he wants Trump to win so his predictions will be right.)

Sometimes some of those arguments about humans not having free will are intellectually seductive, but I've come up with lots of rebuttals.
-People really do have free will. The reason we don't seem to see it much is because we are pretty good at handing our agency over to Satan. In The Peacegiver by James Ferrell he describes people as just walking like zombies wherever Satan wants because he's got them subtly wrapped up in flaxen cords. So yeah, people can be easily manipulated, but that's because of sin, not because of their innate nature.
-He attributes most feelings to our brain convincing ourselves of whatever rather than actual spiritual truth. That's frightening, isn't it -- that every time you "felt good" about something it wasn't the Spirit as much as it was just some deep recesses of your brain using confirmation bias or whatever. (And, honestly, when people get way into things like the "Shemitah" apocalyptic stuff last September or convincing themselves that God really approves of Trump's antics, it does make me shift uncomfortably in my seat, wondering how much inspiration is real inspiration from God).

But the great thing about revelation is that it rarely involves just yourself. You can trick yourself into thinking most anything -- but can you trick Sidney Rigdon into seeing the visions of glory with you? You can randomly start thinking about loved ones who passed away, but if other family members think about them the exact same time with the exact same imagery, how is that just self-hypnosis? If you spend all day thinking about someone you rarely think about and feeling really sad and then find out at the end of the day they just had yet another miscarriage, what explanation is there but the Holy Ghost?
No matter how hard it is for someone to believe in God because of a world that gets messed up by evil people and good-intentioned people who trick themselves into evil actions . . . there is still so much evidence for a loving God who cares about us and has us bump into each other so we can see His face more clearly.

Okay, that didn't end up all that political, but I feel like it's important to remember that God is at the helm . . . because it might not feel like He is as things get worse and worse. (at least polio is getting eradicated lots of places. They always bring that up when people say things are getting worse.)

Speaking of God being at the helm, this is a good video.
Faith Trumps Fear

Was a Trump Server Communicating with Russia To be fair, sometimes I think my server is communicating with Russia. I mean, sometimes I have blog stats there (before my friends moved to Moldova, even), and something's been pinging my block for the past 5 months giving me 1000 new views every day.
But I don't think Donald Trump keeps a blog. Let's be serious -- he is proud that he doesn't read books. Why would he read blog posts longer than 140 characters?
At any rate, when people like to remind me that there is a 50% chance he appoints conservative judges (based on Reagan's, Bush's, and Bush's track record), I think . . . isn't that just what Trump is so great at? Making people gamble? And goodness sakes . . . if this article is true then he sure puts the Russian in Russian Roulette.

Utah is 2016's Strangest Swing State -- Regardless of what happens on election night, I will feel so much love for my home state if it doesn't go to Trump.

The Religious Right -- A Eulogy -- I definitely know some evangelicals who are just going to do a protest vote this year, and I think that's great. Generally, it looks like church-going evangelicals have been more likely to reject Trump from the beginning. But there are many different kinds of evangelicals in the country, and perhaps the ones who have made it into politics have drawn near to God with their mouths but have removed their hearts far from Him (see Isaiah 29:13). Hence this eulogy.

The Section Dedicated to J. D. Vance

Can I tell you another confession?

I've read a book by Charles Murray.

I didn't realize that was a bad thing until some friends started sharing the "are you in a bubble" quiz that he made. Their friends commented with all these articles quoting him saying some rather white supremacist things (the ties to eugenics bother me). It was kind of like, "oh. oops." The book I read (Coming Apart) didn't have any of that, but I understand a bit better why, for example, students at Yale complained about him coming. I mean, really, Yale students complain about everything. But I honestly do find him more problematic than I used to.

EDIT 3/27: I think this response by Murray is fair.

However, I am still grateful that I read his book because it opened my eyes to divisions in classes that I had never seen before. I suddenly cared about things that I hadn't before, and I was able to make my own conclusions. So, yay for free speech after all.

Where was I going with this? Well, there's a new guy in town saying similar stuff (without the objectionable parts, as far as I've seen). His name is J. D. Vance and he recently graduated from Yale Law. And I have no idea what the J. and the D. stand for. Maybe someone in the ward knows.

Anyway, he has a lot of interesting articles about the evangelicals who don't really go to church and who just have a rough life all around. All of them are worth a read!

http://national.deseretnews.com/article/22819/god-plays-an-important-role-in-hillbilly-country-but-not-in-the-way-youd-expect.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/25/how-the-white-working-class-lost-its-patriotism/?utm_term=.420b3eb342d4

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439431/race-relations-getting-worse-america-why

And, that last article even has its own SNL skit! (mild language.)

Social

Faculty Gender Inbalance at BYU -- Okay, the comments are where the real value of the article is.
I had a big long blog post I wrote about this the day I read it, but it's just been sitting in drafts (ending with the phrase "But above all" and I don't know remember I was going with that haha). Here's a snippet:

• One of the hardest parts of being a female engineering student was feeling like I got special treatment. There would be times after arguing back points on a test where I would wonder, did I get those points back because I made a convincing case or because I smiled a lot? Did people suggest I become a professor at BYU someday because of my brilliant and innovative contributions to research or because they (really really) wanted a woman on the faculty? In retrospect, perhaps people made comments like this in hopes of giving me confidence on a historically unequal playing field. But I felt like it mostly cheapened my accomplishments, and worse, it gave others permission to assume I had achieved what I had due to my gender.
• Perhaps I'm unique in this, but any sort of brushes I had with sexism only fired me up. When I randomly decided to major in engineering and started hanging out in the Clyde Building, I was the subject of a few derogatory remarks from someone who thought I was only majoring in it for attention from the boys (and another who suggested I major in math ed instead). I responded by getting 100% on the first test. When a professor mocked my handwriting in front of the class (how could a girl have worse handwriting than the 3 other guys in the class, all of whom wrote in size 7 Courier font?), I had fire in my bones as I completed the next homework in exaggerated first-grade-teacher handwriting. When I heard awkward comments about my pregnancy, I spent the next four years making fun of those comments. (Okay. Maybe that wasn't the best response.) I absolutely think sexism is entirely inappropriate, but I could handle that a lot better than the feeling of special treatment.
• There is something to be said for "seeing yourself" in your major, especially early on. It is a lot easier to feel like you belong somewhere when you have at least a few other people the same gender/race/religion/etc. as you. I am grateful that I usually had 1-3 other girls in my classes during undergrad. But, by the time I was the only girl in every single class during my masters, I didn't care anymore. I belonged on my own merits.

Anyway. Those are a few of my thoughts about obstacles to getting more women on the faculty at BYU. That article is more than a month old now so probably no one is that interested anymore.

But speaking of sexism, it sure has been getting lots of attention lately! That tape about Donald Trump unleashed all sorts of accusations. It's just like the mice hiding in our walls -- the more you look the more you find. ugh ugh ugh.

Bringing "locker room" into the light -- This has lots of wonderful suggestions about how to raise good children.

What Shouldn't Be Normal -- my wonderful cousin wrote about sexual harassment, including some of her experiences on her mission. It is mind boggling that so many women around the world deal with harassment and assault every day.

And, while we're on the topic . . . I am glad that the concept of consent is becoming more important, especially on college campuses, but I think there are still some situations where consent on its own is insufficient, where perhaps it's strange to even use the word.

Let me give an example. Here is a true story: there was an aspiring young actress back in the day who had the chance to land a major role in one of Hollywood's biggest films. All she had to do, according to those in the know, was sleep with the producer.

"I don't do that," she said.
"100 girls would feel lucky to have that opportunity," was the reply.
"Well I'm not one of them," is what she said in essence, and so she left Hollywood forever.

Let's think for a minute about those 100 girls. Suppose they did have and take the opportunity to sleep with the producer. Was there consent?

I don't think so. Sure, they said yes, and they might have enjoyed it, since there can be something very attractive about someone powerful paying attention to you. But that's the problem -- there was a power imbalance in the relationship. There was still the threat of losing one's job if she didn't do that. There was still coercion. Therefore, I really don't think there was consent, for if there are strings attached then it isn't a proper choice.

I guess what I'm saying is that, yes, if you have college kids getting drunk, absolutely they need to understand consent. But chastity and fidelity are ultimately the only concepts that will keep everyone safe.

And speaking of college . . .

My Halloween Email Led to a Campus Firestorm -- Good old Yale again. I have read several articles about this, including a recent one from the university president where he talked about the wonderful things that came from last year's controversy.

While he had some good points . . . I still side with Erika Christakis on this. This went far beyond a healthy dialogue. "Nearly a thousand students, faculty and deans called for my and my husband’s immediate removal from our jobs and campus home. Some demanded not only apologies for any unintended racial insensitivity (which we gladly offered) but also a complete disavowal of my ideas (which we did not) — as well as advance warning of my appearances in the dining hall so that students accusing me of fostering violence wouldn’t be disturbed by the sight of me."

I hate to say it, but situations like this are why so many people are fans of Trump. Sure, he's a bully who can't handle criticism, but at least he's a different kind of bully than the ones we're used to making every conservative keep their head down at work. A breath of fresh air, so to speak. (Manure air.)


The Power in Not Knowing -- this was a really interesting article in the BYU Magazine that I think was ultimately about humility.

Religious (again)

Mother Teresa is Saint of the Doubters

I was struck by this quote:

 Other saints have done what she did – found a religious order, work with the poor, lead a life of outstanding holiness. Many, many saints have done that. None of them, however, have done that without the benefit of a rich interior prayer life, which is what she had to confront in the last 50 years of her life.

So many good people say they never feel the Spirit, at least not directing their paths at all. To which I say, you are in good company!


Elder Holland on Refugees -- His full speech isn't too long, and it is so worth a listen.

Bound by Loving Ties -- Elder Holland talks about the importance of religion. He is so great.

The Hartford Temple -- It is such a beautiful temple! I'm so glad so many people got to visit it!

And lots of great conference talks and Ensign articles. And you should just go through the Mormon Newsroom news page -- I confess there's lots I have only seen news about, not perused myself (such as the new Mormon and Gay website, or the commemoration of the 175th anniversary of the dedication of Israel), but I will soon.

Books/Movies

The Other Side of Heaven 15 Years Later -- this was a fun read.

Berenstain Bears and the Parallel Universe -- I always wondered about those strange people who called them the BerenSTANE bears instead of BerenSTEEN. Clearly they were just living in an alternate universe. The right one. I guess. I'm still not sure.

Pete the Cat -- In case you're wondering why some of the books say "Eric Litwin" and others do not, here is the story of the author and illustrator.

On Drive and Contentment in Hamilton -- another nice article from James Goldberg. I think I identify most with Aaron Burr (minus when he acts like a villain) but I definitely feel the struggle to make "something that will outlive me" while at the same time just being present and loving the people closest to me the way I should.

And speaking of Hamilton . . .

I know, I know, the kid playing Hamilton is like 13. But Hamilton really was just 19 when this song was set, and Lin Manuel Miranda is in his 30s, so technically it makes more sense to cast him. You know you want to watch it. And the Schuyler Sisters one, too.

As for what I've been reading . . . I read Paco by Nathan Thatcher, and that was fun and fascinating. I reread a bit of Enchantment by Orson Scott Card until my dad borrowed it. Reread Yearning for the Living God which is always amazing. (Someday I will live in a place where I can borrow LDS books from the library. Until then our 4 or so LDS books will get lots of traction.)  Read Letters of a Woman Homesteader for book club and it was delightful. Just read I am Malala and it was inspiring. I have been trying so so so hard to get a copy of Hamilton but the links were weird on the library website (seriously Michigan friends, you have no idea how good you have it with AADL), and now I have this book about the House of Morgan. I'm about 4 paragraphs through the prologue and haven't found any material yet to write a smash musical about, but there are more than 700 pages of material that might have potential. If I finish it. Which I probably won't.

(side note -- doesn't look like I read much about parenting or science lately. Maybe I did and just forgot. I guess this sort of fits both categories.)

The Best is Yet to Be

As Matthew has become more mobile, it's been tempting to compare him to Joseph at the same age and peg him as "busier."

But this is why I keep a blog. A quick glance at what I wrote about Joseph at the same age suggests that Matthew is no busier than Joseph was.

It's interesting though . . . it can be so tempting to make narratives for ourselves that aren't really that accurate. They also usually make our present situation seem harder than it really is. Here are a few examples that I've thought of the past few days.

• At Matthew's 2 month appointment, he showed off for the doctor. He was friendly and wiggly and even rolled over for her. "I think he's going to be a lot busier than Joseph was," she warned me. What she didn't know is that at Joseph's 2 month appointment, he kicked the butcher paper so violently that it crumpled and tore, and he could roll over too.  But has he been destructive and hyper ever since? Hardly. A few minutes in a doctor's office isn't really a sufficient data point.
• I also assumed that Matthew was a lot bigger than Joseph. But Joseph was 16 pounds at 6 months and Matthew was 16.5. At 9 months, Joseph was 17 lbs and Matthew was 18 lbs. So he's bigger, but not by a ton.
• Joseph is picky. There is no doubt about it. It's been exasperating to watch foods disappear from his diet for no apparent reason (the latest loss is bananas, but blueberries, grapes, peas, and broccoli have all disappeared too). I've longed for the days when he wasn't so picky . . . but those are actually imaginary days. As I wrote when he was 17 months old,
  "Chicken might be okay one meal, but definitely not the next. The same goes for bread, strawberries, peas, milk, and basically every other food he eats. When you look at acceptable foods over time, the graph resembles white noise, a random signal. " 
  I think he was willing to eat more foods back then, but he still could be particular. So, I don't need to mourn the loss of what never was.
• I've always heard that I was a big, difficult baby. But I recently looked at my medical history, and at 8 months I was 19 pounds. Which is not small necessarily, but at 18 pounds Matthew is well below the 50th percentile. (I know I'm comparing boys to girls and 9 months to 8 months. But still.) Compared to the 4 month and 22 lb or 11 month and 27 lb babies I'm used to hearing about, 19 pounds seems relatively tiny!
  One of the evidences often cited by my aunts and uncles that I was difficult was that it was hard to change my diaper since I wanted to roll over. After having two kids and babysitting lots of others, my response to that is, "Really? What baby doesn't want to roll over during a diaper change?" Or, "What baby doesn't have at least some separation anxiety?" I'm not really qualified to speak definitively on this since I don't remember it, but it has been interesting to think about. 
• We are all looking forward to Joseph turning 4, especially because it means he won't be 3 anymore. 3 has been the hardest, whiniest, sassiest, most difficult age ever . . . except for when he was 2. Or 1. Or a baby. One thing that actually helped me through the past few months of Joseph being 3 was reading about when he was 2 and reminding myself, "2 wasn't an easy age, either." I realized I could be overlooking all the great things about 3 because I was too focused on the new hard things.

Perhaps the problem doesn't lie in faulty memory as much as the way we let the faulty memory make us victims. Whatever the story is, whenever it takes place, we want things to be super hard for us because that is more interesting than things being pretty much normal. 

But is it possible that things were good then, better now, and will only get better? I think President Monson said it best when he said, "The future is as bright as your faith." And our stories are as bright as we make them!

(And, to make one more comparison -- yes. Joseph did have as much hair as Matthew. Lots of people have asked.)

Bursting bubbles

A few weeks ago, I talked about a quote by Sister Hinckley.

Only, there's no evidence that she ever said it. The pearly gates quote has been attributed to her since 1997, but this blogger did some asking around and learned that even Sister Hinckley's daughters couldn't find any citations. In fact, "knowing her mother, she would not want to arrive anywhere without her hair combed and nails cleaned." So we don't have to feel guilty for not wanting to show up to heaven with peanut butter smeared in our hair.

While I'm on the topic, President Hinckley wasn't the one who originally said

"Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he has been robbed. The fact is that most putts don't drop, most beef is tough, most children grow up to be just like people, most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration, and most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. Life is just like an old time rail journey...delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders, and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed. The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride."

What? I know! There are so many pictures on Facebook which claim that, so it must be true, right? Nope. As Middle-Aged Mormon Man reminds us, President Hinckley quoted Jenkin Lloyd Jones.

Nelson Mandela didn't originally say "Our deepest fear is that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure." That was Marianne Williamson. President Packer never said people would bow down when we said we lived in the time of President Hinckley.

And "I never said it would be easy, I only said it would be worth it?" Nope. Not the Savior.

Sorry. They're all still good quotes, I guess.

Oh, one final rant. If the SAT or ACT included a reading comprehension page based on Facebook, I think a lot of people would fail. Guys, when someone says "don't write your address here, click on the link," don't write your address on the event page! I'm tired of getting notifications for my sister's upcoming wedding! Also, when someone says "don't like this picture here, go to the page to like it," go to the page to like it!

And don't post quotes that aren't attributed correctly.

The end.

Restrooms

I guess I was spoiled at BYU. All the bathrooms I regularly used had couches in them. Granted, I didn't have Joseph til I was done with classes, but it was still nice to have a couch to nap on. And then once I had Joseph and went up to campus occasionally, it was nice to have a couch to nurse on (unless someone was napping on it . . .). But as we traveled across the country, I found no couches in bathrooms. None. I've been so disillusioned.

It reminds me of when I was 4 or 5 and was at a restaurant with my family. I was tired, and I told my parents I wanted to lie down and rest.

My grandma just heard the last word. "You want to use the restroom?"

A rest-room! What a wonderful idea! I conjured up an image of a rest-room in my mind. It had beds and couches, and probably even a table with cupcakes on it. I eagerly agreed to go see the rest-room.

She and my mom took me there, and what did I find when we opened the door?

Toilets. And a sink. What was this madness? Why had they brought me to a bathroom?

"There's a rug on the floor. You could rest on that," my mom said.

"No, I wanted a place to lie down, like a couch!" I said.

"Oh, you wanted an American restroom!" they said. Even all these years later, I'm pretty sure that's what they said. I have no idea why an American restroom would have couches, because I've seen a lot of American restrooms and they do not have couches.  Maybe they meant a BYU restroom.

Anyway, I don't remember if I ever got my nap or if I just ate my food at the restaurant. But I've been disillusioned about restrooms ever since. More so since I actually use the couch for the intended purpose now.

Oh well.

Dear World,

Back in the day, you may have said something like "Me 'n Kaylie went to the store." Your mother may have given you a funny look and said, "Mean Kaylie? I think Kaylie's very nice. Don't you mean Kaylie and I?" You may have rolled your eyes, said, "Yes, Mom," and cemented it in your brain that "I" (or "myself") was always appropriate.

You would have been wrong.

Let's say that Jennie comes to the store now. "Jennie went to the store with Kaylie and I." Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!!!! You don't say, "Jennie went to the store with I," so why is it okay if you stick a Kaylie in front?

[Insert grammar babble about subject vs direct object and mention that "myself" is reflexive, so don't use it unless you've already referred to yourself.] If you don't want to be bothered with grammar rules, just remember this: If you're at the beginning of the sentence, use "I." If you're at the end of the sentence, use "me."

Or even better: If you leave the other person out, would you naturally say "me" or "I"? That should solve the mystery.

I believe that if we all fix this problem, the it's/its and your/you're and definately/defiantly/definutly/definitely issues will melt away as surely as the murder rates decreased in NYC when they fixed up the subway windows.

And speaking of murder, every time you use "I" when you should use "me," Shakespeare kills a kitten. Think about that the next time you go to the store with Kaylie.

Sincerely,

a girl who used to read grammar books for fun


ps: this doesn't give all you real English majors permission to peruse my blog for bad punctuation, overuse of parentheses, or bad word choice. It's been a long time since I read those books.


pps: Thanks to Kaylie and Jennie for helping out with my demonstration