Analogies, Power and Authority

Is this a good teaching tool?

A friend had this experience on Sunday"

Our teacher is a strong Dem. But today he said that there is a difference between authority and power of the Priesthood. The authority is like a cop with a badge. He/she has the authority to arrest a bad person. But if that bad person is threatening, the cop's gun is the power. I thought, oh great.

Good analogy? No, in this case the analogy is deeply flawed. You cannot substitutes "gun" for "power" and "badge" for "authority" in D&C 121:32-46 and have it make much sense. Since this is the seminal scripture on power and authority the substitution would have to make sense if the analogy has any value. Since it makes no sense with those substitutions, the analogy must be false.

A badge gives the bearer only a limited, delegated authority. A police officer is an officer of the court. The authority comes from the court as directed by the sitting judge. That authority is enforcement of the laws of the people The law is the authority, the police are delegated carefully controlled and limited parts of that authority. The gun is not the power of the officer. The power is the consent of the people to the laws in force. Even with a gun, a police officer does not have the legal or moral power to take life (the only power a gun has). Should he do so, he is subject to review and possible legal consequences. Generally, he may act as executioner only in circumstance in which his life or the life of another party is threatened.

Priesthood authority and power do not work like that. The power is God's, always. It is not delegated. His authority comes from His holiness, as does the authority of those He delegates to act in His name, the priesthood holder. Recall how much trouble Moses found when he called water from a boulder with his own power. A priesthood holder can call on God's power and authority when He agrees but not on his own authority.

Holiness is not God's badge and the power of the priesthood is not a gun. The power of the priesthood is to bring to pass righteousness, not to threaten, to injure or to kill. That the analogy doesn't bring this to light demonstrates how flawed it is, not just formally but in conception.
The concepts of priesthood power and authority are not that complicated, maybe we should just talk about them explicitly rather than trying to come up with apt analogies.

We have enough trouble with the analogies of the Savior, we don't need those of lesser individuals. If I hear one more time how the Parable of the Virgins says we have to store up testimony to be ready for the long night, I'll scream. The virgins weren't brides, they were the light bearers for the wedding to light the way for the wedding party, particularly for the groom to determine he was actually marrying the bride he contracted for (remember Leah's substitution for Rachael?) If the groom can't see the face of the bride, he refuses the wedding "I know you not". The point is that God needs to know who He bestows the celestial kingdom on, not whether they have oil or testimony saved up. Think temple covenants. He needs those with light (truth and knowledge) to shine light on the prospective inheritor of the kingdom. The other two parables of Matthew 25 make the point clearer, they are not isolated analogies but three stories pointing to the same thing: we will be judged by our works not our faith or testimony alone. The foolish virgins (unmarried young women but not brides) had faith (lamps) but had not works sufficient. They had some good works but they didn't have a pattern of continually doing good. The foolish were like the servant who hid his talent and like the priests who didn't help the traveler, living off what they had done in the past rather than what they did in the present. The wise virgins are like the servants who magnified their talents and the Samaritan (today I think we would use a gay or an illegal immigrant for this role) who had compassion for the injured traveler. Their works qualified them after their faith awakened them.

Put these three parables together with D&C 121 and you have all the lesson you need on priesthood power and authority.

Getting bad drivers off the roads

There are a lot of unqualified, under-experienced and clueless drivers with valid licenses on the roads. They pose a danger to anyone sharing that road. What to do?

Right now the police only disqualify the worst of the worst. They don't do anything to improve driving skills. Most of our driving regulation seems to be in the hands of a capricious private institution, the insurers. Their approach is not to get people off the road but to make bad driving more expensive than good driving. A number of insurers are now trying to go from a problem based method (have an accident or get a ticket, your premium goes up) to a semi-intrusive monitoring (drive by their model and your too-high premium goes down) Unfortunately their models of good driving are too simplistic and the flaws are glaring. You plug one of these little cell enabled gps microprocessor into your car and it watches how you accelerate, brake, turn, what speed you drive, etc. If you go outside the model it send a digital black mark, too many black marks and they sock you with a premium increase. The problem is that it's not very smart. It doesn't know that the swerve and panic brake you did was to avoid a collision or the sudden acceleration in the middle of an intersection was to avoid a truck running the light or that your hard cornering avoided the kid on the bike. It punishes good outcome as well as bad ones.

Who wants an insurance actuary to decide what good driving is? What about drivers that drive too slowly or too passively? Both cause accidents but are not penalized by insurance companies.

Neither the insurance industry nor police encourage good driving. What we need is system of education and rewards which encourage learning skills which keep us and our vehicles safer. What about a system that rewards trained and (genuinely, not the farce at motor vehicle bureaus) tested drivers? Lower the lanes, places and speed which the untrained can use. Increase them for the trained.

Well-behaved women seldom make history; …

"Well-behaved women seldom make history; …"

Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, PhD (History)

Modesty: What it is and what it is not

Definition of MODESTY

1: freedom from conceit or vanity

2: propriety in dress, speech, or conduct

Definition of PROPRIETY

1 obsolete : true nature

2 obsolete : a special characteristic : peculiarity

3: the quality or state of being proper or suitable : appropriateness

4a : conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech b : fear of offending against conventional rules of behavior especially between the sexes

Blending all these definitions together : modesty is actions or attitudes that adopt appropriate, conventional dress, speech and conduct . Modesty involves projecting a consistent image. One is not modest if conventionally dressed but outrageous in speech. Modesty is not conceited or vain or excessively focused on oneself.

The reader should notice that these definitions all imply that modesty is conformity to the ideas of others: you can't be modest in isolation, it is only when there is another that modesty is possible. Modesty is not like piety, humility or honesty which can be practiced in isolation as well as in society. Modesty requires norms which one adopts, it requires conventions and expectations to which we may conform. Modesty is a social virtue (not a moral one) which makes social interactions predictable and bounded thus less risky.

So modesty is wearing a business suit when doing business. It is not attractive but mixes visual appeal which makes others feel secure.

What modesty is not

1. the degree of skin coverage
2. the closeness of fit
3. obsessive inoffensiveness in speech or conduct 
4. lack of character definition
5. Modesty is never in bad taste
6.  It is not baggy, ill-fitting or inharmonious clothing.
7. It is not measured in inches between people or locations of hems.

Why be modest?

Aside from the conformity aspects, why be modest? If it is a virtue there has to be a compelling reason for adopting it. We are honest because it makes accurate judgements of character and ability easier. We are kind because it creates a sense of community and trust. Why are we modest?

If we focus excessively on our self then others will, with justification, feel we are untrustworthy since our motivations will be to achieve our own goals rather than some group goal, but suppose we are a good team player type why shouldn't we wear flashy, revealing, lewd or edgy clothes? "Just judge me by what I do, not how I dress." "What's the harm?"

Why do we care how others act, dress or speak, especially those we don't know or don't know well? Do we all have to meet the same standard of conduct, clarity or appearance even though we think, feel and are shaped differently? Does modesty hide our real self or does it reveal the self we want to project?

As with many things the issue is most clearly defined at the boundaries, the extremes. In this case the extremes are speech which inflames, conduct which outrages or dress that incites. First, it's not about true or false. You have to assume that the immodest person means to excite strong responses through the way they talk, act or dress, otherwise the problem becomes one of acting in ignorance. The reaction to the ignorantly immodest and the intentionally immodest is different: ignorance responds to persuasion and co opting whereas intentional acts do not. I'll leave the unintended for now. Let's focus on the intentional. The person who has the ability to answer, "why?"

What are we hiding from each other when we are modest? It could be we are hiding a vile and vulgar nature when we speak modestly, it could be we are hiding an impulsive, narcissistic or authoritarian personality when we act modestly or it could be we are ... what? when we dress modestly. One of these is not like the other. If we were immodest in dress people would see us in some degree of nakedness. But if we speak immodestly or act immodestly people may find we have flawed personalities, inappropriate thoughts or simple lack of social skills. While walking into a room in your birthday suit may not be a strong suggestion of social skill, it is not the same sort of condemnation as improper thoughts, words or acts. I can only conclude that there are two sorts of modesty, one that is concerned with propriety and control of the way one acts or speaks in society and another that has to do with the way one presents himself. The first is understandable if not justifiable as social conventions which allow each of us the find our way in social settings without upsetting or offending because of who we are. The second is seeking not to upset or offend because of what we are, after all the the shape, texture and color of our body is largely genetic with a minor impact from the degree of physical activity we maintain.

This distinction should make us want to understand what motivates it. Why is appearing in expensive attire more modest than in a simple tunic or no clothes at all? The expensive clothing calls attention to the wearer as flashy, attention seeking or bragging in a way that nudity does not. But is it fair that those who happen to be well endowed or who have been rewarded with a developed physique to be compared directly with the overweight, old, or inactive who have body shapes that don't fit the stereotypical ideal? I don't know about the fairness, if we were truly worried about giving everyone an equal footing then we would define modesty as wearing dimensionally identical tunics or robes which totally obscured the shape. To me this doesn't say "modest" it says clueless, uncritical. Baggy is not modest, it's baggy and awkward.

Real Modesty

How do we dress modestly? This seems to be an eternal controversy, but I think we have the answer. That answer is to turn to the other modesty. We know what propriety in speech and act are, we humans pick up these clues early. It allows communication without alarm. It facilitates social cooperation rather than compromising it. It makes it possible for diverse people to work and live together. So if we want to know what real modesty in dress and grooming are we can use the other modesty as our guide.

What is it?

We don't yell at people standing nearby. We develop a sense of proportionality and sympathy for the feelings of others. This can be adopted as moderating the use of styles of grooming or dress which are used to attract attention just based on visuals; however it still allows creative and expressive space for proportionate innovation. It's not whether colors should be bright or drab or about whether the hem should be above or below some joint or what should or should not be exposed, it is about does the whole appearance fit with the personality, actions and speech of the wearer.

...
=================================

Your thoughts?

Happiness in loneliness

Feeling lonely? Having no friends make you unhappy?

Odd thoughts. Do we really need the social mirrors that others provide to feel complete?

There are 300±100 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy. That seems like a lot until you realize that is just one star every 38 square light years ( or one star every 6 light years if they were all evenly distributed, and a light year is big, about 6 trillion miles). We're pretty far apart, but consider that the next galaxy from us is 2.5 million light years away. There are a hundred billion galaxies in the universe. There may be 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars (and planets with beings on them) but this is such a big place. Everything we think of as solid and real is just a faint, thin mist in the universe. How's that for lonely?

That is usually not what we mean when we're unhappily lonely. Usually, we're unhappy because we just don't seem to be able to connect to all those people standing around us. It's not that they're too far away, it's that we're too afraid to reach out. It is emotional distance not physical distance that is the problem.

It's one of the most obvious but least believed truths that everyone else feels pretty much just like you do. They wish you would be their friend as much as you wish they would be your friend. Really, the only people that reject real friends are sociopaths. You don't need to worry about rejection if you are sincere and they are sane. I don't mean not nutty sane, I mean not I-can't-stop-stabbing-myself-with-a-knife insane.

So what's the problem; why are we all still lonely?

Fear. Fear isn't about what's real, it's about what could be. It's the negative side of curiosity. It's the price of a good imagination. If you were as stupid as a rock, you wouldn't worry about what others would do.

Are we stuck forever being unhappy and lonely?

No, not really, we just need to declare a truce in this fight with our darker side. Like everything else it starts with you. Be a friend to everyone you see. A few will be brave enough to try to reciprocate because if someone as clever, beautiful and together as you are will risk being a friend to their thoroughly plain, average and slightly twisted self, then maybe there is a chance.

Take a moment. Look without judging. Listen without speaking.It's what friends do.

Need someone just to hear all your troubles without telling you what is wrong with you? Look around. You already know many people who will do just that. Probably the ones who scare you the most.

Love is all around you.

Creativity in a windy land

Creativity is of several parts: curiosity, risk taking, unconventional thinking and holographic thinking combined in novel ways. Each of these is like lighting a candle. Each provides its own color, scent and flickering tempo that when seen together, this is the holographic part, makes a whole that is greater than the parts.

These candles of creativity are too often lit and then left to be blown out in the next gust of the winds of time and attention. Our creative work become a temporary phenomena before it has a chance to become fully developed. I've seen so many men and women start with great creative promise only to wink into twilight conventionalism.

It takes courage and patience to tend and protect our candles. It also takes perspective to not become so focused on tending and protecting that we neglect our other candles.

The wind blows forever from distant lands
Through our country to far away prairies
Tending our flames to stop the killing gusts
We reach to keep them embraced in our tender hands

The meaning of music (and dance??)

Music can enrich your life. It can edify and inspire you and help you draw closer to Heavenly Father.

 Clearly music is important to us it has been a part of the human experience as far as we know in history. The make music is human.

Music has a profound effect on your mind, spirit, and behavior.

 It does. There is scientific research showing its effects. However, it's not a simple effect. Happy music doesn't always bring happiness. Sad music doesn't always make us sad.Sometimes the effect is opposite to the classification.

Choose carefully the music you listen to. Pay attention to how you feel when you are listening.

 This is an odd approach. Sometimes the same music can make me feel good, sometimes sad, sometimes restless or sometimes irritated. There isn't a one-to-one connection between the music input and the feeling output. Something else is going on.

Some music can carry evil and destructive messages. Do not listen to music that encourages immorality or glorifies violence through its lyrics, beat, or intensity.

 Unfortunately all communication can carry evil or destructive content. This is the underlying premise of "politically correct" speech. I have yet to hear an immoral beat or intensity. Nobody has ever used the pernicious effect of a tempo or volume as mitigation for a bad act. If this correlation is true, what rhythmic pattern or amplitude produces predatory capitalists?

Is the converse true? Are there lyrics, rhythms and volumes that induce good behavior? Why or why not?

Do not listen to music that uses vulgar or offensive language or promotes evil practices. Such music can dull your spiritual sensitivity.

 How many times do we have to listen to this music to feel compelled to be insensitive? Once? Twenty times? Can we listen just enough then quit before the dire consequences? If we can't listen at all how do we know what's in the music in order to avoid it?

Where is the good music that forces us to be good?

Learn and sing the hymns. Hymns can lift your spirit, move you to righteous action, and help you withstand the temptations of the adversary.

 I think this is supposed to be the good music that forces goodness, but how does that fit with the idea of agency and self-determination?

When listening to music, be courteous to those around you. Keep your music at a reasonable volume, and remove your earphones when others are talking to you or want you to be part of their activities. Remember that the Spirit speaks with a still, small voice. If you listen to music constantly, you may not have the quiet time you need for thinking, feeling, and receiving spiritual guidance.

The first two points are etiquette not specific to music and dance 

Does this mean people who work in heavy construction, mining or boilermaking, all very loud environments, don't have the spirit with them? Do childcare providers lose the spirit because children are loud? If so are these employments and the nurture of children to be avoided?

Dancing can be fun and can provide an opportunity to meet new people. However, it too can be misused. When dancing, avoid full body contact with your partner. Do not use positions or moves that are suggestive of sexual or violent behavior or are otherwise inappropriate.

This "full body contact" phrase is the latest in a string of attempts to describe what to avoid. Does this mean contact from the waist up (or down) is acceptable because its not "full"? Why don't we just say sexual activity while dancing is inappropriate? I have no idea what positions or moves are suggestive of sex or violence short of beating on each other or mating with a partner on the floor. This just begs for a less obscure explanation.

Attend only those dances where dress, grooming, lighting, lyrics, music, and entertainment contribute to a wholesome atmosphere where the Spirit may be present.

Couldn't we just say "Attend only events where conduct and content contribute to an atmosphere where the Spirit may be present.", in which case this isn't about dance or music at all?

Overall, we need a better discussion on these topics. This isn't very convincing and a weak message is seen as hypocritical and shallow. Lastly, what happened to dance? There is not a word on the subject that addresses dance, only the music and attendees.