I have some wonderful news! Two days ago, my biological father emailed me to explain that after 24 years of keeping my existence a secret from his other children, he had decided to tell them abou me this Father's Day! What prompted this was the deteriotating health of his wife, who was diagnosed with ALS a little over a year ago. While visisting their recently married daughter (my little sister), in Colorado, she developed a respiratory infection, which can be deadly to people with ALS or other degenerative neuromoter diseases. After several near death experiences, she finally recovered and was discharged from the hospital. My father explained to me that shortly thereafter, he had a moment of epiphany and told his wife, who had encouraged him since my birth to introduce me to his other children, that he was finally ready to do it.
I waited impatiently for Sunday, and went down for my post-church nap with no news. I woke up to a beautiful dinner of salmon, rice and brocolli prepared by my wonderful wife, and a touching Father's day card. After dinner, I checked my email, but still nothing. Then, at about 8:30 pm, I recieved a message via Facebook from my oldest brother, who I have known about and admired for years, saying that he had just been given the news, and wanted to talk to me. I called him, and he was very emotional on the phone. He wanted to see me, and asked if he and his 9 month pregnant wife, could come over as soon as possible. So Shauni and I scampered to clean up the house, and they arrived shortly after 9:00.
The first thing that struck me was how similar in appearance we are: we have the same face, eyebrows, head shape, chin, mannerisms, and he swears that I have the "Family nose," which I don't deny. He is much taller than me, about 6 feet 5 inches compared to my 5 feet 11 inches, but surprisingly I didn't feel dwarfed in his presence. I felt like his brother. It was incredible! His wife is also a very interesting and good person. I am looking forward to knowing them both much better.
He took the opportunity to tell me everything he possibly could in the space of an hour and a half about himself, the family, the meeting where our father broke the news to them, and asked about me and my life history. He talked about politics and our family genealogy, and I kept thinking to myself, "I have so much in common with this man! He is certainly my brother!" We had to cut our meeting short because it was getting late, but my father invited us over to dinner tomorrow to meet him, his wife and my sister for the first time, as well as my brother and his wife again. I am very excited! This is unbelievable. I have been truly troubled about what to do for months, no, years to get in touch with this side of my family, and now the wait is over. My prayers have been answered! I am thankful to God tonight for this amazing blessing, and I hope that whatever happens next, I can take it, and make room in my heart for a family I always knew I had, but never had the chance to love, until now.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
My Personal Statement
One of the reasons I began this project about a year ago, was to prepare myself for writing the most difficult thing I would ever have to write: a personal statement.
Medical school applications require a 5,300 character (spaces included) statement that summarizes your entire life, and convinces them why you would make a fine doctor. Of course, seeing as how they read thousands of these every application cycle, they want to be entertained, intrigued, and touched as well. 5,300 characters works out to about 1.5 pages, not very much space to do justice to a lifetime of experience, or to sell yourself to a skeptical audience. That's one reason it's so difficult to write.
Below is my rough draft, and my purpose for posting it is that, hopefully you who read it can give me some valuable feedback about how this could be better arranged, better spoken, and better illustrated. It's too long, that I know, so I'd also like you to let me know what things can be let go. But don't worry, it's not THAT long. Like some of my other posts...
Here it is!
I was born in Mesa, AZ, to a young single mother. When I was still small, we moved to the White Mountains of Arizona. My first white Christmas was also hers, and we shared many other “firsts”. We moved often, over 30 times by my eighteenth birthday, but lived mostly in rural, northern Arizona. I attended a different school every other year, and I never saw the same doctor twice. Whenever I was sick, which was often, we went to the emergency room. That was our only option. During one of those emergency room visits, I met a kind doctor who told me fun jokes, and made me feel comfortable and forget my illness, but I never saw him again. Sometimes I wonder how my childhood might have been different, healthier, and more secure had I been under the ongoing care of a doctor like him.
When I was 5 years old, my mom began schooling to become a nurse. She was the first person in her family to receive any post-secondary education. During her first year at the community college, I often asked her what she was reading. She would then teach me, in simple terms, about biology, anatomy, and medicine. I began to feel wonder about the unseen world inside the body for the first time, and I surprised her by saying, very seriously, “I’m going to be a doctor.” For the remainder of my childhood, whenever I thought about the future, I never wondered what I would be. I already knew.
During her nursing career, my mom worked in hospice, and frequently brought me along on her home visits. At first I was afraid of her patients, older people who were missing teeth, spoke loudly, smelled badly, and were often grumpy. But sometimes they were delighted to see me, asked my name, and told me their stories. I came to see them as surrogate grandparents, and I grew to love them. One of my friends, a woman named Martha, had large, expressive, sometimes frightened eyes. She lived in a floral print recliner with her cats. When my mom told me she had died, I thought of her empty recliner and lonely cats. I didn’t cry because I was content that I had known her and been her friend. As a current CNA in hospice, when my patients and friends die, I am glad I was able to know and serve them.
At age 14, I developed a pre-cancerous lesion on my chest, the result of severe sunburns. We didn’t have insurance or access to modern medical treatment, so we settled upon an alternative method using a salve. The treatment hurt terribly. I became an invalid, suffering pain and boredom for an entire summer. We took a gamble with my life, but happily the treatment removed the lesion, which hasn’t resurfaced, leaving me with a large keloid scar. This gave me an appreciation for alternative healing, and an understanding of suffering; however, I wish I had been given the choice to receive traditional treatment instead of being obligated to the alternative path. As a physician, I would work to make traditional health care more available and affordable for those who have financial problems, as my family did.
After high school, I served a two-year religious mission in southern Brazil (2005-2006), where I took the opportunity to do humanitarian work. I taught English to adults and school-aged children, I rebuilt burned homes, delivered handmade linens to local hospitals, and helped assemble and distribute 250 wheelchairs to disabled adults and children. During my first summer in South America, I developed a severe ear infection and was treated at the Albert Einstein Hospital in Sao Paulo. The doctors and the care I received there were on par with any hospital in the United States. My church paid the bill. Over those two years, however, I realized that most of the medical care available to the poor in Latin America is woefully inadequate. I stood in crowded waiting rooms in summer with sick kids (a feast for diseased mosquitoes) carried by helpless parents. I have witnessed the need for medical services in under-served areas of the world, similar to where I grew up, and want to alleviate some of that need.
Upon returning home to northern Arizona, I found work at a small mortuary serving the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This provided my first real test at comforting and serving people (the families of the deceased) who are in the midst of difficult times, and learned about cultural issues surrounding death. Embalming the dead, I learned first hand the anatomy of the cardiovascular system.
I lost sight of my childhood dream, began my higher education at the local community college as a nursing major instead, and married my sweetheart in the summer of 2007. I began working as a psychiatric aide in the local behavioral hospital, where I met people afflicted with serious mental illnesses, and people struggling with substance abuse. That summer, I took a course to become a CNA, to gain clinical experience and test my desire to work in health care. I am glad I did!
During my first week as a CNA in hospice, we got a frantic call in Spanish from the wife of Eduardo, one of our patients. I helped save Eduardo's life by giving his wife translated directions from the nurse over the phone. Because I can speak and understand Spanish, I have been able to serve immigrant families in rural Arizona, and in downtown Phoenix at the Maricopa County Hospital. I have also served the upper-class as a CNA on the campus of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ.
In the summer of 2008, my wife and I had a son. As a defining moment in my life, this gave me pause to consider what my true desires and goals in life really were. I realized that my reason for changing career paths from medicine (my original goal) to nursing was based on a lack of confidence in myself, not aptitude or even convenience. Holding my newborn son reminded me that I was once as small as he, and one day, like Martha, I too will die. This gave me the courage and urgency to change my plans, and the resolve to pursue my dream, until I can hold it in my hands.
Medical school applications require a 5,300 character (spaces included) statement that summarizes your entire life, and convinces them why you would make a fine doctor. Of course, seeing as how they read thousands of these every application cycle, they want to be entertained, intrigued, and touched as well. 5,300 characters works out to about 1.5 pages, not very much space to do justice to a lifetime of experience, or to sell yourself to a skeptical audience. That's one reason it's so difficult to write.
Below is my rough draft, and my purpose for posting it is that, hopefully you who read it can give me some valuable feedback about how this could be better arranged, better spoken, and better illustrated. It's too long, that I know, so I'd also like you to let me know what things can be let go. But don't worry, it's not THAT long. Like some of my other posts...
Here it is!
I was born in Mesa, AZ, to a young single mother. When I was still small, we moved to the White Mountains of Arizona. My first white Christmas was also hers, and we shared many other “firsts”. We moved often, over 30 times by my eighteenth birthday, but lived mostly in rural, northern Arizona. I attended a different school every other year, and I never saw the same doctor twice. Whenever I was sick, which was often, we went to the emergency room. That was our only option. During one of those emergency room visits, I met a kind doctor who told me fun jokes, and made me feel comfortable and forget my illness, but I never saw him again. Sometimes I wonder how my childhood might have been different, healthier, and more secure had I been under the ongoing care of a doctor like him.
When I was 5 years old, my mom began schooling to become a nurse. She was the first person in her family to receive any post-secondary education. During her first year at the community college, I often asked her what she was reading. She would then teach me, in simple terms, about biology, anatomy, and medicine. I began to feel wonder about the unseen world inside the body for the first time, and I surprised her by saying, very seriously, “I’m going to be a doctor.” For the remainder of my childhood, whenever I thought about the future, I never wondered what I would be. I already knew.
During her nursing career, my mom worked in hospice, and frequently brought me along on her home visits. At first I was afraid of her patients, older people who were missing teeth, spoke loudly, smelled badly, and were often grumpy. But sometimes they were delighted to see me, asked my name, and told me their stories. I came to see them as surrogate grandparents, and I grew to love them. One of my friends, a woman named Martha, had large, expressive, sometimes frightened eyes. She lived in a floral print recliner with her cats. When my mom told me she had died, I thought of her empty recliner and lonely cats. I didn’t cry because I was content that I had known her and been her friend. As a current CNA in hospice, when my patients and friends die, I am glad I was able to know and serve them.
At age 14, I developed a pre-cancerous lesion on my chest, the result of severe sunburns. We didn’t have insurance or access to modern medical treatment, so we settled upon an alternative method using a salve. The treatment hurt terribly. I became an invalid, suffering pain and boredom for an entire summer. We took a gamble with my life, but happily the treatment removed the lesion, which hasn’t resurfaced, leaving me with a large keloid scar. This gave me an appreciation for alternative healing, and an understanding of suffering; however, I wish I had been given the choice to receive traditional treatment instead of being obligated to the alternative path. As a physician, I would work to make traditional health care more available and affordable for those who have financial problems, as my family did.
After high school, I served a two-year religious mission in southern Brazil (2005-2006), where I took the opportunity to do humanitarian work. I taught English to adults and school-aged children, I rebuilt burned homes, delivered handmade linens to local hospitals, and helped assemble and distribute 250 wheelchairs to disabled adults and children. During my first summer in South America, I developed a severe ear infection and was treated at the Albert Einstein Hospital in Sao Paulo. The doctors and the care I received there were on par with any hospital in the United States. My church paid the bill. Over those two years, however, I realized that most of the medical care available to the poor in Latin America is woefully inadequate. I stood in crowded waiting rooms in summer with sick kids (a feast for diseased mosquitoes) carried by helpless parents. I have witnessed the need for medical services in under-served areas of the world, similar to where I grew up, and want to alleviate some of that need.
Upon returning home to northern Arizona, I found work at a small mortuary serving the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This provided my first real test at comforting and serving people (the families of the deceased) who are in the midst of difficult times, and learned about cultural issues surrounding death. Embalming the dead, I learned first hand the anatomy of the cardiovascular system.
I lost sight of my childhood dream, began my higher education at the local community college as a nursing major instead, and married my sweetheart in the summer of 2007. I began working as a psychiatric aide in the local behavioral hospital, where I met people afflicted with serious mental illnesses, and people struggling with substance abuse. That summer, I took a course to become a CNA, to gain clinical experience and test my desire to work in health care. I am glad I did!
During my first week as a CNA in hospice, we got a frantic call in Spanish from the wife of Eduardo, one of our patients. I helped save Eduardo's life by giving his wife translated directions from the nurse over the phone. Because I can speak and understand Spanish, I have been able to serve immigrant families in rural Arizona, and in downtown Phoenix at the Maricopa County Hospital. I have also served the upper-class as a CNA on the campus of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ.
In the summer of 2008, my wife and I had a son. As a defining moment in my life, this gave me pause to consider what my true desires and goals in life really were. I realized that my reason for changing career paths from medicine (my original goal) to nursing was based on a lack of confidence in myself, not aptitude or even convenience. Holding my newborn son reminded me that I was once as small as he, and one day, like Martha, I too will die. This gave me the courage and urgency to change my plans, and the resolve to pursue my dream, until I can hold it in my hands.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Premature review of "Guns, Germs, and Steel."
In a previous post, I mentioned that I had attended a lecture/book promotion by a resident philosopher of ASU, about his new book which dealt with the rise of agriculture and its effects on the advancement of human civilization, society, and philosophy. I also mentioned that I wasn't particularly swayed by his thoughts, but found them interesting, none the less. Later that month, I had the chance to meet up with an old friend from high school that I hadn't seen in several years, who also happens to be a philosopher, or quite nearly, lacking his PhD by less than a year of study. I brought up the subject, which reminded him of a book he had heard of, Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond. He explained that the thesis of the book centered on the unequal, natural distribution of cereal grains and domesticable animals througout the habitable world, and how this natural distribution, along with other geological, geographical, biological and human variables, determined the outcome of modern history once human beings became reliant on agriculture.
It sounded very interesting, but I didn't get around to checking out the book until a few weeks ago. Seeing as this behemoth work of non-fiction (about 500 pages in all) would take me months to read, being the begining of the Spring semester and all, I decided to check out the book and audio book together, and take turns listening as well as reading. It was a success! I am now through the body, and have only the short epilogue to the 2003 edition left to read after only a few weeks.
It may be premature to write a review, seeing as how I'm not really finished yet, but I think I can already say, with some confidence, that I have found a new favorite book and author. In substance, his work reminds me of Darwin's: plain, unequivocal, well-researched, well-supported, and ground breaking, possibly even revolutionary. But his style is much more readable even than Darwin, which is quite an achievment! To bring so many strains of science and history together, spanning such a length of time (from aprox 11,000 b.c. to the present), and doing so in plain and simple speech, and in the relative brevity of only 500 pages, is remarkable!
I learned a myriad of new and useful information about the native plant and animal species of the different continents which are useful to humans, the broad natural and human histories of those continents, the birth of writing, metallurgy, and agriculture (including their independent arrivals as well as the spread of existing technologies), and the oft times tragic consequences of the collisions between populations seperated by millenia of differential development (eg. Native American and European contact in the last 1,000 years). His theory is so simple and yet profound, I really have to wonder why it is not already taught by every teacher of history to young children. I can imagine how this knowledge, in the public mind, would do wonders to solve the social and racial problems of the world, not to mention lending a useful, workable theory to anthropologists, human biologists, sociologists and historians alike. Imagine if all these fields could be merged into one! It sounds lofty, but after reading this book, I don't think it would be all that difficult.
I don't wish to rob anyone of the great satisfaction of reading GG&S by summarizing its points here, but I can assure you that my lame attempts to condense his theory to a few paragraphs will not do it justice, and are only meant to serve as incentive to the prospective reader, and as a personal test to see if I really understood his intent.
Firstly, as I mentioned, cereal grains are not uniformly distributed over the surface of the earth. Most of our main sources of carbohydrates today, about 80%, come from three types of grain: wheat, corn, and rice. These three grains are all "grasses" native to temperate and tropical grasslands. Interestingly, these three were all domisticated independently in pre-history: wheat in the Fertile Crescent about 11,000 years ago, rice in south-east Asia (China) about 8,000 years ago, and corn in the MesoAmerica about 4,000 years ago. Other important sources of carbs include barley and its relatives (grasses), millet, bananas (asian origin), sorghum (an african crop), quinoa (a peruvian pseudocereal) and tubers such as potatoes and yams (domesticated in South America, and Polynesia respectively).
There are some 50 odd types of grasses that could, in theory, be dometicated, but only a handful whose wild ancestors had sufficiently large enough kernels for proto-farmers to take an interest in. The vast majority of these useful grasses are native to the Fertile Crescent and other parts of Eurasia, with extremely few being native to the Americas or Australia. Also, Eurasia, besides being the largest landmass in the world, has by far the largest amount of land located in those temperate and tropical grassland biomes, whose particular climate and rainfall patterns are necessary for agriculture of these crops.
The next agricultural variable is domesticable species of wild animals. This turns out to be important for several reasons: 1, animals, when used for food, provide a dependable source of protein (a difficult nutrient to find in the wild), their skin, bones and fat have found many uses by humans as well (we still use them regularly); 2, the muscle power of larger animals can be harnessed to aid in farming (pulling a plow), transport (riding or pulling a cart), and warfare (chariots, cavalry, etc.); 3, their waste can be used as fertilizer for agriculture; and 4, exposure to their germs transmits diseases to dense human populations (influenza, tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, pox viruses, anthrax, and bubonic plague were all originally animal pathogens) that alternate between epidemics and latent periods, selecting for those individuals with immunity. In turn, these naturally selected populations spread their germs to vulnerable, non-exposed populations when they meet, either in conquest or trade, and the spread of disease has a huge impact on the outcome of such collisions.
As was the case with grains, domesticable wild mammals are also unevenly dispersed over the face of the earth. Of the 15 or so large species that have been domesticated, once again, the vast majority are natives to Eurasia. Large mammals and marsupials were prominent members of the pleistocene fauna of north/south America and Australia, when human colonization occurred on those continents, but they were quickly wiped out as a result of massive drought or over-hunting (most likely the latter), leaving few, if any, remaining candidates for domestication. In the Americas, the only large mammal to be domesticated was the llama/Alpaca of the Inca, and there were no large mammals domesticated in Australia. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are many large mammals, none of which have been successfully domesticated because of something the author refers to as the Ana Karenina principle. In contrast, Eurasian large mammals, including the sheep, pig, cow, camel and the horse became integral parts of the economy, and made up a food-producing-package that came to dominate nearly every civilization on earth with an appropriate habitat.
With a foundation of food producers in place, political organizations of increasing complexity (band-> tribe->chiefdom->state->empire) follow quite easily and predictably, in order to control the surplus of food and goods, and create roles for those not directly involved in food production: bureaucrats, priests, warriors, etc. This type of organization is necessary for the development and adoption of writing, which confers another huge advantage to that civilization. The independent development of writing only happened 3 times (possible only twice): among Ind0-Europeans in the Fertile Crescent, the Maya of Mesoamerica, and ancient China (this is up for debate).
I've only scratched the surface here. This book is packed with knowledge, and brings together so many strands of history into a single, concise perspective. When all taken together, his conclusions are irrefutable: the reason for the current state of the world, with Europeans and their descendants on the very top of the pile, has nothing to do with their superior ability, or some divine mandate that they should rule the world. It has everything to do with the relative timing that the different homelands of the world adopted agriculture as a way of life, abandoned hunting-gathering in the process, and where they were living on the globe. These plain facts totally destroy any and all supposed "evidence" for racism and divine favoritism, and tell the story of man in ecological terms. It is a fascinating, eye-opening, learning experience that sheds light on the vastness of human history, gives direction for the future, and finally puts aside the euro-centric world view that has tarnished our past for centuries.
I hope that in the years to come, we can take lessons like this to heart, and learn to share the wealth and abundance of the world, learn from the mistakes of history and rise above our primitive and selfish ambitions. If Human History was made into a science, this would be the textbook! And for once, I would enjoy doing my homework.
It sounded very interesting, but I didn't get around to checking out the book until a few weeks ago. Seeing as this behemoth work of non-fiction (about 500 pages in all) would take me months to read, being the begining of the Spring semester and all, I decided to check out the book and audio book together, and take turns listening as well as reading. It was a success! I am now through the body, and have only the short epilogue to the 2003 edition left to read after only a few weeks.
It may be premature to write a review, seeing as how I'm not really finished yet, but I think I can already say, with some confidence, that I have found a new favorite book and author. In substance, his work reminds me of Darwin's: plain, unequivocal, well-researched, well-supported, and ground breaking, possibly even revolutionary. But his style is much more readable even than Darwin, which is quite an achievment! To bring so many strains of science and history together, spanning such a length of time (from aprox 11,000 b.c. to the present), and doing so in plain and simple speech, and in the relative brevity of only 500 pages, is remarkable!
I learned a myriad of new and useful information about the native plant and animal species of the different continents which are useful to humans, the broad natural and human histories of those continents, the birth of writing, metallurgy, and agriculture (including their independent arrivals as well as the spread of existing technologies), and the oft times tragic consequences of the collisions between populations seperated by millenia of differential development (eg. Native American and European contact in the last 1,000 years). His theory is so simple and yet profound, I really have to wonder why it is not already taught by every teacher of history to young children. I can imagine how this knowledge, in the public mind, would do wonders to solve the social and racial problems of the world, not to mention lending a useful, workable theory to anthropologists, human biologists, sociologists and historians alike. Imagine if all these fields could be merged into one! It sounds lofty, but after reading this book, I don't think it would be all that difficult.
I don't wish to rob anyone of the great satisfaction of reading GG&S by summarizing its points here, but I can assure you that my lame attempts to condense his theory to a few paragraphs will not do it justice, and are only meant to serve as incentive to the prospective reader, and as a personal test to see if I really understood his intent.
Firstly, as I mentioned, cereal grains are not uniformly distributed over the surface of the earth. Most of our main sources of carbohydrates today, about 80%, come from three types of grain: wheat, corn, and rice. These three grains are all "grasses" native to temperate and tropical grasslands. Interestingly, these three were all domisticated independently in pre-history: wheat in the Fertile Crescent about 11,000 years ago, rice in south-east Asia (China) about 8,000 years ago, and corn in the MesoAmerica about 4,000 years ago. Other important sources of carbs include barley and its relatives (grasses), millet, bananas (asian origin), sorghum (an african crop), quinoa (a peruvian pseudocereal) and tubers such as potatoes and yams (domesticated in South America, and Polynesia respectively).
There are some 50 odd types of grasses that could, in theory, be dometicated, but only a handful whose wild ancestors had sufficiently large enough kernels for proto-farmers to take an interest in. The vast majority of these useful grasses are native to the Fertile Crescent and other parts of Eurasia, with extremely few being native to the Americas or Australia. Also, Eurasia, besides being the largest landmass in the world, has by far the largest amount of land located in those temperate and tropical grassland biomes, whose particular climate and rainfall patterns are necessary for agriculture of these crops.
The next agricultural variable is domesticable species of wild animals. This turns out to be important for several reasons: 1, animals, when used for food, provide a dependable source of protein (a difficult nutrient to find in the wild), their skin, bones and fat have found many uses by humans as well (we still use them regularly); 2, the muscle power of larger animals can be harnessed to aid in farming (pulling a plow), transport (riding or pulling a cart), and warfare (chariots, cavalry, etc.); 3, their waste can be used as fertilizer for agriculture; and 4, exposure to their germs transmits diseases to dense human populations (influenza, tuberculosis, typhus, cholera, pox viruses, anthrax, and bubonic plague were all originally animal pathogens) that alternate between epidemics and latent periods, selecting for those individuals with immunity. In turn, these naturally selected populations spread their germs to vulnerable, non-exposed populations when they meet, either in conquest or trade, and the spread of disease has a huge impact on the outcome of such collisions.
As was the case with grains, domesticable wild mammals are also unevenly dispersed over the face of the earth. Of the 15 or so large species that have been domesticated, once again, the vast majority are natives to Eurasia. Large mammals and marsupials were prominent members of the pleistocene fauna of north/south America and Australia, when human colonization occurred on those continents, but they were quickly wiped out as a result of massive drought or over-hunting (most likely the latter), leaving few, if any, remaining candidates for domestication. In the Americas, the only large mammal to be domesticated was the llama/Alpaca of the Inca, and there were no large mammals domesticated in Australia. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are many large mammals, none of which have been successfully domesticated because of something the author refers to as the Ana Karenina principle. In contrast, Eurasian large mammals, including the sheep, pig, cow, camel and the horse became integral parts of the economy, and made up a food-producing-package that came to dominate nearly every civilization on earth with an appropriate habitat.
With a foundation of food producers in place, political organizations of increasing complexity (band-> tribe->chiefdom->state->empire) follow quite easily and predictably, in order to control the surplus of food and goods, and create roles for those not directly involved in food production: bureaucrats, priests, warriors, etc. This type of organization is necessary for the development and adoption of writing, which confers another huge advantage to that civilization. The independent development of writing only happened 3 times (possible only twice): among Ind0-Europeans in the Fertile Crescent, the Maya of Mesoamerica, and ancient China (this is up for debate).
I've only scratched the surface here. This book is packed with knowledge, and brings together so many strands of history into a single, concise perspective. When all taken together, his conclusions are irrefutable: the reason for the current state of the world, with Europeans and their descendants on the very top of the pile, has nothing to do with their superior ability, or some divine mandate that they should rule the world. It has everything to do with the relative timing that the different homelands of the world adopted agriculture as a way of life, abandoned hunting-gathering in the process, and where they were living on the globe. These plain facts totally destroy any and all supposed "evidence" for racism and divine favoritism, and tell the story of man in ecological terms. It is a fascinating, eye-opening, learning experience that sheds light on the vastness of human history, gives direction for the future, and finally puts aside the euro-centric world view that has tarnished our past for centuries.
I hope that in the years to come, we can take lessons like this to heart, and learn to share the wealth and abundance of the world, learn from the mistakes of history and rise above our primitive and selfish ambitions. If Human History was made into a science, this would be the textbook! And for once, I would enjoy doing my homework.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
"The Living Christ," my testimony of the Savior
When I was a missionary in Brazil, my mission president, Lamonte Dansie, concentrated much of his effort during our monthly trainings, on helping us young men and women develop faith in Jesus Christ. One of the ways he did this, was to have us imitate the First Presidency of the Church, and the council of the Twelve Apostles, in writing our own version of "The Living Christ." It took me over a year, and lots of prayer, to write, in my own words, my testimony of Jesus, His plan and mission, and how we fit into it. When I wrote this, I was most certainly at the highest spiritual plain of my life, and I am glad I have a strong written reminder of the witnesses of the Spirit which I received daily at that time. It is humbling, and stirring to re-read it now at this time in my life, when I wish I had as much spiritual guidance as I did when I was a missionary. But it also gives me hope: that I can know now, as I knew then, that these things are still true, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
I, Jordan Russell Roberts, wish to bear my witness, which I have been given by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit of God, and by the light which shines in the soul of every child of God, which is the light of Christ, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God: that He was with God in the beginning, that He was chosen as the redeemer and mediator to a fallen world and race, to bring them back through the power of an atonement which He would make, exalted and glorified, pure and clean, to the presence of our Father to go no more out.
I know that all mankind was there when He and His plan were chosen, and that we shouted for joy as one! It was He who created this world and everything in it by the eternal power and authority of the Father; He who breathed life into our first parents, and from the beginning made it possible for us to know Him and His way with us, that we may not walk in darkness. It was He who, through the many dispensations, extended His arm to gather His people, even though many would not. It was to Him the house of Israel learned to offer prayer and give sacrifice in anticipation of a great and last sacrifice for the sins of all, which belief and hope separated them from the other peoples of the world. They knew Him as Jehovah, the great "I AM" and I testify that God Himself descended from Heaven and dwelt among us in flesh, that He might know how to help us.
He walked among men doing good. He never sinned, although He was tempted. He showed us the more exalted way, the law of love, and He was our example. He established a kingdom, not a worldly kingdom, but that of Heaven built upon apostles and prophets, He being the chief cornerstone. He edified it with the power of the priesthood of God, and the gifts of prophecy and revelation, and upon this foundation was it built by Him in His own day. He loved the church, and gave His life in the greatest act of selflessness in all history, to bring Eternal Life to those saints who would believe Him and keep His commandments.
His atonement began in the garden of Gethsemane, where the weight of the justice of God fell upon Him, in behalf of all mankind who had transgressed, or would so, and in that moment He faced all of its consequences: guilt, pain, sorrow, grief, suffering and death. And He did so alone. Praise be to God that He did, for had He not, all mankind would be lost! He did it because of His great love for his Father and for us.
The weight of the price of the broken law was so great that it drew blood from every pore, and thus, with blood, was the great and last sacrifice made. He was taken and crucified, but rose again, thus breaking the bands of death which bound His people. I testify that He showed Himself and was seen of His apostles and many others, and also of His people throughout the world who believed in Him.
I know He lives, and in our day He was seen also with His Father, our Eternal Father, by a modern prophet, Joseph Smith, to restore, in this dispensation, that blessed church which existed in His own day of earthly ministry. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth, in preparation for His return, when He shall come with power and glory, when every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that He is God. He shall reign as King of kings and Lord of lords, and under His blessed rule shall the earth, and all of its inhabitants enjoy a millennium of peace, prosperity and charity for one-another.
I know that He is the way, the truth and the life, and that no man goeth unto the Father, but by Him. I know that my redeemer lives, and that He shall save my soul, and the souls of all those who believe Him and keep His commandments, from death and hell, and that I shall dwell with Him and my Father in His kingdom with my family forever. God be praised for the greatest of all His gifts, Eternal Life, that we may receive through His Son, Jesus the Christ.
Jordan Russell Roberts, 2006
The Living Christ
I, Jordan Russell Roberts, wish to bear my witness, which I have been given by the gift and power of the Holy Spirit of God, and by the light which shines in the soul of every child of God, which is the light of Christ, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God: that He was with God in the beginning, that He was chosen as the redeemer and mediator to a fallen world and race, to bring them back through the power of an atonement which He would make, exalted and glorified, pure and clean, to the presence of our Father to go no more out.
I know that all mankind was there when He and His plan were chosen, and that we shouted for joy as one! It was He who created this world and everything in it by the eternal power and authority of the Father; He who breathed life into our first parents, and from the beginning made it possible for us to know Him and His way with us, that we may not walk in darkness. It was He who, through the many dispensations, extended His arm to gather His people, even though many would not. It was to Him the house of Israel learned to offer prayer and give sacrifice in anticipation of a great and last sacrifice for the sins of all, which belief and hope separated them from the other peoples of the world. They knew Him as Jehovah, the great "I AM" and I testify that God Himself descended from Heaven and dwelt among us in flesh, that He might know how to help us.
He walked among men doing good. He never sinned, although He was tempted. He showed us the more exalted way, the law of love, and He was our example. He established a kingdom, not a worldly kingdom, but that of Heaven built upon apostles and prophets, He being the chief cornerstone. He edified it with the power of the priesthood of God, and the gifts of prophecy and revelation, and upon this foundation was it built by Him in His own day. He loved the church, and gave His life in the greatest act of selflessness in all history, to bring Eternal Life to those saints who would believe Him and keep His commandments.
His atonement began in the garden of Gethsemane, where the weight of the justice of God fell upon Him, in behalf of all mankind who had transgressed, or would so, and in that moment He faced all of its consequences: guilt, pain, sorrow, grief, suffering and death. And He did so alone. Praise be to God that He did, for had He not, all mankind would be lost! He did it because of His great love for his Father and for us.
The weight of the price of the broken law was so great that it drew blood from every pore, and thus, with blood, was the great and last sacrifice made. He was taken and crucified, but rose again, thus breaking the bands of death which bound His people. I testify that He showed Himself and was seen of His apostles and many others, and also of His people throughout the world who believed in Him.
I know He lives, and in our day He was seen also with His Father, our Eternal Father, by a modern prophet, Joseph Smith, to restore, in this dispensation, that blessed church which existed in His own day of earthly ministry. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth, in preparation for His return, when He shall come with power and glory, when every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that He is God. He shall reign as King of kings and Lord of lords, and under His blessed rule shall the earth, and all of its inhabitants enjoy a millennium of peace, prosperity and charity for one-another.
I know that He is the way, the truth and the life, and that no man goeth unto the Father, but by Him. I know that my redeemer lives, and that He shall save my soul, and the souls of all those who believe Him and keep His commandments, from death and hell, and that I shall dwell with Him and my Father in His kingdom with my family forever. God be praised for the greatest of all His gifts, Eternal Life, that we may receive through His Son, Jesus the Christ.
Jordan Russell Roberts, 2006
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Comments on "Philosophy at the Field's Edge"
Before Thanksgiving last month, I had the opportunity to listen to a lecture about philosophy given by an ASU alumnus, Stephen Pluhacek, in regards to the thesis of his newest book, Philosophy at the Field's Edge, which he was promoting on my campus. He cited lots of esoteric, philosophical ideas unfamiliar to me: Epimethius, Heidegger's works, the Nihilism of Nietzsche, etc. But, in his speech, I was able to gather some of his intent. He posited that, perhaps, if human development had taken another turn 10,000 years ago, at the beginning of agriculture and domestication, that we might be a happier species. This is why he uses the metaphor of "the field."
Before agriculture, towards the end of the last ice-age, human beings were mostly hunter-gatherers, living in the stone age. It was with agriculture, that cities arose, and our paradigm of civilization was born. This is considered the "great leap forward" in human history: the beginning of philosophy, science, politics, religion, culture, etc. This happening has been held almost sacred by historians, and few thinkers have ever questioned the importance of it, or its causality to our current status as the most successful, and intelligent species on earth. His book is an exception.
It is popularly held that agriculture gave way to leisure, which provided the time and energy necessary for deep thought, experimentation, and refinement of existing technologies and art, as well as the invention of new types. So, as I listened to this philosopher talk about the philosophical life in the absence of agriculture, it seemed to me that he was forgetting this premise for his own art: biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. However, I was reminded that many of the Native North American groups I have studied were hunter-gatherers right up until European contact, and some of them had very profound thoughts about the world around them, very refined art, and impressive technology. The influence of possible contact with Native Central Americans, who did practice agriculture, cannot be ignored in these cases, though. I never heard him reference Native Americans directly, but his lecture brought them to my mind time and again, which made me ask myself, "are we [western cultures] better off because we know the 'truth' about the world around us?"
Too bad we can't simply do as the eye doctor, when, after trying all different thicknesses and shapes of lenses, asks, "which is better: with, or without?" It is difficult to make a prediction about happiness and quality of life, without all the baggage associated with modernity, in a self-imposed stone age. Would we be better off? How could we tell? Is it possible to satisfy our needs, live in peace and equilibrium with nature, and retain and nurture our humanity? Interesting question. My answer would be a conditional "yes," conditional on the direction we want our species to go: if we wish to continue to progress toward an inter-stellar, extraterrestrial, super intelligent species, then I would say "no;" however, if we wish to work in the matrix of the natural world for which nature has fashioned us, my answer is "yes." The former is destination-oriented, the latter, while not void of goals (happiness, peace, etc.), is less concerned with progress, and more with perfection.
Before moving on, let me set something straight: I am a western man, a budding scientist, and I like it that way. If you heard romanticism in my voice during the last paragraph, it was not intentional. I am not inclined to believe the human race was happier during the stone age than we are now. Perhaps the world was more simple, instincts and emotions were more important to our survival, but I believe, as Hobbes did, that life in prehistory was "nasty, brutish, and short." I would like to believe in the noble savage, but my knowledge of human history wont allow it.
I think the reason why such romantic notions as the noble savage appeal to us, is because of the amoral, meaningless nature of our society at present: Nietzsche's nihilism. We yearn for the childhood of our existence, because the teen years are void of the imagined securities of infancy. I am currently experiencing this personally. Perhaps I should have gone through this years ago, when I was a teenager, but I've always been a late-bloomer. Even though I didn't know what "nihilism" was until recently, I have been experiencing it for some time. Nietzsche did not, however, encourage the advent of nihilism for its own sake, but to hasten its departure: the sooner we went through that phase, the sooner we could be done with it. He predicted that after this time of amorality and meaninglessness, we would find something higher and more meaningful to live for, and would finally mature as a species.
Dr. Pluhacek contended against Nietzsche by insisting that his philosophy, along with that of nearly all philosophers, is locked in our current paradigm of civilization dependent on agriculture and city life: philosophy in the field, and that nihilism would not be necessary to our happiness and maturity in a philosophy at the fields edge, or beyond the field. He didn't elaborate on this point, but once again I was reminded of the animistic worldview of pre-contact Native Americans, who found "meaning" in everything around them: incorrect meaning, of course, but meaning all the same.
Aside from being overly romantic, and playing to the "good old days" fallacy, my other criticism of his presentation is what I saw as the complete disregard for the biological side of human development (ie. evolution), emotion, and well-being. Granted, he is a philosopher, not a biologist, but he mentioned nothing about the biological causes of human motivation (our evolutionary drives), which we know to be mostly responsible for our sense of well-being and happiness. In my opinion, any philosophy which proposes to make mankind happier, must not be so naive as to presume this can be achieved in the absence of the biological sciences.
In response to the question I posed toward the beginning, I believe we are better off because we know the truth about the material world, and our place in it. I don't think we made a mistake by learning to cultivate the earth, and domesticate other animals (and ourselves). In fact, I believe it is part of our place in the world. I agree, however, that life in the city is not the lifestyle most conducive to human happiness. In a perfect world, I think we would see a return to the field, and not abandonment of it. In other words, people should divide their time between social life in the city, and living close to nature (growing their own food, taking care of domestic animals, and observing other animals in the wild, etc.).
In all, it was a stimulating argument, which provided me with much food for thought, but I don't think I'll buy his book.
Before agriculture, towards the end of the last ice-age, human beings were mostly hunter-gatherers, living in the stone age. It was with agriculture, that cities arose, and our paradigm of civilization was born. This is considered the "great leap forward" in human history: the beginning of philosophy, science, politics, religion, culture, etc. This happening has been held almost sacred by historians, and few thinkers have ever questioned the importance of it, or its causality to our current status as the most successful, and intelligent species on earth. His book is an exception.
It is popularly held that agriculture gave way to leisure, which provided the time and energy necessary for deep thought, experimentation, and refinement of existing technologies and art, as well as the invention of new types. So, as I listened to this philosopher talk about the philosophical life in the absence of agriculture, it seemed to me that he was forgetting this premise for his own art: biting the hand that feeds him, so to speak. However, I was reminded that many of the Native North American groups I have studied were hunter-gatherers right up until European contact, and some of them had very profound thoughts about the world around them, very refined art, and impressive technology. The influence of possible contact with Native Central Americans, who did practice agriculture, cannot be ignored in these cases, though. I never heard him reference Native Americans directly, but his lecture brought them to my mind time and again, which made me ask myself, "are we [western cultures] better off because we know the 'truth' about the world around us?"
Too bad we can't simply do as the eye doctor, when, after trying all different thicknesses and shapes of lenses, asks, "which is better: with, or without?" It is difficult to make a prediction about happiness and quality of life, without all the baggage associated with modernity, in a self-imposed stone age. Would we be better off? How could we tell? Is it possible to satisfy our needs, live in peace and equilibrium with nature, and retain and nurture our humanity? Interesting question. My answer would be a conditional "yes," conditional on the direction we want our species to go: if we wish to continue to progress toward an inter-stellar, extraterrestrial, super intelligent species, then I would say "no;" however, if we wish to work in the matrix of the natural world for which nature has fashioned us, my answer is "yes." The former is destination-oriented, the latter, while not void of goals (happiness, peace, etc.), is less concerned with progress, and more with perfection.
Before moving on, let me set something straight: I am a western man, a budding scientist, and I like it that way. If you heard romanticism in my voice during the last paragraph, it was not intentional. I am not inclined to believe the human race was happier during the stone age than we are now. Perhaps the world was more simple, instincts and emotions were more important to our survival, but I believe, as Hobbes did, that life in prehistory was "nasty, brutish, and short." I would like to believe in the noble savage, but my knowledge of human history wont allow it.
I think the reason why such romantic notions as the noble savage appeal to us, is because of the amoral, meaningless nature of our society at present: Nietzsche's nihilism. We yearn for the childhood of our existence, because the teen years are void of the imagined securities of infancy. I am currently experiencing this personally. Perhaps I should have gone through this years ago, when I was a teenager, but I've always been a late-bloomer. Even though I didn't know what "nihilism" was until recently, I have been experiencing it for some time. Nietzsche did not, however, encourage the advent of nihilism for its own sake, but to hasten its departure: the sooner we went through that phase, the sooner we could be done with it. He predicted that after this time of amorality and meaninglessness, we would find something higher and more meaningful to live for, and would finally mature as a species.
Dr. Pluhacek contended against Nietzsche by insisting that his philosophy, along with that of nearly all philosophers, is locked in our current paradigm of civilization dependent on agriculture and city life: philosophy in the field, and that nihilism would not be necessary to our happiness and maturity in a philosophy at the fields edge, or beyond the field. He didn't elaborate on this point, but once again I was reminded of the animistic worldview of pre-contact Native Americans, who found "meaning" in everything around them: incorrect meaning, of course, but meaning all the same.
Aside from being overly romantic, and playing to the "good old days" fallacy, my other criticism of his presentation is what I saw as the complete disregard for the biological side of human development (ie. evolution), emotion, and well-being. Granted, he is a philosopher, not a biologist, but he mentioned nothing about the biological causes of human motivation (our evolutionary drives), which we know to be mostly responsible for our sense of well-being and happiness. In my opinion, any philosophy which proposes to make mankind happier, must not be so naive as to presume this can be achieved in the absence of the biological sciences.
In response to the question I posed toward the beginning, I believe we are better off because we know the truth about the material world, and our place in it. I don't think we made a mistake by learning to cultivate the earth, and domesticate other animals (and ourselves). In fact, I believe it is part of our place in the world. I agree, however, that life in the city is not the lifestyle most conducive to human happiness. In a perfect world, I think we would see a return to the field, and not abandonment of it. In other words, people should divide their time between social life in the city, and living close to nature (growing their own food, taking care of domestic animals, and observing other animals in the wild, etc.).
In all, it was a stimulating argument, which provided me with much food for thought, but I don't think I'll buy his book.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Of short transfers, and other frustrations
This post is about my mission. To see previous posts, click on the mission tab under "labels."
As is any long-term and worth-while endeavor, my mission was full of frustrations and hardships, and even peppered with some regrets. Two of the hardest times in my mission were my two single transfers in one area (Biguacu, and Lisboa [Sao Jose]), when I was only there for 6 weeks, each time, and didn't have much measureable success. I have written only briefly about my time in Biguacu, but those short 6 weeks there with Elder Anderson had a great impact on me, and I still think about the people I knew there, and wonder how they are doing.
Another hard time in my mission were the 6 weeks right after I was transferred from Lisboa, so I was having it pretty rough for about 3 months there. My companion in Lisboa, Elder Zach Seeley from Utah, decided along with the mission president, to return home early, for health reasons, and President was sending me to Tubarao to be a zone leader along with Elder Michael Martinez from Texas (who came from a Mexican-American family). So, Lisboa would be "white-washed" (a term used in mission lingo to mean a complete change of missionaries).
President decided to put a companionship of sister missionaries there in our place, which was great news for the branch, but terrible news for the previous occupants of the apartment. Since I was the only one healthy enough to do the manual labor necessary to clean our pig stye, I worked while my companion packed his things and rested. Sister Leticia Rechi took our place, and during her first transfer there, I think she trained a new sister (a verdinha) as well.
(Sister Rechi, if you're reading this, I apolagize for leaving nothing to eat in the apartment. I thought a half a loaf of bread, some margarine, a little milk, and some flour and sugar would be enough to last you until you could go shopping, but Sister Dansie didn't think so, and I caught a whipping for it ![apanhei muito por isso] If it's any consolation, I really admire you for surviving that first transfer in Lisboa, you're a superwoman. )
Because my companion was sick, we really didn't do much that whole transfer. There was one week, when we only taught about 2 or 3 lessons. It was miserable, for both of us. I was reading several books before I went to Lisboa, but while holed-up there, I managed to finish 4 or 5 of them (including Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, The Articles of Faith, and others), and I was able to listen to dozens of famous conference talks and BYU devotionals I had been given on MP3 disks by one of my mission buddies. So, it wasn't a complete waste of time because I learned a lot. But mostly, I look back at my time in Lisboa with sadness. Part of that has to do with the fact that Elder Seeley and I did not part well, and I haven't had the chance to speak with him since.
So I left Sao Jose, and went straight to Floripa for the monthly zone leader training held by President Dansie. Besides being my first training, this one was special because we had a visiting general authority from the 2nd Quorum of the Seventy (who was also the President of the Brazil south area of the church), Elder Mervyn B. Arnold.
In Brazil, they say when someone is really animated and passionate, that they have 'fire in their bones' (fogo nos ossos). Well, that certainly describes Elder Arnold. They say (and by "they" I mean the young missionaries who have made the myth surrounding this man) that he has a very weak heart, and could die at any minute, and that once he had a near-death experience, and saw first hand what the missionary effort in the Spirit World was like: fast and furious. They say that when he came to, he was a changed man, and has been 'on fire' like that ever since.
Since my encounter with Elder Arnold was actually a highlight of my mission, I will defer writing about it until a later time, but I will get back to it.
My first transfer in Tubarao was really tough. I had just come from six weeks of sedentary sulking, and was thrown into a higher-geared work schedule with higher expectations than ever before in my mission. As a zone leader, you are expected to be an example of diligence, obedience, and success. Which means, you're supposed to achieve more, in less time, and with a better attitude than all of the other missionaries under your stewardship. I had never been very good at making street contacts: where you just approach someone on the street, or in the grocery store, or wherever, and initiate contact with them, share a message, get a phone number/address, and mark an appointment. I am somewhat shy, and self-conscious. My companion, however, insisted that my first week there, and every week, that we make at least 100 of them, each!
Elder Martinez was in his very last transfer, and it was his responsibility to teach me the ropes for the whole zone (a HUGE geographical area that took 4 hours to cross by bus), and help me to achieve higher success rates, before going home. The pressure was intense, and it was one of the most difficult areas I served in; however, it was the first, and only, area I ever served in with a ward,and not just a branch of the church. That made a big difference.
The city of Tubarao lies on both sides of the river Tubarao, which drains into the Atlantic about 1 hour inland from the sea-side city of Laguna. There are two wards, one on each side of the river, and our area covered the Sao Joao ward on the north side, which was more residential and rural than the south. Yet, there were still lots of businesses and, to me, it looked like a very industrial, unfriendly town. A main thoroughfare in Brazil (the BR 101 which is roughly equivalent to our I-5 that runs the length of the Pacific coast) bisected our area, and we had to run across it everyday, sometimes 2-3 times a day. At first it scared me really bad, but I got used to it. There was also a University (Unisul) in our area, and a footbridge that crossed the river in front of it. The first time we crossed it, I thought I was going to die! My companion had a good laugh. Sometimes, at night usually, we would see capybaras by the river, and that was always an adventure.
It happened that Mothers' Day fell in my first transfer in Tubarao, one of only two days in the mission where elders and sisters can call home and talk to their families. Several nights before that, I remember being up late on my knees, praying for help through the tough time I was having, and seeing a bright white light come in to the room and onto my bed. It was so bright that I noticed it even with my eyes closed. I stopped praying and saw that it was the Moon, bigger and brighter than I have ever seen it before, or since. And it comforted me, somehow. On Mothers' Day, my Mom told me that she had been impressed to pray extra hard for me a few nights earlier, and asked if everything was alright. I immediately thought of my experience with the moonlight, and told her about it. We discovered it was that night that she had prayed for me, and I had been comforted. That was a sweet and special experience, one I shall never forget.
I was trying to think of something profound to say, to sum up my trials and give a moral to all of this, but that's probably not necessary. I think you know what I'm trying to say.
As is any long-term and worth-while endeavor, my mission was full of frustrations and hardships, and even peppered with some regrets. Two of the hardest times in my mission were my two single transfers in one area (Biguacu, and Lisboa [Sao Jose]), when I was only there for 6 weeks, each time, and didn't have much measureable success. I have written only briefly about my time in Biguacu, but those short 6 weeks there with Elder Anderson had a great impact on me, and I still think about the people I knew there, and wonder how they are doing.
Another hard time in my mission were the 6 weeks right after I was transferred from Lisboa, so I was having it pretty rough for about 3 months there. My companion in Lisboa, Elder Zach Seeley from Utah, decided along with the mission president, to return home early, for health reasons, and President was sending me to Tubarao to be a zone leader along with Elder Michael Martinez from Texas (who came from a Mexican-American family). So, Lisboa would be "white-washed" (a term used in mission lingo to mean a complete change of missionaries).
President decided to put a companionship of sister missionaries there in our place, which was great news for the branch, but terrible news for the previous occupants of the apartment. Since I was the only one healthy enough to do the manual labor necessary to clean our pig stye, I worked while my companion packed his things and rested. Sister Leticia Rechi took our place, and during her first transfer there, I think she trained a new sister (a verdinha) as well.
(Sister Rechi, if you're reading this, I apolagize for leaving nothing to eat in the apartment. I thought a half a loaf of bread, some margarine, a little milk, and some flour and sugar would be enough to last you until you could go shopping, but Sister Dansie didn't think so, and I caught a whipping for it ![apanhei muito por isso] If it's any consolation, I really admire you for surviving that first transfer in Lisboa, you're a superwoman. )
Because my companion was sick, we really didn't do much that whole transfer. There was one week, when we only taught about 2 or 3 lessons. It was miserable, for both of us. I was reading several books before I went to Lisboa, but while holed-up there, I managed to finish 4 or 5 of them (including Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, The Articles of Faith, and others), and I was able to listen to dozens of famous conference talks and BYU devotionals I had been given on MP3 disks by one of my mission buddies. So, it wasn't a complete waste of time because I learned a lot. But mostly, I look back at my time in Lisboa with sadness. Part of that has to do with the fact that Elder Seeley and I did not part well, and I haven't had the chance to speak with him since.
So I left Sao Jose, and went straight to Floripa for the monthly zone leader training held by President Dansie. Besides being my first training, this one was special because we had a visiting general authority from the 2nd Quorum of the Seventy (who was also the President of the Brazil south area of the church), Elder Mervyn B. Arnold.
In Brazil, they say when someone is really animated and passionate, that they have 'fire in their bones' (fogo nos ossos). Well, that certainly describes Elder Arnold. They say (and by "they" I mean the young missionaries who have made the myth surrounding this man) that he has a very weak heart, and could die at any minute, and that once he had a near-death experience, and saw first hand what the missionary effort in the Spirit World was like: fast and furious. They say that when he came to, he was a changed man, and has been 'on fire' like that ever since.
Since my encounter with Elder Arnold was actually a highlight of my mission, I will defer writing about it until a later time, but I will get back to it.
My first transfer in Tubarao was really tough. I had just come from six weeks of sedentary sulking, and was thrown into a higher-geared work schedule with higher expectations than ever before in my mission. As a zone leader, you are expected to be an example of diligence, obedience, and success. Which means, you're supposed to achieve more, in less time, and with a better attitude than all of the other missionaries under your stewardship. I had never been very good at making street contacts: where you just approach someone on the street, or in the grocery store, or wherever, and initiate contact with them, share a message, get a phone number/address, and mark an appointment. I am somewhat shy, and self-conscious. My companion, however, insisted that my first week there, and every week, that we make at least 100 of them, each!
Elder Martinez was in his very last transfer, and it was his responsibility to teach me the ropes for the whole zone (a HUGE geographical area that took 4 hours to cross by bus), and help me to achieve higher success rates, before going home. The pressure was intense, and it was one of the most difficult areas I served in; however, it was the first, and only, area I ever served in with a ward,and not just a branch of the church. That made a big difference.
The city of Tubarao lies on both sides of the river Tubarao, which drains into the Atlantic about 1 hour inland from the sea-side city of Laguna. There are two wards, one on each side of the river, and our area covered the Sao Joao ward on the north side, which was more residential and rural than the south. Yet, there were still lots of businesses and, to me, it looked like a very industrial, unfriendly town. A main thoroughfare in Brazil (the BR 101 which is roughly equivalent to our I-5 that runs the length of the Pacific coast) bisected our area, and we had to run across it everyday, sometimes 2-3 times a day. At first it scared me really bad, but I got used to it. There was also a University (Unisul) in our area, and a footbridge that crossed the river in front of it. The first time we crossed it, I thought I was going to die! My companion had a good laugh. Sometimes, at night usually, we would see capybaras by the river, and that was always an adventure.
It happened that Mothers' Day fell in my first transfer in Tubarao, one of only two days in the mission where elders and sisters can call home and talk to their families. Several nights before that, I remember being up late on my knees, praying for help through the tough time I was having, and seeing a bright white light come in to the room and onto my bed. It was so bright that I noticed it even with my eyes closed. I stopped praying and saw that it was the Moon, bigger and brighter than I have ever seen it before, or since. And it comforted me, somehow. On Mothers' Day, my Mom told me that she had been impressed to pray extra hard for me a few nights earlier, and asked if everything was alright. I immediately thought of my experience with the moonlight, and told her about it. We discovered it was that night that she had prayed for me, and I had been comforted. That was a sweet and special experience, one I shall never forget.
I was trying to think of something profound to say, to sum up my trials and give a moral to all of this, but that's probably not necessary. I think you know what I'm trying to say.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
A response to "Prophets or Evolution"
As my readers already know, this is not a blog about current events or people. It's a blog about ideas, memories, and aspirations. So, I'm a little hesitant to begin my next post, and you will see why. There is someone out there for whom, I have something to say.
There is a man in Kansas,who claims that Einstein, Darwin, and most every other scientist since the turn of the 19th century, is a fool. This man, of course, is NOT a scientist, himself. He has two degrees: one in mathematics, and the other in accounting; yet, he claims to be an expert in physics, medicine, and the life sciences. In fact, he has even proposed alternative hypotheses to Einstein's theory of general, and special relativity, the origins of and "cure" for cancer, and the unifying theory of life science, evolution. What's more, all of these "theories" work conveniently well with the creationist world view. It would seem that Isaac Newton has been reborn, and brought back "natural theology" to the modern world! But, as you know, looks can be deceiving, and in this case they certainly are.
What we have here is no inspired genius, no scientific revolution, no evidence, no workable, peer reviewed, tested hypothesis for anything useful. No, what we have here is a self-styled "intellectual," who understands just enough about science to be dangerous-- the kind of person you wouldn't want to be chemistry partners with. He knows just enough about science to misconstrue it, and mislead those who know even less than he does. A true quack.
That said, you may ask, "why do I care? I mean, if this guy is just another quack, then he's harmless, right? Let him quack away!" I wish it were that simple. You see, this man, R. Webster Kehr, happens to be a member of my church, and he publishes his works with the line "An LDS Perspective" in the title, as if he speaks not only for the church as a whole, but even to the church as a whole. He's one of those people I spoke about before, who want to draw battle lines between science and religion, even if those lines should put members of his own church on the outside.
I have not read these works in detail, nor do I encourage it. I don't intend to meticulously debunk his "theories," as Ken Miller does the assertions of Intelligent Design in his books. To do so, I would need the experience and resources of a real scientists, which I am not, yet. And I will not pretend that I am, as does this man. But, in my short time as a student of these sciences, I have learned enough about the method employed by scientists, and the scientific community, to know that if it can't be reproduced; if it can't be supported by evidence; if it can't be tested; if it lies in the face of other accepted and supported hypotheses, and makes not attempt to reconcile and explain these disparities, then it is not science: it is speculation. Men are free to speculate, but science is not like politics or religion: science need not give equal time and consideration to the musings and whims of anybody and everybody.
This man claims that the reason why his ideas remain in obscurity, is because the scientific community is biased and narrow-minded, and will not seriously consider his claims. To me, this is like a mediocre high school athlete whining that the NFL or the Olympics won't let him in, because there are 'qualifications' he doesn't meet. How bureaucratic and pedantic of them!
Boo hoo, poor you.
In response to the inclusion if "An LDS Perspective," in the title of his pseudo scientific/theological ramblings, I must exercise a little more self-restraint. Honestly, this infuriates me. I would like tell him many things; however, I do not wish simply to react, but to offer a heart-felt, and measured reply. After all, religion is different from science, as I said before, and the same standards of peer-review and empiricism cannot be applied to it. The realm of religion depends upon the supernatural to provide the truth, in the form of revelation and inspiration. And we are not enemies, but brothers of the same faith, and I have no desire for that to change.
Brother Kehr,
When you imply that as members of the church, we are faced with the ultimatum of choosing between the fruits of human reason, or faith in revealed truth, uttered by modern prophets, I wonder if you have considered the consequences of such a demand, or if you have the power to make it. Our Heavenly Father is not a God of confusion; His mysteries do not hide in the darkness that lies beyond human comprehension, but in the light of understanding. God wants us to understand that light, and He wants us to use all our faculties in doing so. He did not create a universe which "seems" to have had a beginning, or a world which "seems" to have been shaped by eons of natural processes, or life which "seems" to have evolved from a common ancestor. If He did, then it would "seem" that God is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. And that, my brother, is ridiculous.
Ask yourself, "Do I really wish that all the members of the church who believe in evolution [or the other sciences you have attacked] would leave?" Do you expect those of us who have found in science a meaningful, useful, and enlightening world view, to abandon it, because you say so? Or because Heber J. Grant said so 100 years ago (before the modern synthesis I might add)? Or because, occasionally, one of the apostles will make a remark in passing about their own views on the subject? Let me remind you that none of the presidents of the church, have said that the natural sciences are incompatible with the teachings of the Restored Gospel. Believing in evolution and science is not wrong, and is not a sin. We are not asked if we disbelieve Darwin, in order to get a temple recommend or take the sacrament.
Science tells us nothing about morality, and to blame science for immoral behavior is non-sequitur. People justify their actions with faulty reasoning all the time. Almost every decision people make is influenced by their subjective feelings, and not by logic and reason. Evolution has made us that way, and most of the time it works quite well; as evolution selects against making decisions that are bad for the individual and the species. However, I know that when I sin, it is not because I believe in evolution, or disbelieve in the words of the prophets. It is because I am human: weak, selfish, imperfect, mostly irrational, and driven by carnal desire and pride. But that is not all I am.
Evolution has made me this way, but it has also endowed me with the ability to think, to feel, to love, and to learn. All of these things give me an advantage as a human being. It has also given me the ability to contemplate the very existence of God, and my relationship with Him. If you throw out evolution, you had better have some way to account for my motivation, my relative fitness, and "seeming" relatedness to all other life forms on this planet, and it had better be good. More than simply "God made it that way." As we know, an argument that answers everything, answers nothing.
I ask you, please, do not alienate God's children from his family and kingdom over something so trivial as the origin of man, and the universe. Yes, trivial. Trivial because the existence and power of God is in no way related to His direct arbition to their origins. God exists whether or not He personally created the world, or breathed life into a ready-made Adam; whether or not the universe is 10 billion years old, or 7 thousand; whether or not we are apes, or angels incarnate. He has the power to save us whether or not He personally made us. The power and existence of God are not limited by the reach of science, or the extent of natural law over the universe. We who believe in God, need not fear what science can do to Him, or to our faith. Fear is the opposite of faith.
If you really care about my salvation, and that of your brothers and sisters, bring out the things that unite us, and not those that divide us. With charity, love, and the proper priesthood authority, tend to your own family, those under your charge, and if you feel you must address the church as a whole, stick to what you know: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, endure to the end... You know, the basics.
And if you really feel that you've got something new to offer the scientific community, then bite the bullet and submit your stuff to some real scientists who can test it, and stop crying about the system being unfair. Who knows? Maybe you'll be vindicated, but I doubt it.
There is a man in Kansas,who claims that Einstein, Darwin, and most every other scientist since the turn of the 19th century, is a fool. This man, of course, is NOT a scientist, himself. He has two degrees: one in mathematics, and the other in accounting; yet, he claims to be an expert in physics, medicine, and the life sciences. In fact, he has even proposed alternative hypotheses to Einstein's theory of general, and special relativity, the origins of and "cure" for cancer, and the unifying theory of life science, evolution. What's more, all of these "theories" work conveniently well with the creationist world view. It would seem that Isaac Newton has been reborn, and brought back "natural theology" to the modern world! But, as you know, looks can be deceiving, and in this case they certainly are.
What we have here is no inspired genius, no scientific revolution, no evidence, no workable, peer reviewed, tested hypothesis for anything useful. No, what we have here is a self-styled "intellectual," who understands just enough about science to be dangerous-- the kind of person you wouldn't want to be chemistry partners with. He knows just enough about science to misconstrue it, and mislead those who know even less than he does. A true quack.
That said, you may ask, "why do I care? I mean, if this guy is just another quack, then he's harmless, right? Let him quack away!" I wish it were that simple. You see, this man, R. Webster Kehr, happens to be a member of my church, and he publishes his works with the line "An LDS Perspective" in the title, as if he speaks not only for the church as a whole, but even to the church as a whole. He's one of those people I spoke about before, who want to draw battle lines between science and religion, even if those lines should put members of his own church on the outside.
I have not read these works in detail, nor do I encourage it. I don't intend to meticulously debunk his "theories," as Ken Miller does the assertions of Intelligent Design in his books. To do so, I would need the experience and resources of a real scientists, which I am not, yet. And I will not pretend that I am, as does this man. But, in my short time as a student of these sciences, I have learned enough about the method employed by scientists, and the scientific community, to know that if it can't be reproduced; if it can't be supported by evidence; if it can't be tested; if it lies in the face of other accepted and supported hypotheses, and makes not attempt to reconcile and explain these disparities, then it is not science: it is speculation. Men are free to speculate, but science is not like politics or religion: science need not give equal time and consideration to the musings and whims of anybody and everybody.
This man claims that the reason why his ideas remain in obscurity, is because the scientific community is biased and narrow-minded, and will not seriously consider his claims. To me, this is like a mediocre high school athlete whining that the NFL or the Olympics won't let him in, because there are 'qualifications' he doesn't meet. How bureaucratic and pedantic of them!
Boo hoo, poor you.
In response to the inclusion if "An LDS Perspective," in the title of his pseudo scientific/theological ramblings, I must exercise a little more self-restraint. Honestly, this infuriates me. I would like tell him many things; however, I do not wish simply to react, but to offer a heart-felt, and measured reply. After all, religion is different from science, as I said before, and the same standards of peer-review and empiricism cannot be applied to it. The realm of religion depends upon the supernatural to provide the truth, in the form of revelation and inspiration. And we are not enemies, but brothers of the same faith, and I have no desire for that to change.
Brother Kehr,
When you imply that as members of the church, we are faced with the ultimatum of choosing between the fruits of human reason, or faith in revealed truth, uttered by modern prophets, I wonder if you have considered the consequences of such a demand, or if you have the power to make it. Our Heavenly Father is not a God of confusion; His mysteries do not hide in the darkness that lies beyond human comprehension, but in the light of understanding. God wants us to understand that light, and He wants us to use all our faculties in doing so. He did not create a universe which "seems" to have had a beginning, or a world which "seems" to have been shaped by eons of natural processes, or life which "seems" to have evolved from a common ancestor. If He did, then it would "seem" that God is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. And that, my brother, is ridiculous.
Ask yourself, "Do I really wish that all the members of the church who believe in evolution [or the other sciences you have attacked] would leave?" Do you expect those of us who have found in science a meaningful, useful, and enlightening world view, to abandon it, because you say so? Or because Heber J. Grant said so 100 years ago (before the modern synthesis I might add)? Or because, occasionally, one of the apostles will make a remark in passing about their own views on the subject? Let me remind you that none of the presidents of the church, have said that the natural sciences are incompatible with the teachings of the Restored Gospel. Believing in evolution and science is not wrong, and is not a sin. We are not asked if we disbelieve Darwin, in order to get a temple recommend or take the sacrament.
Science tells us nothing about morality, and to blame science for immoral behavior is non-sequitur. People justify their actions with faulty reasoning all the time. Almost every decision people make is influenced by their subjective feelings, and not by logic and reason. Evolution has made us that way, and most of the time it works quite well; as evolution selects against making decisions that are bad for the individual and the species. However, I know that when I sin, it is not because I believe in evolution, or disbelieve in the words of the prophets. It is because I am human: weak, selfish, imperfect, mostly irrational, and driven by carnal desire and pride. But that is not all I am.
Evolution has made me this way, but it has also endowed me with the ability to think, to feel, to love, and to learn. All of these things give me an advantage as a human being. It has also given me the ability to contemplate the very existence of God, and my relationship with Him. If you throw out evolution, you had better have some way to account for my motivation, my relative fitness, and "seeming" relatedness to all other life forms on this planet, and it had better be good. More than simply "God made it that way." As we know, an argument that answers everything, answers nothing.
I ask you, please, do not alienate God's children from his family and kingdom over something so trivial as the origin of man, and the universe. Yes, trivial. Trivial because the existence and power of God is in no way related to His direct arbition to their origins. God exists whether or not He personally created the world, or breathed life into a ready-made Adam; whether or not the universe is 10 billion years old, or 7 thousand; whether or not we are apes, or angels incarnate. He has the power to save us whether or not He personally made us. The power and existence of God are not limited by the reach of science, or the extent of natural law over the universe. We who believe in God, need not fear what science can do to Him, or to our faith. Fear is the opposite of faith.
If you really care about my salvation, and that of your brothers and sisters, bring out the things that unite us, and not those that divide us. With charity, love, and the proper priesthood authority, tend to your own family, those under your charge, and if you feel you must address the church as a whole, stick to what you know: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, endure to the end... You know, the basics.
And if you really feel that you've got something new to offer the scientific community, then bite the bullet and submit your stuff to some real scientists who can test it, and stop crying about the system being unfair. Who knows? Maybe you'll be vindicated, but I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
