"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Utopia: the Elusive Ideal

In a previous post I mentioned that I was reading Thomas More's Utopia, and that I would write a review once I had finished. Well, I finished reading it months ago, but it left me with so many questions and new ideas that I simply haven't decided yet what to think of it. I've done a little more research into the history and politics of Utopian experiments and mythology, and-- I hate to say it-- I'm not impressed. The tract record for Utopian experiments is dismal, the mythology is contradictory, and the feasibility... well, there is none.

The modern state of Iran is a great example: during the Revolution in 1979, the Ayatollah and his supporters promised an Islamic, Utopian society. I don't think I need to convince anyone that it didn't work. The Taliban invoked the same ideal in Afghanistan, and the result was even worse! Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Chauchesku, Kim Il Sung... Yup, you guessed it: All failures. Worse than failures-- Monsters! And I didn't even mention the multitudes of religious and cult leaders who have done the same thing through the ages. So how do these men end up at the helm of a populist revolution, and pervert it into pseudo-theocratic dictatorship?

I also recently read Animal Farm, by George Orwell. Okay, Okay, I didn't read it, per se. I listened to an unabridged version of it. That's better than just watching the movie, right? Anyway, it had a real impact on me. Orwell has a way of doing that. I can see why some people refer to him as a "prophet," although he would probably object to being labeled that way, being an atheist and all. It also gave some insight into my question about why utopias fail.

It's discouraging that so many good causes, founded by intelligent and inspirational people who love the human race, have been hijacked by selfish, egotistical, power-hungry, brutal people (mostly men), and turned into a byword and a curse. And I'm convinced that this is the reason why Zion will never exist on earth until there is an immortal, perfected, all-knowing, and ever-compassionate being to oversee it. And if that never happens, I think we can abandon any hope that the ideal society will ever exist. Call me eschatological and fatalistic, but human beings have yet to prove that they can do it on their own very well, or for very long.

The scientist in me says: "We can do it! Science and the scientific method can be applied (already have been in fact) to human behavior, culture, and motivation; to government and society; to agriculture and industry; to energy and the environment; to evolution and the future of mankind! We can take our destiny into our own hands and make it brilliant! We can live peacefully and happily on this planet forever." But then reality sets in, and I remember that over the course of the earth's natural history, there have been half a dozen mass extinctions, and that we are on the brink of another, man-made one. Nothing on this earth, or in this universe, was made to last forever.

It occurs to me-- at times like this-- that most of us really are just doing the best we can, as we always have. It also occurs to me that when a theory, however convincing, takes on a life of its own, and becomes the justification for a mass-societal experiment, that we are on dangerous ground. This is why I am still a conservative, and always will be. I know that life is unfair: that the decisions of a few, powerful, wealthy people affect the lives and livelihoods of billions around the globe, and they (the rich and powerful) give little or no thought to those billions, or the planet they live on. And it infuriates me! But what is the alternative? Socialism, Communism, Anarchy? Thomas Jefferson's "Aristocracy of Everyone?" In theory, it sounds nice. In practice, it's Hell, or it's impossible.

I think about 1984: the scene where Winston is being tortured by O'Brien, and he protests that no matter how tightly the party holds the people in subjection (ie. how hard the boot stomps the human face), eventually the spirit of humanity will triumph over cruelty, and free itself. I know the book didn't end well, neither does Animal Farm, but I don't think Orwell believed that resistance was futile (no reference to "the Borg" intended). It seems to me that, at all times, a system of government should be a skillfully crafted compromise between the people and their leaders, and that it should be a dynamic interaction. I think any theory of government, however well thought-out, must be flexible enough (and humble enough) to admit fault, imperfection, and the need for constant change and adaptation. A system that is absolutely rigid, and assumed to be perfect, can only end badly for the people (like the donkey Benjamin's assertion in Animal Farm, that, "Life will go on as it has always gone on, that is, badly...").

I think reading Orwell, and More's Utopia, has given me an answer to my search for truth, and helped me formulate some sort of political philosophy: that there is no "correct" political philosophy, not yet anyway. There are correct principles: cooperation, compassion, respect for human dignity, respect for the environment, hard/honest work, justice, autonomy, etc. For any government to be effective and praiseworthy, it must honor these principles, and others. As always, the Devil is in the details.

Just as the process of evolution has yet to produce a perfect organic creature, human beings have yet to create an ideal state. But evolution has produced us: a creature intelligent enough to understand the process that created it. We are not perfect, by any means, but we have the necessary tools to survive, thrive, and even be happy on this indifferent world, in this indifferent universe. I think we would do well to be less ideological, and more pragmatic as concerning politics: to have our principles and cater to them, but to remember that we don't have all the answers, and we're in this together. I think I'll give up dreaming about utopia, and start thinking more about my family, and my neighbor.

50 Things I love about Shauni

These are in no particular order, and they don't come near to an exhaustive list of reasons why I love Shauni, but after reading just 50 of them, I'm sure you'll come to love her, too. Or at least think she's awesome, like I do.

1. She's beautiful and elegant


2. She's smart and witty


3. She graduated from college


4. She's a good mom, and loves being one


5. She loves beautiful, inspiring things


6. She's interesting


7. She's fun to talk to


8. She's creative in the kitchen


9. She's warm and loving


10. She likes adventure


11. She also enjoys simple pleasures and simple joys


12. She has good fashion sense


13. She's very practical


14. Her kisses are sweet


15. She likes it when I hug her tightly


16. She listens and empathizes


17. She's very polite


18. She's very loyal


19. She appreciates good counsel and advice


20. She's a good swimmer, and loves the water


21. She is very musical: can play and appreciate it


22. She likes, and is very good with children


23. She's very healthy, and encourages me to be


24. She gets satisfaction and happiness watching our little boy, Jaren, develop


25. She's a hard worker, and very diligent


26. She serves others often


27. She likes cleanliness and order


28. She is a very good, wholesome, and clean person


29. She's into saving money


30. She can balance being frugal, while raising our standard of living at the same time


31. She has strong faith and trust in God


32. She is totally devoted to our marriage and family (no matter what!)


33. She dreams big, but is realistic, too


34. She is patient with me, and Jaren


35. She is helpful


36. She smiles and laughs easily


37. She has a beautiful smile!


38. She compliments frequently and says "Thank you"


39. She expresses gratitude for all good things in our life, and even lots of our challenges


40. She is strong, but sensitive, and very feminine


41. She tells me she loves me often


42. She has high expectations of me, but doesn't nag; she's very encouraging


43. She doesn't yell or get irrational when upset, but works it out with me, and forgives


44. She's quick to say "I'm sorry" when she makes a mistake


45. She's the best wife a man could ask for!


46. She actively tries to look past my faults, and my family's idiosyncrasies, and to love and accept


47. She sees good things in everybody


48. She has an open, inquisitive mind: looks at both sides of everything


49. She stands for the right, always


50. She makes me want to be a better man
    

I love my wife!

"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"

So far during my short trial as a blogger, I have tried to avoid topics that I felt were overly controversial, naive, or cliche. I must admit that I do not feel entirely capable of defending my next statement as well as I would like to, especially since this notion has come to be so ridiculed by our progressive, pluralistic culture. I would like to explore the belief in one true religion, and ultimate truth.

I'm sure we've all heard the saying "there are many paths to heaven," or something similar. Newsweek magazine recently featured an article on the subject, titled "We're all Hindus now" (a reference to the core Hindu belief in a multiplicity of paths to salvation), which cited a study the Pew Forum, reporting that a majority of Protestant Americans now believe that people of other faiths can achieve salvation (this group is traditionally the least inclined to believe thus). This pluralistic, and even pantheistic, approach to religion can be attributed to many factors, which I will not attempt to exhaustively categorize here (collective sigh); however, undoubtedly, a few of these factors include society's emphasis on religious/cultural tolerance and relativism, as our society becomes more secular, and I believe it can also be attributed to general spiritual laziness.

Lately I have experienced a "cooling" of my own religious fervor, as most of my time and mental energy has been funneled into work, school, and preparation for my professional and adult life. I have to work weekend nights in order to go to school full-time, and so this leaves me almost comatose on Sunday mornings, when we go to church. Couple this with the tidal wave of secular thought and argument I encounter daily in academia, and it results in a 'perfect storm' of doubt, nearly capsizing my small vessel of faith. As a returned-missionary, I am able to recognize the pattern, even in myself, of a testimony wavering under fire. I am ashamed that I, too, am capable (or incapable, I should say) of such a thing: being tempted, having doubts, second-guessing, and sinking into skepticism.

I like to think that this is just a transitional time in my life-- a time that will redefine me, for the better-- and that these feelings of doubt, and explorations of other possibilities, are healthy (albeit uncomfortable) and necessary phenomena, ultimately leading me to a stronger, more defensible position of faith. I like to think so, but I'm not so sure.

Two of my favorite religious/philosophical authors, C.S. Lewis & Stephen E. Robinson, have written convergently about the level of dedication and faithfulness required for acceptance into the Kingdom of God, based on scripture: that our devotion must be a conscious and complete willingness to accept and keep the covenant He has proposed for our salvation --knowing that we could be wrong, but choosing this course 'come what may.' It is as a marriage, in which we promise to be faithful, no matter what, trusting that God will never abuse us. They argue that this level of faithfulness alone, and nothing less, that will satisfy our end of the covenant.

Extrapolating this into everyday application can be difficult, but a pertinent example for me is this: to make up my mind now that I will always follow the teachings of the gospel, keep the commandments and the covenants I have made, and when I make mistakes or struggle with doubt, that I will do my best to repent and to reconcile myself to the church, and to God. This would require more than simple activity in church meetings and practices, as this can be done by passively 'running through the motions.' This requires an active awareness of to what it is I am promising, and an unwavering commitment henceforth. And what's more, this should not be a burden, but a liberation (or, in other words, I should be happy about it).

Einstein once said: "He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once." And I have heard other important literary figures suggest that some of the greatest tragedies in the world's history were committed by simple people who had committed themselves to some cause or other, in like fashion. By pure irony, terrible wars have been waged, and countless other atrocities committed, which could have been avoided if people had stopped to think for themselves, and question the authority and inspiration of their leaders.

And so, we begin to get a sense of just what God is asking of us: in the face of knowing that we run this risk (of committing ourselves to a cause we cannot be sure of), me must do it, trusting that this one is the real thing-- the one sure hope for salvation. We must use the brain we have been given, all of it, and still decide to follow him, even blindly, if need be. That is a lot to ask, and for me, it requires a level of trust that I am barely capable of, if at all.

I think, as an attempt to reconcile these conflicting points of view, our society is beginning to popularize this new, open-minded approach toward religion, with the hope that this will curb fundamentalism and extremism, foster diversity, and encourage dialogue between old rivals and xenophobes. Unfortunately, there are unforeseen, undesirable consequences to this strategy, or perhaps they are foreseen, in which case we should worry. One of these consequences is the cheapening of the role of religion in our lives and culture: making its various beliefs and practices nothing more than items to select and mismatch, as if at a buffet, literally making morality and faith a matter of taste, persuasion, and opinion.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I laugh at, and get furious with the likes of Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reily, Rush Limbaugh, etc., when they prey upon the fears of ignorant people, by insisting that there is some secret, secular New World Order who wants to abolish religion and control our lives; however, I am aware that there are many prominent people (writers, journalists, actors, musicians, politicians, corporate executives, etc.) who do want the public interface of society to be atheistic, and who lobby for such an end. But I don't believe they have some unified 'master plan' to take over the world --they enjoy their freedom just as much as we do.

On the issue of the one, real truth, I believe it must exist. Physicists search for their "theory of everything," which encompasses the labyrinth of quantum mechanics, chemistry, and life itself, and explains these in the language of mathematics. This is a noble search: it will bring us closer to understanding the universe, and ourselves, but it will not complete our understanding, it will not bring the self-actualizing singularity promised by post-humanists, or help us to transcend our mortality and our humble place in the universe. For these are metaphysical quests-- these are the reasons why we are spiritual beings. I think those who put their "faith" in science alone, and advocate that all should follow suit, are doing themselves an injustice, and us as well.

To say it plainly, I believe that there is one true God, and one way to Eternal Life. There may be many paths, but there is only one path that is most direct, and there is only one entrance at the final destination. There is only one ultimate truth, and it is true for everyone. I believe this, and I believe that while some people may be fortunate enough to find it in life, those who do not will be given the opportunity after death, or else God would be a partial being: unjust and unmerciful. I feel that we should search for the truth, and not be content until we are confident we have found it. And if one is not sure ones religion or church is true, why continue to follow it? Why give up the search? We had better believe we are near the truth, or I believe we will have to answer for our negligence in searching it out.