A Little Housekeeping - Updated

I've had this blog for nearly four years now, so it's time for me to do some housekeeping. I'm going to tag my posts to create categories. That way, if people want to read about a certain topic, it will be easier to find related posts. I'm also going to redesign my background.

The upshot is that when I go back to edit old posts to add tags, the blogging software sometimes thinks it's a new post. So, for those of you that subscribe by Google Reader or RSS, you may get a deluge of new old posts. Sorry about that!

Update: I'm finished with the tagging and re-design. Any feedback would be appreciated. Is the blog too wide? I have a widescreen monitor, so it looks great to me, but if it's too wide for people with normal monitors, I can narrow it.

Prophets

Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets.

Amos 3:7

I've been thinking a lot about prophets lately. The belief that God continues to speak to humankind through prophets just as He did in old times is one of the beliefs that sets Latter-day Saints apart from the rest of Christianity.

When I was on my mission (in Charlotte, North Carolina), the first lesson we always taught was about how God has called prophets since the beginning of time to preach His word. We would explain that God would call a prophet to preach, the people would listen and repent, and after a while (sometimes a short time, sometimes several generations), the people would fall away. Time would pass and then God would call a new prophet. This cycle has repeated throughout human history.

Generally, this portion of the message was well-received as I went through a list of Old Testament prophets. Once I hit New Testament times, people were less convinced. By the time I explained that God still calls prophets today, few people believed what I was telling them. They said that after Jesus came, prophets were no longer necessary.

It always struck me as completely logical that since God spoke to His people in ancient times that He would speak to people today, too. That logic has led me down some interesting thought paths lately.

The church teaches of the great apostasy - the period of time from after the death of the apostles in approximately 100 AD until Joseph Smith was called as a prophet in 1820. (Technically, I think starting the apostasy at 400 AD is more accurate, since Moroni was still around until then.) With God's pattern of constantly calling prophets, why did He wait nearly 1400 years before calling another one?

Maybe He didn't. In that gap between Moroni and Joseph Smith, a lot of people lived. What if God called prophets in that time? There's precedent for people rejecting the messages of prophets, so maybe people just didn't accept what they were hearing. There's also precedent for people accepting the message but then the message getting corrupted in transmission. [1] When the whole course of human history is revealed, it would not surprise me in the slightest to find that there were failed attempts at restoring the gospel before 1820.

----
[1] Most of the New Testament is directed at this very problem. Paul wrote many letters trying to correct the errors that were creeping into the church.

Ye Visited Me Not

The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.

Søren Kierkegaard

This quote has been on my mind a lot lately as I've come to understand that being a follower of Christ requires a lot. He gave His all for us, and we must give our all for Him. Turning the other cheek is hard. Loving those who harm people is a huge challenge.

Lately, I've been trying to focus on the knowledge that everyone I meet is created in the image of God. One scripture that I keep in the forefront of my mind is in the book of Matthew, chapter 25. I normally focus on verses 31-40. Christ is prophesying His second coming, and He starts out by saying that when He returns, He will divide his followers from those who do not follow Him. His followers are welcomed into His presence because when they cared for the sick and the poor, they were caring for Him. However, I was stung by the rebuke contained in the verses that followed.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels . . . I was . . . in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee . . . in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Matthew 25:41-45 (emphasis added)

I've never had a problem with feeding and clothing the poor or visiting the sick and lonely. But I have been negligent in the command to visit those in prison. I always considered those in prison to be somebody else's problem. Out of sight, out of mind, plus, they deserve to be there - they're criminals.

A Follow-up On My Most Recent Post

I wrote a post on LDS dating, and I received a comment from Kress that deserves its own post. He said

What was wrong with so-and-so that "nice" just wasn't enough to keep your interest? What would change your perspective from "oh gosh why would I ever spend more time with so-and-so" to "well, he's a nice chap; why don't we do something different next time and see if I find him more interesting in a different setting?"

First off, I left out several key details of why the particular men I was set up with were bad matches. I left out these details in the interest of protecting their privacy. I'm certainly not one to write somebody off just because there were no sparks flying with violins in the background on the first date. In fact, some of my most successful relationships have been with men who didn't sweep me off my feet instantly.

What makes the dates with these "nice" guys awkward is the expectation (culturally) that there's only one purpose to the encounter - a marriage interview, and that it has to happen on the accelerated LDS schedule. (You know, the stories about people meeting and then marrying within a few months.) When I express a sincere desire to be friends with these men, they assume that means that I never want to see them again. Really, what it means is that I want to be their friend. Maybe something more will happen, but maybe not. Either way, when I tell a man that I want to be friends, it's not a brush off. It means I really want to be friends.

Stephen M at Ethesis addresses much better what I was trying to get at with my fungibility comment in his post On Finding a Match.

Ethics and Dating in the LDS Context

I minored in philosophy in college, and I was captivated by the study of ethics. Bioethics, legal ethics, business ethics, it didn't matter. I found it all fascinating. In fact, while I was on hiatus from law school, I almost decided to abandon a legal career altogether to become a bioethicist.

I recently read a blog post by Hugo Schwyzer discussing whether or not the "pick-up artist" phenomenon is compatible with feminism. This led me to thinking about dating ethics in general and within the LDS context specifically.

In the church, there are some specific issues surrounding dating that are different from the community as a whole. The biggest one is the doctrine of eternal marriage. The fact that we believe that families can be together forever isn't what sets us apart. The big difference is the belief that (heterosexual) marriage is necessary for exaltation.

This belief imbues relations between men and women with a certain degree of sexual tension. Instead of seeing members of the opposite sex as colleagues, friends, or acquaintances, there is a temptation only to see them as potential mates - potential tickets to the highest degree of Celestial glory.

No More Strangers

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

~Ephesians 2:19

Last week, I went to a J. Reuben Clark Society dinner. (I hate networking, but it's the only way to get a job, and since I'm the vice president of the student chapter, I kind of have to go to these sorts of things.) It was at the end of a really long day and I had a migraine, so I really really didn't want to be there. I'm so glad I went, though.

The guest of honor was Judge Thomas Griffith, a judge on the D.C. Circuit. After dinner, he gave a few remarks. I figured he would talk about what it's like to be a judge and give some friendly advice to the 50 or so law students present.

How I Receive Personal Revelation

An anonymous commenter on my post Stake Conference and Personal Revelation said:

I was struck by the clear and very specific nature of the personal revelation you received last september regarding marriage. If it is not too personal, or difficult to describe, could you please relate the process of this revelation? Was it a voice, a warm feeling after a specific question or just what? I would sincerely appreciate your input...I don't think I have ever been able to distinguish between emotions, hopes, fears and the spirit.

I promised a follow-up post to respond to this question, and I'm only just getting around to it. I'm so sorry it took me so long. I hope you see this, Anonymous.

Abraham, Isaac, and Me

It's often said in the church that we will all have to endure a test of our faith like Abraham's. I'm going to set aside for a moment the discussion on whether or not that is hyperbole. It got me thinking. I've always had concerns with the story of Abraham and Isaac. What kind of God would ask someone to sacrifice his child?

Then I realized that in a very real way, God has asked that of me as well. I'm unmarried and I have no children. This is not because I desire a single and childless life. It is because, despite my pleadings, God wants me to be single right now. He asked me to sacrifice family life when He called me on a mission. He asked me to postpone childbearing for a few more years when he called me into academia. I'm itinerant right now because of the nature of my vocation, and that rootlessness is not conducive to family life. There's a common saying among female professors that the time between tenure and menopause is the only time the system allows for pregnancy.

I've never desired to be a stay at home parent, but I do want to have children. God has promised me children, but He has guided my life in such a manner that children cannot be a part of the plan right now. With each passing year that that is the case, the number of children I can bear drops. I'm old enough now that absent medical intervention, I likely will not have as many kids as I want.

God stopped Abraham from completing the sacrifice. In the end, he did not have to give up his child. That made me realize that God will do the same for me. I don't know if that means I'll get tenure expeditiously, if I'll have a longer period of fertility, or if I'll have the opportunity to adopt. All I know is that if I stay faithful, God will allow me the academic career He has called me to, and that I won't have to give up my children.

----
Note: This post is not the place for the "mommy wars". Any comments vilifying stay at home parents, working parents, or non-parents for the paths God has called them to and the life choices those callings necessitate will be deleted. Keep it civil.

Paper or Plastic?

Some wards I've been in use paper cups for the sacrament, but most wards I've seen use plastic ones. I prefer the plastic ones because the paper ones taste weird to me. I started thinking one day about which one was better for the environment. That got me wondering about the possibility of reusable sacrament cups. My first thought was glass, but I also saw olive wood and stainless steel.

Caring for the environment is great, but I've often found that appealing to people's pocketbooks is the most effective way of getting people to go greener. So, I did a little bit of math.

On lds.org, paper sacrament cups can be purchased for $82.75 for a box of 6,500. Plastic sacrament cups are $60.00 for a box of 8,000.

I did some searching, and I found stainless steel cups for $52.82 for a pack of 40. Glass ones are $0.99 each.

I'm going to guess that in a typical ward, in a given week, 200 people take the Sacrament. 48 weeks per year (since there's no sacrament for stake or general conference) means that a ward would go through 9,600 disposable cups in a year.

Cost of 200 stainless steel cups: $264.10
Cost of 200 glass cups: $198.00
Cost of one year paper disposable cups: $122.22
Cost of one year plastic disposable cups: $72

So, if a ward that uses plastic cups replaces them with stainless steel, the reusable cups would pay for themselves in 3 1/2 years. If a ward that uses paper cups switches, the steel cups would pay for themselves in just over two years.

If a ward that uses plastic replaces them with glass, the cups would pay for themselves in 2 3/4 years, and a paper-using ward would break even in 1 1/2 years.

The only challenge I can see from this is how to ensure that the cups are properly sanitized between uses. It would take a bit of work to wash 200 little cups every week. (I suspect that boiling them and then letting them dry could work, since they just had water in them.) However, I can see that being a great service opportunity and spiritual experience for the young men.

Do you know of any wards that reuse? Has anyone proposed this idea to their bishop? How was it received?

Workplace Question

I've been insanely busy these past few weeks at work. I work for a small company (about 150 employees, but only about 50 in my office) that just got acquired by a really big company. I work in human resources, so I've had a lot to do in order to make things transition smoothly.

Anyway, completely unrelated to the acquisition, I'm not quite sure what to make of what happened at work this morning. Small company dynamics are such that everybody is rather friendly with one another. We're a casual Silicon Valley software startup. The CEO greets everyone by name when he runs into them in the hallway. Everyone is on a first-name basis with everyone. There's joking and banter in the lunchroom.